
Document Number: 801 
WHY IS RELEASE OF TRANSGENIC CROPS INTO THE ENVIRONMENT A RISK?
Conventional breeding allows mixing and recombination of genetic material between species that share a recent evolutionary history. On the other hand, genetic engineering is an imprecise, haphazard technology and is completely different from traditional plant breeding. With alarming regularity, biotechnology companies have demonstrated that scientists cannot control where genes are inserted and cannot guarantee the resulting outcomes. Unexpected field results highlight the unpredictability of the science, yet combinations previously unimaginable are being field tested and used commercially.

The nature of the process of genetic engineering produces unpredictable effects at the genetic and cellular level, which will inevitably have impacts at the ecological level. This paper highlights some major ecological concerns.

SUPERWEEDS: Genetically engineered crops were first planted in the mid 1990s. Already, research has documented that genes producing desired characteristics in crops can confer adaptive advantages to weedy species, causing problems in valuable wild plant habitats.

Research suggests that bees may be important pollen vectors over a range of distances and farm-to-farm spread of oilseed rape transgenes will be widespread. Pollen can also travel for miles in the wind and integrate its DNA into the genome of conventional plants. Genes from GEOs (genetically engineered organisms) can spread to wild plants and native species, resulting in herbicide resistant superweeds.

For example, the pollen from transgenic rapeseed (canola) can blow into neighboring farms and wild areas and can easily outcross to any nearby canola plant. The herbicide resistant traits become promiscuous and transfer to weedy relatives. The traditional weed then becomes a stronger "superweed." This outcrossing has started to produce superweeds that are resistant to a wide range of herbicides.

The 4/26/00 edition of New Scientist magazine reported the first officially confirmed case of its kind: weeds in Canada which became resistant to three kinds of herbicides: Roundup, Liberty and Pursuit. It only took three years for a transgenic spread of super-herbicide-resistance. This was the first documented case of gene stacking in canola occurring without deliberate human intervention.

The rapid outcrossing of GEO herbicide resistant plants raises serious questions for those concerned about the emergence of weeds that do not die no matter what herbicide is applied. These superweeds may very well have a bioengineered advantage in taking over farm fields and in moving through wild areas, where they are likely to have a range of impacts on populations of wild plants and wild plant habitats.

BIODIVERSITY: In the 9/18/99 Worldwatch Institute report "Farmers Losing Seed Varieties Worldwide," John Tuxill wrote that in the United States more than 80% of seed varieties sold a century ago no longer are available and that the world is rapidly losing genetic diversity in crops. With development of transgenic crops, traditional varieties may dwindle even further as farmers grow a less diverse pool of crops to obtain the highest yields for commercial production.

Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) toxins are becoming ubiquitous, highly bioactive substances in agroecosystems. Bt crops are pumping out huge amounts of toxin from all tissues throughout the growing season, from germination to senescence. Most non-target herbivore insects, although not lethally affected, ingest plant tissue containing Bt protein which they can pass on to their natural enemies. There are also unanticipated effects on non-target insects through deposition of transgenic pollen on foliage of surrounding wild vegetation. These effects herald problems for small farmers in developing countries and for organic farmers since they rely on insect pest control. For instance, loss of lady bugs and lacewings will likely result in increased crop losses.

The Soil Association report (UK) on 6/22/99 warned, "GM code could wipe out wildlife." Birds, for instance, might lose habitat and major food sources (both plants and insects).

The spread of transgenes into the wild and the effect this will have on biodiversity may be especially severe in less developed countries and wherever native archetypal varieties of agricultural crops exist.

SOIL FERTILITY: The soil food web is crucial for plants to obtain the nutrients necessary for growth. Many crops are engineered with the Bt toxin in order to resist infestation from insects. Yet root exudates from these plants release the toxin into the soil, where it retains its activity for at least 234 days, long after its release. This stimulates major changes in soil biota that could affect nutrient cycling processes and reduce soil fertility.

Monsanto's advertising campaigns try to convince people that Roundup is safe, but the facts do not support that conclusion. Independent scientific studies have shown that Roundup is toxic to earthworms, beneficial insects, birds and mammals (in addition to destroying the vegetation on which they depend for food and shelter).

The Progressive Farmer on 1/3/01 reported a University of Missouri study which revealed that Roundup Ready soybeans receiving glyphosate at recommended rates had significantly higher incidence of Fusarium on roots compared with soybeans that did not receive glyphosate. Fusarium is one of the most economically important groups of fungi causing diseases on a wide variety of plants. Pat Donald, professor and director of the UM nematology lab was quoted as saying "We're concerned because SDS (sudden death syndrome) is showing up everywhere and can be devastating."

EFFECTS ON NON-TARGET INSECTS: Insects have their place in the ecosystem. Some play a major role in maintaining the equilibrium of insect populations and are important for pest control strategies. The Bt toxin has been shown to be lethal to non-target organisms such as Monarch butterflies, lacewings and ladybird beetles.

The issue is broader than whether Bt toxin produced by genetically modified crops imperils beneficial insects. The real issue is that a strategy to establish expression of an insecticidal compound in large-scale crop monocultures and thus expose a homogeneous sub-ecosystem continuously to the toxin can cause irreparable damage to natural habitats forever

SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE AND ORGANIC FARMING THREATENED: There are many alternative approaches that farmers can use to effectively regulate insect and weed populations, i.e. rotations, strip-cropping, biological control, cover crops, and green manure. To the extent that transgenic crops further entrench the current monoculture system, they impede farmers from using a plethora of alternative methods.

The entire future of organic farming is being threatened because pollen transfers by insects and the wind from GE crops to organic farms. Cross pollination can move transgenes into the crops so that, against their intentions, farmers are growing GE crops. GE seeds can also fall off trucks and farm machinery during transport or be left in the ground, leading to the growth of stray plants.

It isn't debatable if Bt resistance will develop among insects populations, the question is how fast this will occur now that the toxins are being used in huge amounts throughout the entire growing season. Bt microbes are applied by organic farmers as a surface agent (when one is absolutely necessary) and will become ineffective as an important biological insect control tool.

The problem of crop contamination not only has direct consequences for organic farmers; it also may damage our heritage of agricultural varieties, which has huge implications for populations around the world. For thousands of years, humans have selected and bred varieties adapted to unique climatic zones and regional properties. Transgenes may cause significant damage to that genetic diversity, and commercialization of a few varieties of patented seeds will also erode this vital heritage.

"Terminator" systems designed to protect seed companies' profits by ensuring that farmers can't save seed (the succeeding crop will be sterile) are a further step away from sustainable agricultural practices and respect for the diversity of our agricultural heritage.

GENE TRANSFER INTO GUTS OF BEES: A three year study by Professor Hans-Hinrich Kaatz at the Institute for Bee Research, University of Jena found a gene transfer from genetically engineered rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in the gut of honey bees. Beatrix Tappesser from the Ecology Institute in Freiburg was quoted as saying "This is very alarming because it shows that the crossover of genes takes place on a greater scale than we had previously assumed. The results indicate that we must assume that changes take place in the intestinal tubes of people and animals. The crossover of microorganisms takes place and people's make up in terms of microorganisms in their intestinal tract is changed. This can therefore have health consequences."










Document Number: 9040 
Genetically Engineered Trees

Genetic engineering of food crops has been a stealth technology, introduced with little public debate and arriving on grocery shelves unlabeled. Now another application of genetically engineered (GE) agriculture is sneaking up on us - the production of transgenic trees by paper and lumber companies. The possibility that the new genes spliced into GE trees will interfere with natural forests isn't a hypothetical risk but a certainty. During our lives, genetic engineering may do as much damage to forests and wildlife habitat as chain saws and sprawl.

This is not to say that every application of GE is bad. Sierra Club has taken no positions regarding genetic engineering done in labs or in indoor manufacturing of pharmaceuticals. But common sense should warn us that commercial development of out-of-doors applications in the absence of environmental safeguards is a prescription for disaster. Sierra Club opposes the out-of-doors deployment of genetic technologies because the genes are free - as free as pollen on the wind - to invade nature, and because once this has happened they can't be recalled. The arguments below are not intended to be inclusive but only to illustrate the nature of the problem.

Corporations, as Milton Friedman pointed out, exist not to be ethical but to make money. And from the standpoint of a forestry company, wildlife habitat has very little value. "Growing the bottom line" is what such companies try to do, and among their strategies are clear cutting and replanting with uniform and fast growing trees (tree plantations). An optimal match between the manufacturing process (cutting lumber and making paper goods) and the inputs can add to profits.

These companies now see an opportunity to engineer trees which grow faster, contain less lignin, are more uniform in their characteristics, are more resistant to disease and so forth. And unfortunately, if this is the way to make money, this is where corporations are headed. Sierra Club believes that pressure from society in the form of legal prohibitions and restraints, stringent regulations and liability laws, and environmental and consumer activism must be brought to bear in order to hold the industry in check and safeguard the public good.

We are often told that commercialization of genetically engineered (GE'd) trees is at least several years away. This is also part of the "stealth" referred to above. GE'd stands of papaya trees are yielding commercial crops in Hawaii. The tip of the iceberg is already under our prow, not on the distant horizon. But it is for the traditional forestry industries of paper and lumber making that most research is presently being done. This is also an area which poses the greatest risk to nature.

The threat of GE'd trees interbreeding with wild trees is extreme. While many agricultural varieties are already quite different from their ancestors of thousands of years ago, this isn't the case with trees. And genetically engineered trees could easily become invasive. Faster growing, limp, low-lignin trees resistant to common pests could easily become a kudzu-like threat, moving into our national parks and forests and changing their character forever.

Should we object if forestry companies do genetic engineering on their own land? Sierra Club opposes GE'd tree plantations on private land for all the same reasons we oppose other tree plantations. To put it briefly, tree plantations are not forests. This will be even more true of GE'd tree plantations.

For instance, GE'd pines might be grown without all those "useless" pine cones. They may be herbicide resistant so that competing undergrowth can be eliminated. They may produce their own pesticides so that many of the insects which live in association with trees are poisoned.

The result, then, may be a silent forest, one which doesn't support chipmunks or snakes at ground level, holds no birdsong in its branches, has no raptors soaring above. Clearly, such a stand of trees is not really a forest. And worse, the damage can't be confined to private property as trees live for many years and can't be closely observed; "birth control" among trees is less reliable than among people and even genetic engineering can't guarantee that a branch won't decide to manufacture pollen. Pine pollen can blow hundreds of miles on the wind.

Should we oppose genetic "improvements" to trees on public lands? Sierra Club believes that we can't allow the industry to be judged by its hype and that patented genes are not an improvement over nature. We also must avoid only judging what one gene may do, because once hundreds of different fragments of hacked, patented genetic code are allowed access to public lands, the consequences of unintended combinations will be unpredictable. GE trees will also be a danger in other nations, particularly in the underdeveloped world where conditions for effective regulation often don't exist.

For all of the above reasons, action is needed both at home and internationally to create a worldwide moratorium on the further development and planting of GE trees at least until an effective framework for public debate, unbiased scientific evaluation, and regulation in the public interest - with the goal of preserving biodiversity - can be brought into being.

If you agree with the above, does this make you a Luddite? This is an unfair characterization by our opponents. Sierra Club does not oppose the use of genetic science in indoor research or medical applications. Our policy about genetic research is that there should be more of it, more of it aimed at answering questions about long term effects on health and the environment, and less of it shielded as "confidential business information" as at present. We believe genetic technology belongs indoors, with containment, not outdoors in fields and forests.

We would also point out that the United States is using twice as much paper per capita as other highly civilized nations (Europe, Japan). Let us not ask genetic engineering to do what could be accomplished by lower-tech means like putting a surcharge on junk mail.

Just as there are powerful economic incentives behind logging on public lands, sprawl, and other activities which Sierra Club opposes, there are similar incentives behind genetically engineered sylviculture. Not only are landed property rights and business rights involved, but also the patent rights to genetic code which are now privatizing the genetic heritage of our planet. It is Sierra Club's task, as always, to oppose such interests and to fight for the right of nature to exist for itself, and of future generations to enjoy and be inspired by it.












Document Number: 3388 
Against the Grain

Why poor nations would lose in a biotech war on hunger

by Marilyn Berlin Snell

Biotechnology has been heralded as a boon to developing countries, where the lion's share of the world's hungry dwell. Its breakthroughs--food crops genetically engineered to resist disease, pests, and drought, or to contain vitamins and nutrients severely lacking in the diets of the poor--are seen as a 21st-century version of the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, when hybrid crop varieties and heavy use of fertilizers and irrigation boosted yields 20 to 30 percent. The promise of more abundant and more nutritious food appears to hold out the hope that hunger and disease can be alleviated. With potential like this, who wouldn't be in favor of genetically engineered crops?

For starters, many of the people they are supposed to help. One of the strongest and most articulate voices to emerge in opposition to biotechnology is Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher (formally addressed, as is Ethiopian custom, as Tewolde). Born to a peasant farming family in northern Ethiopia in 1940, Tewolde worked as a plant ecologist and university president before becoming the head of Ethiopia's Environment Protection Authority in 1995. Concerned with the impact that unregulated biotech products could have on the rich biodiversity of the developing world, and also with how the plight of hungry people was being used to promote genetic engineering, Tewolde has been a key international negotiator on issues of biotech safety and accountability. He helped hammer out the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and draft the Biosafety Protocol, which if ratified will set international standards for trade in and use of biotech products. During the protocol talks, the U.S. delegation heavily influenced the discussion--often bolstered by agricultural allies like Canada and Australia. The meetings were heated and often acrimonious, with the United States and its friends at one end of the spectrum, arguing that genetically modified organisms do not need special regulations, while Tewolde and the majority of participating nations argued that they most certainly do.

Since 1999, Tewolde has represented what has come to be called the Like-Minded Group--made up of most developing nations plus China--in protocol negotiations and at World Trade Organization meetings. Two of the most important issues debated at these meetings have been whether a country has a right to know what it is importing, and whether a government has a right to refuse an import it believes endangers its population. As drafted, the Biosafety Protocol now states that nations have such rights. The next step is ratification by at least 50 nations and ensuring that the WTO or other international bodies cannot overrule the protocol.

In April Tewolde spoke with Sierra about his ongoing fight on behalf of the environment and the poor, and how it feels to butt heads with a superpower.

Sierra: Biotechnology proponents argue that biotech crops that resist pests and increase yields provide a solution to grave problems such as hunger and malnutrition. How do you respond?

Tewolde: First, to my knowledge there has not been one commercially grown transgenic crop that out-yields all other varieties of that crop. Genetic engineering may live up to this promise, but we will have to see. What the transgenic crops have done so far is tie the farmer to specific chemicals and a specific company.

That said, this notion that genetically engineered crops will save developing countries misses the real point. The world has never grown as much food per capita as it is doing now, yet the world has also never had as many hungry. The problem is not the amount of food produced, but how it is both produced and distributed. For example, farmers in developing countries who buy genetically engineered seeds that cannot reproduce--and so can't be saved and used for next year's crop--become tied to transnational companies like Monsanto.

As it stands, the political and economic problems within our developing countries prevent us from using existing technologies that are under our control. For example, in 1981, the Lonrho Company was allowed to freely plant trees in Swaziland while the people had to get a special permit to plant any tree. And it continues to be the case that in many countries of the South, individual landowners keep big tracts of land uncultivated while many hungry citizens cannot grow food because of lack of land.

How much more difficult is it going to be to use technology that is controlled from another country? Let me give an example: Ethiopia just had a war with Eritrea that provoked a trade embargo. I'm not complaining about the embargo; I wish we had never made any war. But suppose we had become dependent on some crop variety from the United States, Japan, or Kenya? What if, during this political fracas, our trading partners had said, "No more seed"? What then?

The biotech industry is suggesting that food security will come through the farmer's loss of control of essential agricultural inputs. Do you see the lie? This is food insecurity. Even if genetic engineering managed to double, triple, or quadruple food production, it would still remain an irrelevance. Genetic engineering can't help here, unless we can engineer people who can think straight and be decent.

I don't trust the government. I don't mean particularly the Ethiopian government--I mean any government. Without local control, local availability of food can never be certain. It would be far better to develop a system that would enable the farmer himself to be in charge. I know it sounds remote in the United States to think of a breakdown of law and order, but in Africa there are many politically unstable countries. If every time there was a breakdown of law and order, the system of food production were to suffer, it could mean death to millions.

Sierra: It sounds almost as though you see genetic engineering as the seed of something evil.

Tewolde: It's not the nature of genetic engineering itself that's the problem; it is the way genetic engineering has evolved. Early on, it came under the control of the private sector and is now being developed almost solely by that sector. By definition, the private sector's goal is to make money. It will not focus its attention on the needs of the poor, except as a way to sell its products.

Sierra: Beyond the political and economic issue of who controls the products of biotechnology, do you see any other threats to the South?

Tewolde: Let me begin by stressing that the threat is not only to the South; it is to life as a whole. The major threat is that we are combining genes that have not previously been combined. We are creating new traits and we simply don't know what could happen. We must be careful not to make major mistakes.

There are, however, some threats that are more specifically amplified in the South, arising from three factors. One is that there is a lot more biodiversity toward the equator, which means that the variables and possible complications increase. The second factor has to do with the ambient temperature: In the tropics, the temperature outside is nearer to the temperature of containment in laboratories. This means that those transgenic organisms that accidentally escape to the open environment have a greater chance of survival. The third factor relates to genetic engineering's current emphasis on crops. The gene pool of most of these modified crops exists in unadulterated form in tropical and subtropical areas. Take barley, for example. Ethiopia has the largest gene pool for cultivated barley anywhere in the world. Canada grows barley, but there is no native barley there. Should a genetically engineered variety go wrong and escape into the environment, Canada can start over again and develop a new variety--forgetting about all the varieties it has contaminated and destroyed. But if that were to happen in Ethiopia, the native gene pool--including wild relatives of crop plants--could be polluted. Such mistakes could never be undone.

There is an additional element that is not biological in nature. Economically, the countries closer to the equator are much poorer than the industrialized countries, and therefore lack the resources to deal with these sorts of mistakes.

Sierra: How did you first get involved in issues relating to biotechnology?

Tewolde: In the 1980s I was president of a university and also in charge of a few research projects. In 1989, I started leading a project to identify environmental problems and to suggest strategies to try to harmonize environment and development in Ethiopia. Around this time, the Rio Conference was gearing up, so I became involved in negotiating the proposed text of the 1992 biodiversity convention. Then, at the Earth Summit, two other issues came to the fore that really helped galvanize my thinking.

The first was the insistence of the U.S. delegation on intellectual property rights, while refusing to see that communities--indigenous communities that are not well versed in biological theory--have rights that must be respected as well. The second had to do with the U.S. delegation's insistence that genetic engineering is the same as any old sexual reproduction, and therefore did not need to be regulated. This came to be known as "substantial equivalence," in which sexual reproduction--where a man and a woman meet, mate, and their genes mix--is essentially the same as mixing genes from a tobacco plant and a firefly.

I opposed this idea of substantial equivalence. There was a lot of arguing about this in the convention negotiations. Finally, it was agreed that the parties would examine if there were a need for a protocol on safety in modern biotechnology. That's where we had to start, because opposition to regulation was so fierce. Most nations wanted a biosafety protocol, but a few powerful nations were totally opposed. I was part of the group that wrote what was called a majority report, saying that there was a need for a protocol. The minority report, that of the U.S. delegation, essentially said there was no need at all. Many of its delegates even used the argument that the majority report came from developing countries whose science is dubious. Fortunately, we had U.S. scientists from various universities testify that there is a risk.

Sierra: It's difficult to imagine that the U.S. delegation would challenge your science in such a way.

Tewolde: But that's the usual argument! The delegates don't say it in the meetings. Most of these negotiations happen in the corridors anyway. You lobby some delegation and say "You know what? So and so was saying that the other side's data is rubbish." It's standard negotiating practice. Even so, after we presented the majority group report, our battle was won. At that point, the ad hoc working group said that there should be a protocol, and the next phase of the negotiations began.

Sierra: Because the U.S. Congress in the end refused to ratify the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity, it now has only "observer status" in negotiations on how to implement the protocol, correct?

Tewolde: That's right. However, the United States does claim to support the convention. So presumably the United States would continue to be supportive of the protocol as well--but for practical reasons now: If its laws on genetic engineering do not conform to the protocol, countries will refuse to trade with it in genetically modified organisms.

When the protocol comes into force, the first issue it will handle is the labeling of all genetically modified organisms. At the moment, all the document says is that if a country is exporting genetically modified organisms, it must say "it may contain," which is not very informative. That was a point on which the protocol negotiations nearly collapsed at the Montreal meeting in January 2000. The degree of labeling is an issue that is still unresolved.

Sierra: Some observers have noted that even with the Biosafety Protocol in place, refusing genetically modified imports will be significantly more difficult for developing countries because they have much more to lose in financial aid and other arrangements. What are the costs for a country like Ethiopia in saying no to these types of imports?

Tewolde: If the United States were to disregard the Biosafety Protocol and intimidate poor countries into accepting genetically modified organisms, quite a few of them would probably accept. But one expects that a respectable government, such as the one in the United States, will honor laws--even if they are not their laws.

This will sort itself out. In the transition period though, products that wouldn't sell in Europe or Japan will probably be pushed on us. Especially with regard to food aid, I expect this is already happening. Obviously, it is an extremely difficult situation if you know people are dying from lack of food and the only food you are offered is genetically engineered. [According to the U.S.-based Institute for Food and Development Policy, more than 2 million tons of genetically modified organisms are sent directly by U.S. foreign assistance to developing countries each year, while the World Food Program distributes another 1.5 million tons of transgenic crops donated by the U.S. government. The food is typically sent with no labeling. --eds.]

Sierra: The Like-Minded Group, which you represent in international negotiations, has championed the "precautionary principle" as a way to address issues of biosafety. How would you define this principle?

Tewolde: The simplest way to state it is that you must evaluate risks before you take them. That does not mean "do not take any risks at all," though this is very often what people who want to distort its meaning suggest. It means, rather, that if you must take a risk in the absence of knowledge you should err on the side of caution and say, "until I know, I won't do this."

Sierra: How do you respond to critics who say the precautionary approach is little more than technophobia?

Tewolde: I'm not saying that there are not people who use it in that way. But, as a scientist, I take it to mean that if I am making a decision I should not make one from a position of "not knowing." In our daily lives, most of us operate from this perspective. If you want to jump into a pool, for example, you first estimate how deep it is so that you don't break your neck. You always observe and evaluate before you take that fateful step. That, in essence, is the precautionary principle.

Sierra: It sounds like a good idea. Why is it so difficult to adhere to at the global level?

Tewolde: At the global level, the principle is invoked to protect society, not the individual. Society and the individual are not necessarily the same. Often, the individual--and here I include corporations--has to be tamed to make society possible. That's why we have the law. One problem with the present push toward globalization is that it is focused only on the rights of the individual or the state--both of which are capable of somewhat capricious actions. I hope you will pardon me, but I'd also add that the more influential governments are now really largely run by individuals who represent corporate interests. I think genetic engineering is really going wild because it is not controlled by society but by selfish individual interests.

Sierra: That was actually my next question--what you thought the preeminent motives driving the U.S. delegation have been.

Tewolde: I'm glad you asked, because I was a bit apprehensive to talk about what I see as the corporate control of government. When I am in negotiations with the United States, Canada, and Australia, though, corporate control is clear.

Sierra: You're suggesting that in these negotiations you're essentially dealing with a multinational corporation rather than a government?

Tewolde: No. It is a government but corporate interest is top on its agenda. Given the arguments put forward by these governments, this conclusion is the only one that makes sense. I know the individuals who are making these arguments. They have deep scientific knowledge. But then they argue that genetic engineering and sexual reproduction are essentially the same. The only explanation I have is that they don't want to regulate genetic engineering. And, if they don't want to regulate genetic engineering, one must ask why. Who benefits?

Sierra: How has it been for you to go up against the United States in negotiations?

Tewolde: If you mean do I get intimidated, I don't. I have nothing vested that I have to protect. I have only my conscience to negotiate with. I have been insulted. I have been threatened. I just shrug my shoulders. It doesn't matter. Let me be clear here, though: I'm not referring to the negotiators. I have never had any negative reaction from the negotiators, American or otherwise. I am referring to corporate representatives who come into those meetings. They come as observers and we meet and interact informally. They don't negotiate, though sometimes governments name people from various corporations as members of their delegations.

Sierra: What role has public opposition to genetic engineering played in these high-level negotiations?

Tewolde: Public opinion has played a most critical role in the negotiations on biosafety. In 1999, in Cartagena, Colombia, the group led by the United States refused outright to consider any form of regulations of commodities that are genetically modified. The next move by this group was the United States and Canada tried to introduce the issue about genetically modified commodity regulation into the WTO negotiations in Seattle in December 1999. But, as you know, public opposition and opposition from within by developing countries forced that effort to collapse. It was only because that happened in Seattle that the negotiations in Montreal last year succeeded. The U.S. group felt it had to back down on most of the issues.

Sierra: Whose voice will ultimately prevail on this issue?

Tewolde: The people's voice. If the people are convinced it is important, they will refuse to buy corporate products that have been genetically engineered. If corporations want a market, then they will have to go along with what the public requests.










Document Number: 3074 
Sierra Club Targets Kraft

The Sierra Club has launched a campaign against genetically engineered foods. We're targeting Kraft Foods, which is the largest packaged food producer in America.

Were asking Kraft to remove all genetically engineered products from their foods. This includes not using milk from rBGH-treated cows (the U.S. is the only industrialized nation that permits this practice) and not using genetically engineered (GE) corn, potatoes, soy and so forth.

What you can do

Tell Kraft that you, like the majority of Americans, want GE free foods!

Write to Irene Rosenfeld, CEO of Kraft Foods, Inc., 3 Lakes Drive, Northfield IL 60093
Call 1-800-847-1997
Examples of Products Sold by Kraft

DAIRY: Kraft Macaroni Cheese, Kraft, Velveeta, Philadelphia Cream Cheese, Knudsens, Kraft Parmesan, Kraft Singles, Kraft Taste of Life, Minute Tapioca, Athenos Cheese, Cheez Whiz, Cracker Barrel, Sealtest, Breakstone's

PIZZA: Tombstone, Jacks, DiGiorno's

KID-FRIENDLY PRODUCTS: Barnum's Animal crackers, Chips Ahoy, and Jell-O

POST Cereals: Alpha-Bits, Grape Nuts, Raisin Brans, Banana Nut Crunch, Pebbles, Toasties, Oreo's, etc.

NABISCO: Oreo, Chips Ahoy!, Snackwell's, Newtons, Ritz, Premium, Nabisco Honey Maid Grahams, Triscuit, Air Crisps, Wheat Thins, Nilla, Nutter Butter, Stella D'Oro, Better Cheddars, Cheese Nips, Barnum's Animal Crackers and Toastettes (as well as myriad line extensions of many of these brands.)

BOCA BURGER

MISC: Minute Rice, Miracle Whip, Good Seasons, Sure Jell, Certo, Kool-Aid, Seven Seas, Country Time, Taco Bell Home Originals, Baker's Baking Products, Maxwell House Coffee, Sanka, Yuban Coffee, General Foods International Coffee, Cool Whip, Dream Whip, Claussen Pickles, DiGiorno Italian Sauces, Calumet Baking Powder, Shake N Bake, Oven Fry, Toblerone Chocolate, Stove Top Stuffing, Capri Juice Drinks, Crystal Light, Tang, Bull's Eye Barbecue Sauce

DELI: Oscar Meyer Products, Louis Rich Products

PLANTERS: nuts; also manufactures and markets sauces and condiments, pet snacks, hot cereals, dry mix desserts and gelatins that include such brand names as A.1., Grey Poupon, Milk-Bone, Cream of Wheat, Royal and Knox.

COFFEE: Maxwell, Sanka, Yuban

MISC: Bakers Chocolate, Capri Sun, Cool Whip, Country Time, Crystal Light, Deli-Deluxe,Good Seasons, Jell-O, Kool-Aid, Kraft Barbeque Sauce, Kraft Taste of Life, Light Done Right, Minute Rice, Minute Tapioca, Miracle Whip, Polly-O, Stove Top, Stove Top Oven Classics, Surejell











Document Number: 3442 
Will Agricultural Biotechnology Feed a Hungry World?

Statement by delegates from 24 African nations to the United Nations (1998):

"We . . .strongly object that the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally friendly, nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves."

Related Information

Ten reasons why biotechnology will not ensure food security, protect the environment and reduce poverty in the developing world. 
http://www.foodfirst.org/progs/global/biotech/altieri-11-99.html

Summary: Biotechnology companies often claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) --specifically genetically altered seeds -- are an essential scientific breakthrough needed to feed the world, protect the environment, and reduce poverty in developing countries. This view rests on two critical assumptions, both of which we question. The first is that hunger is due to a gap between food production and human population density or growth rate. The second is that genetic engineering is the only or best way to increase agricultural production and thus meet future food needs. We challenge the notion of biotechnology as a magic bullet solution to agriculture's ills, by clarifying misconceptions concerning these underlying assumptions.

"Selling Suicide: farming, false promises and genetic engineering in developing countries" Christian Aid report, May 1999 
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/reports/suicide/index.html

Summary: According to Christian Aid, the introduction of genetically modified crops to the world's poorest countries could lead to famine instead of feeding more than 800million hungry people worldwide. GM crops will concentrate power in too few hands and will strip small farmers of their independence. Christian Aid also condemns "suicide seeds" that contain a terminator gene which makes the next generation of seeds sterile, forcing farmers to buy new seed every year. Currently, 80% of crops in the developing world are from saved seed. Christian Aid called for a five-year freeze on GM crops and for new resources to be put into sustainable and organic farming.

"Engineering Solutions to Malnutrition" by GRAIN 
http://www.grain.org/publications/reports/malnutrition.htm

Summary: The sustainable solution to vitamin A deficiency is access to a diverse diet through agricultural diversity. Genetic engineering poses unknown threats to that diversity, and golden rice is part of the problem, not the solution.










Document Number: 4213 
Our daily loaf -- does Monsanto get dibs?

At one of my daughter's birthday parties a precocious 7 year old spat on his fingers and then marked the part of the cake he wanted (and got). This is Monsanto's strategy for wheat, a grain which is, well, engrained in our culture, part of human civilization since the dawn of the agricultural age.

The product of ten thousand years of farming knowledge, the seeds by which our collective life is nourished represent one of the last great commons, the embodiment of a collective knowledge which can be shared by farmers around the globe. This is not a small matter. How societies feed themselves is as basic as it gets. And agricultural surplus funded the rise in arts, education, technology and indeed almost every aspect of our culture. Farmers around the world are dependent on seed saving.

Yet with a simple patent for "RoundUp Ready" wheat, Monsanto can mark the genome of this grain exactly as if they put a barcode into the DNA -- and just as easily as the 7 year old marked my daughter's birthday cake. The patent right means the company can put its "dibs" on a farmer's seed. The farmers may no longer be able to save seed for next year's crop unless they pay Monsanto it's technology licensing fee. This robs farmers of a right; this is fact, not speculation -- the company has sued and collected in both Canada and the U.S.

Can farmers opt to just ignore this? No, because wind blows the patented genes from one field to the next. Monsanto almost has a patent on the wind! And because it's trivially easy for every seed company to reshuffle the genetic code and so put their corporate dibs on the bounty of nature, corporate-patented genetic code will tend to proliferate -- it's a money maker for seed companies even if not for farmers. It's time to stop it now.

To protect the right to save seeds -- as well as the right to grow organic crops -- Sierra Club hopes that farmers will join environmentalists in opposing GE wheat.

Corporate patented, hacked-for-profit genetic code can harm nature, too. Wheat has many close cousins in nature and the genes will spread. If this product is introduced, there will be dozens more and those genes will re-assort in unpredictable ways, not only in farmers' fields but also in the wilder places of nature. That's why Sierra Club is joining the fight against corporate dibs on our daily bread.

Please help by signing our message!

Jim Diamond, M.D.
Chair, Genetic Engineering Committee










Document Number: 3087 
Biotechnology

The following policies on Biotechnology have been adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors:

GENETIC ENGINEERING is a new technology which, unlike traditional breeding methods, allows the transfer of genetic material from one organism into a host organism of an unrelated species, thus bypassing the natural reproductive barriers between species. The genetic manipulation resulting from genes inserted by genetic engineering cannot be recalled; the altered characteristics will be passed on to future generations and continue to be reproduced in the environment.

Genetic engineering became possible with the advent of recombinant DNA technology, which for the first time allowed for the transfer, using laboratory procedures, of DNA from one species into the DNA of an unrelated species. For purposes of this policy, however, we define genetic engineering to include all direct molecular manipulation of the genetic structure of organisms or viruses, including additions of foreign genes (transgenes), gene alterations, duplications, or deletions.

Genetic engineering is not, as many of its supporters claim, merely a more efficient form of traditional plant and animal breeding. There is a clear boundary between traditional breeding methods and the radically new technology of genetic engineering.

A GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ORGANISM (GEO) is a single-celled or multicellular organism, the genetic structure of which has been altered by genetic engineering, resulting in genetic changes that could not be achieved using conventional breeding methods. (The terms "GEO," "genetically modified organism" and "genetically altered organism" all have the same meaning.)

The accidental outflow of transgenes or altered genes from a genetically engineered organism to a natural organism, by pollen transfer or by other means, results in the production of an organism which, although it has not intentionally been genetically engineered, must be classified as a genetically engineered organism.

GENERAL STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE (further expanded in the guidelines, to follow)

The Sierra Club urges full public disclosure, discussion and evaluation of the potential hazards, the potential benefits, and policy options for genetic engineering research and the development and use of products from that research. We urge the development of adequate regulatory, legislative, and other controls and that these decisions be based on a reverence for nature and life, as well as socioeconomic equity.

We call for acting in accordance with the Precautionary Principle, meaning that when an activity raises the possibility of serious or irreversible harm to the environment or living creatures, precautionary measures that prevent the possibility of harm shall be taken even if the causal line between the activity and the possible harm has not been proven.

In accordance with this Precautionary Principle, we call for a moratorium on the planting of all genetically engineered crops and the release of all GEOs into the environment, including those now approved. Releases should be delayed until extensive, rigorous research is done which determines the long-term environmental and health impacts of each GEO and there is public debate to ascertain the need for the use of each GEO intended for release into the environment.

We urge that where there are safer alternatives to the use of GEOs, these technologies should be given preference. For example, genetic engineering solutions should never be used to divert attention from the solutions to the problem of hunger that carry less biological risk (e.g., better distribution of food, land reform, sustainable soil conservation strategies, promotion of regional sustainability, reduced consumption of animal products, and stabilization of population).

GUIDELINES

(1) TESTING OF GEOs. There are health and environmental risks inherent in the release of GEOs during field testing and/or commercial planting. Government agencies must develop and enforce policies that require stepwise testing, with strict controls to prevent accidental and premature releases. The stepwise testing must include (as appropriate) contained testing in the laboratory and greenhouse. The results of each step must be made publicly available when tests are subject to approval processes. No field testing should be done until all guidelines in this policy are met.

(2) REGULATION OF GEO RELEASES. Regulation of releases of genetically engineered organisms should ensure that potentially hazardous organisms are not released into the environment without sufficient safeguards and monitoring. Final evaluation should be made on the basis of the effects of genetic modifications, taking into account other factors, particularly the site where the organism will be released. Long-term as well as short-term impacts of GEOs must be evaluated, and a finding of environmental safety made before a release is approved. At a minimum, the evaluation must assess:

(a) the genetically engineered organism's role in the ecosystem (including its food and nutrients, its predators, parasites, and competitors, organisms with which it can exchange genetic material, and environmental limits to its growth);

(b) the impact of its release and potential use on ecosystems and genetic diversity;

(c) the effects of its potential use on sustainable agriculture, resource use, and cultural systems;

(d) the impacts of the organism and its products on human health; and

(e) the impacts of marker genes as well as genes of interest to producers. (Antibiotic resistance marker genes should not be used in GEOs released into the environment.)

All impacts from production to disposal should be assessed, as well as all paths of potential migration, and the scale of the release. Deleterious impacts on workers or on those living near production or release sites should also be considered. An emergency response plan must be in place in case of unforeseen outcomes.

If any government, organization or individual wishes to release, for any purpose, genetically engineered organisms into the environment of a foreign country, they should abide by the standards of the releasing party's home country as well as those of the host country. In the case of conflicting national standards, the standard more protective of the environment and human health should prevail.

Public agencies providing biosafety oversight must notify the public of proposed releases and provide a reasonable and timely opportunity for the public to comment on proposed releases. Notification should include, but not be limited to, the location of release sites. Public comment should be encouraged and receive response. Agencies should ensure public access to all information necessary to evaluate potential hazards even when such needed information otherwise qualifies as confidential business information. In addition, companies and institutions should not be permitted to withhold scientific testing data as trade secrets.

The Sierra Club supports the establishment of a repository for information on GEOs that have been approved for release. Such information must be available to the public.

(3) MONITORING OF GEOs. Both deliberate and unintentional releases of genetically engineered organisms should be monitored through coordinated efforts of agencies, companies, and academic institutions in order to test predictions about the organisms' behavior, numbers, dispersal and environmental impact. The public should be involved in the design of these monitoring programs. Data from such programs must be made available to the public and widely distributed and publicized.

(4) LABELING AND SUBSTANTIAL EQUIVALENCE. Foods produced from or containing GEOs may contain new substances or have purposeful or inadvertent compositional changes. All foods containing or produced with genetically engineered material must be labeled as such. The federal government should carefully regulate food produced from or containing genetically engineered organisms to ensure safety. The use of the concept of "substantial equivalence" in order to waive the need for both pre- and post-marketing testing and surveillance should be prohibited.

(5) LIABILITY. Liability issues must be addressed and resolved prior to the release of every GEO. Manufacturers of GEOs should be fully liable for any environmental damage caused by the organisms they genetically engineer. The burden of proof of safety must be on the manufacturing company. At a minimum, these companies must be fully insured and able to reimburse:

(a) farmers whose crops are less saleable because of genetic contamination from GEOs;

(b) farmers using nonviable genetically engineered seeds; and

(c) for any human or animal suffering health dysfunction resulting from consumption of products that contain GEOs, where the conventional counterpart did not cause such health dysfunction.

(6) CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Regulations should require that there be full public disclosure when there is potential conflict of interest with individuals: (1) serving on biosafety committees; (2) working for or advising government regulatory or research agencies involved in genetic engineering research or regulatory oversight.

(7) REGULATION OF GEOs/TRADE RULES WITHIN THE USA. We support the right of states and localities to adopt regulations for genetically engineered organisms more stringent than federal regulations. We support efforts to ensure communication and, where appropriate, to coordinate oversight among federal, state, and local agencies. Federal and international trade policies and rules must not interfere with the right of states and localities to adopt more stringent measures.

(8) REGULATION OF GEOs / INTERNATIONAL TRADE RULES. All nations should develop and enforce regulations governing experimental release and commercialization of genetically engineered organisms. We oppose any release or agricultural/industrial commercialization of GEOs until appropriate procedures are in place to protect human health, biodiversity, and cultural systems. Trade rules must not be used to override the right of each country to establish regulations based on its own level of risk and based on precautionary action in the absence of scientific certainty.

GEOs may have transboundary impacts. They also may move in international trade. To address these international aspects, governments must complete and ratify the Convention on Biological Diversity negotiations and complete a biosafety protocol establishing adequate minimum standards for regulation of the risk of GEOs, in particular introductions through trade and possible transboundary effects. At a minimum, a biosafety protocol must:

(a) provide for assistance to developing countries to help them build regulatory capacity;

(b) support the implementation of the Precautionary Principle; and

(c) not be subordinated to trade rules.

Members of multilateral trade institutions such as the WTO must work to ensure that trade rules recognize and do not interfere with the implementation of the Precautionary Principle.

(9) INAPPROPRIATE USE OF GEOs. We oppose any development or use of biological weapons and agents used for agricultural bioterrorism, including any use of genetic engineering for these purposes.

We oppose the introduction of any GEOs onto public lands or other open spaces that are protected chiefly for their natural characteristics.

We oppose activities that have the potential to adversely affect the viability of biodiversity and food security. Genetically engineered seed meant to enhance monocropping is an example of such an activity. Others include:

(a) Systems which combine the development of herbicide-tolerant crops with reliance on the manufacturer's proprietary herbicides to control competing plant species should not be instituted;

(b) Technologies that encourage corporate control over seeds should not be employed. Genetic restrictive use technology (commonly known as "terminator technology") is an example of such corporate control; and

(c) Policies that encourage further consolidation or monopolistic control of the food production system should be avoided.

(10) PATENTING of GEOs. All humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms are products of nature.

No individual, institution or corporation should have the ability to claim ownership over species or varieties of living organisms. We oppose the granting of patent claims over organs, cells, genes, proteins, and other living matter whether naturally occurring, genetically engineered, or otherwise modified. The genetic code of humans, animals, plants and microorganisms has evolved over hundreds of millions of years and represents not only our natural world of today but also its past and future. We hold that respect for this natural treasure demands that no government should have power to grant patents or property rights over it. Just as civilized societies have decided that there can be no ownership of human beings (slaves), we believe that there should be no ownership of genetic code, which should continue to be the shared common heritage of all.

Indigenous peoples, their knowledge and resources are the primary target for the commodification of genetic resources. We recognize these peoples' sovereign rights to self-determination and territorial rights, and support their efforts to protect themselves, their lands and genetic resources from commodification and manipulation.

Patents over life forms are not necessary to conduct scientific and technological research, and, in fact, retard and limit access to benefits which may result from new information, treatments or products.

(11) BIOPROSPECTING. Our national park system was established to conserve its scenery, natural and historic objects, and wildlife in such a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This mandate protects all genetic resources within our national park system from commodification and manipulation. Accordingly, we oppose any individual, institution or corporation's ability to claim control and ownership over this diversity through the act of bioprospecting and/or through contractual agreements allowing access to such diversity for the purpose of commercial gain. We respect the rights of all peoples and governments to similarly designate and restrict exploitation of their own genetic resources.

Adopted by the Sierra Club Board of Directors, May 21, 2000, replaced the policy adopted September 18-19, 1993.










Document Number: 9043 
Pollinator Protection Campaign: Saving Honeybees!

WANT TO EAT?  SAVE THE HONEYBEE!

One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators. Yet our food supply may be severely impacted by the recently identified Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) syndrome that has annually wiped out more than 30% of all honeybees from 2005 to today!

In light of the mounting evidence that new seed chemical coatings are deadly to bees, Sierra Club has been urging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ban the use of specific chemical treatments to protect our bees and crops until more study can be done.

 At issue are the nicotinyl insecticides (also known as neonicotinoids) being used in a new way -- as seed coatings. For years, farmers have been spraying neonicotinoids onto their crops to stop insect infestation. Now huge agribusiness corporations have acquired patents to coat their proprietary corn seeds with these neonicotinoids. These neonics are extremely persistent. They enter the plant and are present in pollen and on droplets of water on leaves.

 Federal agencies in France, Germany and Italy have already taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of these pesticides based on the best available scientific evidence. Strikingly, honeybee populations in Italy immediately rebounded when these chemicals were suspended!

The State of California has required that almost all 282 nicotinyl pesticide products be immediately re-evaluated because of toxic concentrations in pollen and nectar, and high residual concentrations in soil. Unfortunately, the EPA is moving too slowly to take action to suspend nicotinyl pesticides.

 The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Action Team has been asking the EPA to suspend use of nicotinyl insecticides until the EPA obtains scientific evidence that sublethal effects do not cause harm to America's critically important honey bees. This has fallen on deaf ears. Now it's time for every citizen to make their voice heard!

 We urge the American public to view the outstanding documentary entitled Nicotine Bees. Producer/Directors Kevin Hansen and Krista Keenan did a superb job researching, interviewing and splicing together an extraordinary story on the CCD problem. We suggest showing the 45-minute film at organizational meetings, home parties, classrooms and community events. Then add your voice to our demands to protect our pollinators!
 Without a doubt, Nicotine Bees is a must see for every family, school and library to have!

To purchase the video or request a screening, see http://NicotineBees.com

After viewing this documentary, you are welcome to take action!
Contact EPA's Steve Owens at <owens.steve@epa.gov> or call him at 1-202-5642902 to request a suspension of the neonicotinoid seed coatings until independent scientists verify safety.

Laurel Hopwood
Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Action Team
Coordinator, Pollinator Protection Campaign
<lhopwood@roadrunner.com>

Read our 11Nov09 press release on our new Pollinator Protector Campaign web page. 










Document Number: 807 
Sierra Club comments on a "neonic" insecticide

RE: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844 - Comments on registration review of Imidacloprid
 

Dear Office of Pesticide Programs Acting Administrator Jones:

The Sierra Club strongly supports EPAs pesticide registration review for Imidacloprid, a chloro-nicotinyl insecticide based on scientific concerns that it is very highly toxic to nontarget insects like honey bees as EPA notes in the Ecological Risk Assessment document. Evidence supports that Imidacloprid has potent sublethal effects like disorientation and lethality in honey bees. However, EPA needs to move more expeditiously than the schedule proposed in the FR Notice of completion by 2014.

EPA needs to require Imidacloprids manufacturer to submit multi-generation studies of chronic toxicity.

Multi-generational studies of Imidacloprid toxicity must be thoroughly investigated by the EPA to adult honey bees and all stages of development. The EPA needs to require Imidacloprids manufacturer to submit multi-generational studies of chronic toxicity investigating not only at the impact of Imidacloprid exposure on adult honey bees, but also its effects on honey bee brood development and survival. EPA should check to find out if the results of multi-generational studies have already been conducted in Europe, and, if such studies have been conducted, the EPA needs to obtain copies of published data in peer-reviewed journals and any other pertinent information available at European governmental agencies and other organizations that may have conducted their own studies and trials.  The EPA must likewise incorporate into its risk assessment information concerning Imidacloprid levels in the pollen and nectar of plants that receive systemic Imidacloprid treatment as well as in hive materials. This information is needed to determine the extent of bees total exposure to Imidacloprid, which has been ignored by EPA and the manufacturer.

EPA needs to investigate translocated Imidacloprid in plants and water exudates used by foraging bees.

EPA needs to thoroughly investigate the likely presence of Imidacloprid in translocated plant liquids. Translocated neonicotinoids that foraging honey bees may be drinking if the pesticides are present in the water exudates on the plant leaves need to be fully investigated as another source of contamination. Translocation of liquids is a well known and long studied plant physiological phenomenon that is even documented in most agricultural crops. However, the manufacturer of Imidacloprid may not have conducted any studies of the presence of Imidacloprid being translocated and found in plant water exudates. If resourceful honey fees became thirsty during their foraging trips such as hot summer days especially in the middle time periods at peak temperatures, honey bees may learn to look for water resources on the plant leaves and other organs as they search for pollen and nectar. Translocation can bring pesticides like Imidacloprid from the soils and seeds up into the plant and exuded onto leaves without little or minimal metabolism of Imidacloprid taking place. Metabolites of Imidacloprid may be present as well.

EPA needs to take faster action on suspending the registration for Imidacloprid to protect honey bees.

Sierra Clubs letter to EPA dated July 30, 2008 (copy in Docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0844) recommended that EPA consider temporarily suspending the registration for Imidacloprid due to reasonable concerns and scientific evidence it was causing or significantly contributing to harming honey bees. EPA needs to address an interim ban or restrict its use in the United States and its territories pending the outcome of the Ecological Risk Assessment. Concerns about Imidacloprid expressed in the July 30, 2008 Sierra Club letter to OPP are re-emphasized in these comments. EPA needs to consider a list of options of temporarily suspending the registration for Imidacloprid and how it might be implemented. As of March 17, 2009, we are close to entering the beginning of this years growing season and no meaningful EPA action has been taken to protect honey bees in the US from the current disastrous CCD situation.

EPA needs to have a 2-3 year field trial conducted where Imidacloprid use is temporarily suspended.

If EPA does not find sufficient available evidence to warrant temporarily suspending the registration for Imidacloprid, EPA could work with USDA-APHIS, state agriculture agencies and the manufacturer to locate an area in the U.S. for a two-three year field trial where a temporary ban on Imidacloprid use could be conducted to determine if local honey bees recover after observing decimated honey bee colonies. The manufacturer of Imidacloprid needs to conduct these field trials. The area might need some type of geographical isolation to ensure foraging honey bees are not flying beyond the field trial area for pollen and nectar that could be contaminated with Imidacloprid and other pesticides from other agricultural areas.

Limitations of such a field trial include the challenges of existing residues of Imidacloprid and metabolites persisting in the soils and unsprouted seeds in the ground acting as local reservoirs for pesticides they were treated with. Field trials would also need cooperation from local honey bees keepers to document if the CCD phenomenon was still occurring in the area.

EPA needs laboratory clinical feeding trials conducted on Imidacloprid fed to adult honey bees and brood.

Video footage taken by French researchers showed how quickly honey bees reacted to low concentrations of Imidacloprid applied in their drinking water and food. French scientists found that Imidacloprid was almost instantly lethal to individual honey bees at remarkably low concentrations in the low parts per billion range. EPA needs to require the manufacturer of Imidacloprid to conduct such laboratory clinical feeding trials and videotape the feeding of adult honey bees and feeding to the developmental stages in addition.

Laboratory clinical feeding trials need to test different low concentration levels of Imidacloprid down to the 1.0 parts per trillion (ppt) level or until No Adverse Effects are detectable on the adult honey bees and the brood. Testing down to a concentration of only 1.0 parts per billion (ppb) may be insufficient to observe a No Adverse Effects threshold in adult honey bees and brood has been reached. If a threshold exists for No Adverse Effects, it needs to be well documented and replicated through a series of lab clinical trials instead of anecdotally suggesting the No Adverse Effects threshold is 5-10 ppb or 1 ppb.

The laboratory clinical feeding trials may need to conducted by independent scientists since the manufacturer of Imidacloprid has a significant financial stake and conflict of interest in not finding a problem with Imidacloprid at low concentrations. The EPA needs to ensure that whether the manufacturer or independent scientists conduct the laboratory clinical feeding trials, the results are subjected to thorough peer-review and videotaping may help to support the results.

The EPA needs to be sure that the Imidacloprid used in the laboratory clinical feeding trials is the same formulation and chemical grades sold to farmers rather than using a different formulation and chemical grade for the lab tests. A concern is that weaker formulations of Imidacloprid could be used in lab clinical trials.  The EPA needs to double check the formulations of Imidacloprid used in all studies under review.

EPAs review schedule for Imidacloprid needs to be shortened from 2014.

EPA has a projected schedule for Imidacloprids review of 6 years (2008-2014) while the problem right now is that Imidacloprid may be causing or contributing to huge losses of critical honey bee colonies nationwide. EPA needs to find creative ways to shorten the review time frame or it may be too late to save honey bee colonies by 2014 and serious crop losses may be too devastated to recover combined with major drought and climate change challenges occurring throughout large agricultural sections of the US.

Has EPA considered ways to use more independent academic scientists to shorten the review process by 2-3 years? The EPA needs to recruit teams of independent academic scientists to conduct research and involve them in the peer-review process.

EPA needs to seriously consider organizing an international conference in the US to help address scientific issues by July-August 2009 on the Ecological Risk Assessment of Imidacloprid. At a minimum, EPA could organize a two-three day conference in Washington, D.C. with independent scientists in the U.S. and Europe to present their latest research evidence and preliminary findings that may not be published for months or several years. If funds are short to allow foreign scientists to attend, EPA could arrange for their lectures by video-conferencing or over the internet.

EPA could organize a second conference in 2010 for 1-2 days in Washington, D.C. to assess the latest research findings and what, if any, additional research needs to be conducted.

EPA use of extensive non-peer-reviewed pesticide industry data for Imidacloprid raises a question of bias.

Another concern is EPAs reliance of non-peer reviewed industry data and lack of independent peer-reviewed data from companies like Bayer and others with an economic interest in downplaying the hazards of Imidacloprid in the EPA Ecological Risk Assessment. For example, EPA cites information provided by Bayer AG consisting of numerous unpublished studies that have not been subjected to independent peer-review and critique by other researchers not paid or under a binding contract by the pesticide firms. 

Additional areas of public concern over effects of the nicotinyl insecticide Imidacloprid are as follows:

I. Imidacloprid formulations, Imidacloprid parent, metabolites and degradates (guanidine, olefin and urea) are systemic pesticides. A concern is how much degree of variation is in the chemistry of the Imidacloprid formulations. How much variation occurs in the Imidacloprid percent applied?
2. Imidacloprid formulations, Imidacloprid parent, metabolites and degradates (guanidine, olefin and urea) are neurotoxic to insects including honey bees in low concentrations in the low parts per billion range and lower detection limits need to be used of less than one ppb. EPA needs to consider other metabolites of Imidacloprid.
3. Imidacloprid formulations, Imidacloprid parent, metabolites and degradates (guanidine, olefin and urea) have greater neurotoxic effects on honey bees due to genomic vulnerability.
4. Imidacloprid formulations are persistent in the environment.
5. Imidacloprid formulations, Imidacloprid parent, metabolites and degradates (guanidine, olefin and urea) may act synergistically with fungicides in complex combinations.
6. Honey bees may avoid higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in plants with available pollen and nectar. Do honey bees have the ability to learn to avoid contact with pesticides like Imidacloprid?
7. Imidacloprid formulations carry acute toxicity that is extremely harmful to bees.
8. Imidacloprid may be present in high fructose corn syrups fed to commercial honey bees. Recent testing in Minnesota found that high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) fed to honeybees contained eight parts per billion of neonicotinoids. Imidacloprid in HFCS needs to be fully investigated by EPA.
9. Neonicotinoids may be present in recycled hives fed to honey bees. Studies need to be conducted on the effects of feeding parts of recycled hives to honey bees.
10. Translocated neonicotinoids that foraging honey bees may drink from in the water exudates on the plant leaves need to be investigated.
11. Reports have indicated the presence of mercury in HFCS and mercury is a potent toxin to look at.
12. EPA needs to investigate areas with healthy colonies of honey bees but no large-sale agricultural uses of Imidacloprid like anecdotal reports by beekeepers from Custer County, Colorado.
EPA needs to ensure that the pesticide industry is not preventing independent research and bias.

Recently a group of twenty-six independent scientists wrote to the EPA expressing their concerns about the difficulties they faced conducting and attempting to carry out independent research on biotech crops with Patents held by private companies. The EPA needs to make sure that the pesticide industry is not preventing independent research, which has been a problem because manufacturers spend millions of dollars funding research and do not want negative findings to reduce the potential for pesticide sales.

The Sierra Club sent a letter to EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836 on February 22, 2009 sharing concerns about the inability of independent scientists to conduct research. Those concerns are included in these comments below, because the manufacturer of Imidacloprid has similar vested interests to biotech companies in preventing independent research by independent scientists who might observe negative results and make negative findings on this pesticide. 

Comments made to EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0836 on February 22, 2009.

The Sierra Club strongly supports scientific concerns being raised about the current state of Bt corn insect research in the U.S. recently described by a group of independent scientists in Docket comments revealing major research obstacles in the field biotechnology crop development. The end result is that many university scientists are being prevented by biotechnology seed companies from investigating the effectiveness and environmental impacts of genetically engineered crops for fear of negative findings. Research can not be properly conducted unless scientists remain independent, objective and unbiased in their fields of inquiry. The state of Bt corn insect research appears to parallel serious problems in pharmaceutical research where drug firms made efforts to block the release of negative findings in peer-reviewed journals.

Serious research obstacles in investigating Bt corn insect relationships were outlined by a group of twenty-six leading corn insect scientists in comments to the EPA Docket February 9, 2009 (comment tracking # 8084de39). The independent scientists shared their serious concerns about how research is being controlled and manipulated by biotechnology firms through technology/stewardship agreements in a way that prohibits independent and objective research needed by EPAs OPP and the FIFRA SAP to make the best scientific decisions on Plant Incorporated Protectants (PIPs). These scientists present a compelling case why EPA and the FIFRA SAP should not approve a request by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for registration of OptimumAcreMaxTM 1 Insect Protection at this time.

Docket statement of February 9, 2009 by twenty-six independent scientists:
Technology/stewardship agreements required for the purchase of genetically modified seed explicitly prohibit research. These agreements inhibit public scientists from pursuing their mandated role on behalf of the public good unless the research is approved by industry. As a result of restricted access, no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology, its performance, its management implications, IRM, and its interactions with insect biology. Consequently, data flowing to an EPA Scientific Advisory Panel from the public sector is unduly limited.

Significant Bt corn insect research obstacles likely exist in investigating questions about an application of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for registration of Optimum AcreMaxTM 1 Insect Protection, which is a corn seed blend containing seeds that express the Bt toxins Cry34Ab1, Cry35Ab1, and Cry1F in a stack for corn rootworm (CRW) and lepidopteran protection mixed with seeds that express only Cry1F for lepidopteran protection (i.e. refuge in the bag for CRW). As a result, Sierra Club urges EPAs Office of Pesticide Programs and the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel to require additional research be carried out and require complete transparency of this research, which evidently has not been the case over the last fifteen years.

In addition, Sierra Club concurs that the difficulties of conducting independent Bt corn insect research are likely applicable to all EPA decisions on Plant Incorporated Protectants and not just with respect to the pending application by Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. for registration of OptimumAcreMaxTM 1 Insect Protection on Bt corn. The EPAs OPP and FIFRA SAP need to step back for at least one year or more and review the critical situation preventing basic, objective independent research on PIPs from being performed in the US, which is a completely unacceptable situation. Furthermore, Sierra Club supports the need for complete transparency of research on all Plant Incorporated Protectants as vital to the public interest in maintaining an adequate U.S. food supply and its obvious that the opposite situation exists in preventing good science from being conducted and published by independent scientists.

Sierra Club strongly supports the use of best available science to review Pioneer Hi-Bred Internationals request for registration of Optimum AcreMaxTM 1 Insect Protection. In view of February 9, 2009 Docket submission and concerns that the scientific  investigation of genetically engineered crops such as the Bt corn in this case suggests, there is a profound need for improvement and regulatory oversight by EPA.

As EPA has indicated, additional Bt corn insect research is apparently what is needed to resolve the uncertainties that EPAs OPP is requesting comments about in the Federal Register Notice of December 10, 2008 (p. 75099, Vol. 73, No. 238). EPAs OPP reviewed Pioneer Hi-Breds submitted studies and modeling chapter and identified areas of uncertainties in the CRW biology, population genetics, and modeling. The EPA is seeking the assistance of the FIFRA SAP to address the scientific issues associated with the seed mix proposal for CRW resistance management and provide the Agency with guidance on the implications of the uncertainties. Seven areas of uncertainties need to be properly investigated and include:

1. Mode of action of Cry34/35Ab1 (i.e. toxic or repellent) to exposed CRW and implications for a seed mix,
2. Aspects of corn rootworm pest biology including the effects of delayed emergence and uneven sex ratios on random mating and ultimately on the rate of resistance evolution in a seed blend environment;
3. Assumptions about initial resistance gene frequency to Cry34/35Ab1;
4. Contributions of tolerance (minor) and resistance (major) genes and selection consequences in corn rootworm exposed to Cry34/35Ab1 in a seed blend environment;
5. Mortality for individuals being heterozygous (XY) and susceptible (XX) for the tolerance (minor) gene;
6. The overall simulation model (i.e. is it adequate to evaluate the proposed seed mix for Cry34/35Ab1); and
7. The mechanics of mixing refuge seed with Cry34/35Ab1 seed into a single bag and the potential distribution (i.e. random or non-random) of refuge plants within planted fields.
Additional Bt corn insect research may take several years. Prudent course of action by EPAs FIFRA Science Advisory Panel is not to approve the Pioneer Hi-Breds registration until all uncertainties have been fully addressed and resolved through independent scientific research.

In conclusion, the EPAs OPP and the FIFRA Science Advisory Panel need to comprehensively investigate and respond to the scientific concerns about the current state of Bt corn insect research and Plant Incorporated Protectants in the U.S. as described by independent scientists revealing serious research obstacles in the field of biotechnology crop development.

Finally, the EPA must ensure that beneficial insects like honey bees are fully protected from high-risk uses of toxic pesticides. U.S. food security depends greatly on pollinators such as honey bees at a time of growing climate change and major drought occurring in large areas of the U.S. agricultural regions from coast to coast. It is recommended that the EPA cancel any uses of Imidacloprid that are found to pose high risks to bees and other pollinators.


Sincerely,
Neil J. Carman, Ph.D. 
Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Action Team










Document Number: 3927 
Sierra Club urges EPA to suspend nicotinyl insecticides

PRESS RELEASE
July 31, 2008
 
Contact:  Laurel Hopwood, Chair of Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Committee
lhopwood@roadrunner.com
 
Sierra Club urges the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to protect honey bees and the food supply over the bottom line of multinational corporations.
 
In light of the mounting evidence that the nicotinyl insecticides (also known as neonicotinoids) are deadly to bees, the Sierra Club today reaffirmed its call for a U.S. moratorium on these powerful pesticides to protect our bees and crops, until more study can be done.
 
The EPA is charged with properly implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for legal authorization to allow various pesticide applications. Yet more than one hundred and sixty Section 18 FIFRA emergency exemptions have been approved by EPA's OPP since 1997 without evaluating sublethal effects.
 
"There are big holes in the science," said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee chair. "The EPA has failed to evaluate the risks from sublethal effects due to low level exposures of the neonicotinoids on honey bees."
 
"Neonicotinoids have been quantified in the the nectar and the pollen of plants. These pesticides can not only kill honey bees outright, but also the honey bees' ability to fight off infections may also be comprised," said Dr Neil Carman, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee member. "Federal agencies in France and Germany have already taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of these pesticides based on the best available scientific evidence, but the EPA is moving too slowly to take action to suspend nicotinyl pesticides,"
 
"Part of the equation in the U.S. is genetically engineered corn, as more and more corn seeds are being gene spliced with a completely different species - a bacterium," said Walter Haefeker, of the German Beekeepers Association Board of Directors. "Bayer and Monsanto recently entered into agreements to manufacture neonicotinic-coated genetically engineered corn. It's likely that this will worsen the bee die-off problem."
 
"Sierra Club joins the concern of beekeepers," said Hopwood. "It's unfortunate that the EPA is using double speak. They claim to protect our food supply - yet they aren't doing the proper studies. The loss of honeybees will leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers.  We expect the U.S. EPA to do their job.  We call for a precautionary moratorium on these powerful crop treatments to protect our bees and our food."
###
 
 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 
[Addressee of this July 30, 2008 letter updated in 2009]
 
Margie Fehrenbach
US EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs (7501-P)
1200 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20460
 
Re: Request to suspend use of nicotinyl insecticides until EPA obtains scientific evidence that sublethal effects do not cause harm to America's honey bees.
 
Dear Ms. Fehrenbach:
 
The Sierra Club and its 1.3 million members and supporters is requesting that EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) take urgent action to suspend use of the high volume pesticides known as the nicotinyl insecticides until the EPA possesses the scientific evidence to demonstrate that these pesticides do not cause or contribute to sublethal effects on the nation's honey bees. Serious questions need to be raised by EPA's OPP over the sublethal effects to honey bees occurring in the low parts per billion range (ppb) of 1.0 ppb to 20 ppb from these pesticides, which apparently the EPA has not evaluated to date, and the pesticide manufacturer's may not have adequately investigated or may have submitted incomplete findings to EPA.
 
Synergistic effects may also be occurring. The EPA has clearly missed the unintended consequences of the nicotinyl (neonicotinoid) insecticides, including imidacloprid, thiamethoxam, clothianidin, and several others and now action is critical.
 
Without prompt EPA regulatory action to suspend use of the nicotinyl pesticides (also known as neonicotinoids), the mounting economic devastation to the nation's commercial honey bee operations and agriculture will reach into billions of dollars and will irreversibly harm beekeepers and farmers beyond their ability to make a recovery not to mention the huge losses in the fruits and vegetables available for consumers. The EPA's OPP surely is cognizant that federal agencies in France and Germany have already taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of these pesticides based on the best available scientific evidence since at least 2002-3. Preliminary evidence was available earlier in France, but EPA's OPP is moving too slowly to take action to suspend nicotinyl pesticides.
 
The public is seriously concerned that the EPA lacks the necessary scientific evidence to demonstrate the safety of sublethal doses of the neonicontinoids that honey bees are being routinely exposed to during their foraging activities in the US. Your Office of Pesticide Programs is charged with properly implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) for legal authorization to allow various pesticide applications and it appears that EPA's OPP is not diligently carrying out its duties under FIFRA to the public and agriculture. More than one hundred and sixty Section
18 FIFRA emergency exemptions have been approved by EPA's OPP since 1997 without evaluating sublethal effects.
 
As EPA knows, additional large losses of honey bee colonies continue to be widely reported by beekeepers in the United States into 2008 in approximately forty agricultural producing states where fruit and vegetable crops rely on honey bees for pollination and major crop production. Fruit and vegetable losses have been reported by American farmers as a growing agricultural crisis because honey bee colonies have been collapsing in those regions.
 
EPA's OPP has either inadequately evaluated or totally failed to evaluate the risks from sublethal effects due to low ppb range exposures of the neonicotinoids on honey bees. Following is information primarily from Germany and France where federal agencies have taken responsible regulatory actions to suspend use of neonicontinoids due to the growing scientific evidence of sublethal effects on honey bees. The EPA should be acting responsibly to collect as much scientific evidence as possible considering that the information is publicly available from scientists in Germany and France who have already conducted the research and collected the evidence to warrant suspending neonicotinoids.
 
As EPA's OPP is aware, the German federal government Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) ordered the immediate suspension of the approval for eight seed treatment products due to the mass death of bees in Germany's Baden-Wuerttemberg state. The suspended pesticide products are mainly neonicotinoids: 1) Antarc
(ingredient: imidacloprid; produced by Bayer), 2) Chinook (imidacloprid; Bayer), 3) Cruiser (thiamethoxam; Syngenta), 4) Elado (clothianidin; Bayer),  5) Faibel (imidacloprid; Bayer), 6) Mesurol methiocarb; Bayer) and 7) Poncho (clothianidin; Bayer).
 
According to the German Research Centre for Cultivated Plants, they reported that 29 out of 30 dead bees it had examined had been killed by contact with the neonicotinoid clothianidin..Wild bees and other insects are also suffering from a significant loss of population. In communications with German beekeepers, Manfred Hederer, president of the German Professional Beekeeper's Association reported that 50 to 60 percent of the bees have died on average, and some beekeepers have lost all their hives. Beekeepers and agricultural officials in Italy, France and Holland all noticed similar phenomena in their fields when planting began in April and May.
 
In France most applications of imidacloprid were already banned in 1999. In 2003 the federal government science committee called Comit'
Scientifique et Technique, convened by the French government, declared that the treatment of seeds with the neonicotinoid imidacloprid produces a significant risk for bees. Only a few months ago Bayer's application for the pesticide clothianidin was rejected by French authorities. French research teams have published scientific evidence that they identified several of these neonicotinoid pesticides in low parts per billion concentrations throughout the plant tissues and organs well beyond the root system, and they also identified the same pesticides in the honey bees which forage on the same crop species. By applying a sophisticated analytical technique using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) coupled to tandem Mass Spectrometry (atmospheric pressure chemical ionization-mass spectrometry or APCI-MS/MS), French scientists were able to precisely measure low amounts of imidacloprid in the soils, plants (leaves and flowers), and pollens. Extraction, separation, and detection were performed according to quality assurance criteria.
 
It's obvious that EPA-OPP should be quite concerned with the fact that neonicotinoid compounds share specific characteristics under the following categories that combine to increase their sublethal effects in honey bees and EPA-OPP has failed to perform a comprehensive evaluation of these combined characteristics that have been devastating American honey bee colonies in recent years:
 
1. These neonicotinoid substances and their metabolites are systemic pesticides.
Systemic neonicotinoid treatments, which target the entire plant, are probably contaminating all its parts (French team reported average levels 5-6 ppb), including the flower (reported average levels 5-6
ppb) through translocation from the root system and seeds (Bonmatin et al., 2003 and 2005). Corn had a reported tassel average of 4 ppb and the ear averaged 10 ppb. Sunflower and corn pollen contained about 5 ppb imidacloprid after pesticide treatment. Additional French scientists observed imidacloprid in even higher levels in young fast-growing plants where they measured 10-20 ppb in upper leaves, reaching 100-200 ppb in other leaves, 2-3 ppb in pollen, and less than
1.5 ppb in the nectar. It is confirmed today by repeated laboratory analyses, and the pesticide manufacturer's no longer deny it, that the specific active substances are present in the nectar and the pollen of plants coming from neonicotinoid treated seeds and residues in the soils. Besides, this fact is not ignored in the research on imidacloprid and fipronil. These substances are thus found in the food of bees and their brood. See two studies by Bonmatin et al., 2003 and 2005, and two studies by Chauzat et al., 2002 and 2006.
 
Entomologist Dr. Maryann Frazier's June 26, 2008 testimony at a Congressional hearing on honey bee colony losses stated: "We are becoming increasingly concerned that pesticides may affect bees at sublethal levels, not killing them outright, but rather impairing their behaviors and their abilities to fight off infections."
Pesticides and metabolites are being identified in pollen she added, a disturbing finding! In fact, she testified that 46 different pesticides including six of their metabolites were identified out of
108 pollen samples analyzed. Up to 17 different pesticides were found in a single sample. Samples contained an average of 5 different pesticide residues each. One of the most striking points in Dr.
Frazier's testimony is that 97.2% of pollen samples had pesticides and only three (2.8%) of the 108 pollen samples had no detectable pesticides [perhaps using a lower detection limit may have found pesticides at lower trace concentrations]. In 88 wax samples analyzed, 20 different pesticides including two of their metabolites were identified. As identified in pollen, the most commonly detected pesticides were fluvalinate, coumaphos, chlorpyrifos, and the fungicide chlorthalonil, with fluvalinate and coumaphos detected in 100% of the samples. Extraordinary levels of fluvalinate were measured up to 204 parts per million in the brood nest wax and pollen.
 
2. These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites are neurotoxic to insects including honey bees in low concentrations in the low parts per billion range.
The neonicotinoid substances are powerful insecticides that irreversibly block the receptor sites for acetylcholine and neurotransmission in the adult insect or in the larval stage (J. Pest.
Reform, 2001). In very small doses (approximately one part per billion
- ppb) these compounds are able, without killing the insect, to cause behavioral disturbances (e.g. orientation errors) that could be deadly for the colony, whose survival relies on the integrity of the ability of its members. EPA knows that neonicotinoids are a new class of insecticides since 1992 that specifically act on the central nervous system of insects  (J. Pest. Reform, 2001).
 
One of imidacloprid's breakdown products, called the Olefine metabolite, is particularly troubling since it is known to be more toxic to insects than imidacloprid itself, according to a 1996 study (Rouchaud et al.). French researchers measured imidacloprid's metabolites in addition to imidacloprid in 69% of the pollen in concentrations as low as 1.1 ppb to 5.7 ppb. A serious concern is that imidacloprid's metabolites have powerful sublethal effects on honey bees and may act in combination with imidacloprid to induce additive toxic effects. However, EPA has failed to consider effects of such metabolites.
 
3. These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites have greater neurotoxic effects on honey bees due to genomic vulnerability.
Research on mapping the honey bee genome discovered that its nicotinic acetylcholine receptor possesses eleven vulnerable subunit members in its nervous system (Jones et al., 2006). The honey bee possesses more nicotinic acetylcholine receptors than either the mosquito or the fruit fly, research has found. In short, the problem for honey bees is they possess more vulnerable acetylcholine receptors to be blocked by pesticides like imidacloprid compared to other insects, and from a theoretical perspective, the honey bee is made more sensitive to pesticides like imidacloprid and similar neurotoxins.
 
French scientists led by Dr. Marc Colin (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, INRA) in 1998 videotaped one set of their experiments on bees exposed to low ppb concentrations of imidacloprid to demonstrate that the honey bees became too groggy and intoxicated effectively impairing their short-term memory in smell and theoretically blocking normal foraging behavior. After only a few days, the honey bees exposed to low ppb levels of imidacloprid stopped feeding and their numbers sharply dropped compared to the control groups. Dr. Colin compared videotapes of exposed bees and unaffected control bees to dramatically demonstrate the powerful sublethal effects of imidacloprid. If the bees stopped their feeding behavior, they will quickly die.
 
4. These neonicotinoid substances are persistent in the environment.
Evidence confirms the environmental persistence of imidacloprid and fipronil as well as for some of their metabolites. The same applies to clothianidin and thiamethoxam. Persistence was expected since the stability of these compounds is necessary for the systemic action supposed to last for the entire growing period of the plant over several months. An imidacloprid fact sheet (J. Pest. Reform, 2001) cited 1993 EPA information on a field test showing the concentration of this insecticide did not decrease for a year following treatment.
As the pesticides are widely used and may be used on all cereals, maize, sugar beets, potatoes (as spray), as well as on beetroot, oilseed rapes or sunflower, for several consecutive years and in a systematic rotation, it is necessary to study the behavior of the substances in the soil after several successive years of treatment, and the possible contamination of untreated flowering crops that have been grown in a soil being treated for several consecutive years.
 
5. These neonicotinoid substances and metabolites may act synergistically with fungicides in complex combinations.
Research at a North Carolina University laboratory found certain neonicotinoids when combined with specific fungicides acted synergistically to increase the toxicity to honey bees over 1,000 times (Iwasa et al., 2004). This presents a concern for honey bees because both neonicotinoids and fungicides (Terraguard and Procure) are used rather widely.
 
Due to the archaic science and theories being applied at the agency, the EPA Office of Pesticides does not even address or investigate the possible biological effects including sublethal effects of combinations of pesticides, but synergistic pesticidal effects can no longer be ignored when complex multiple combinations of toxic pesticides are being measured in bees wax and pollen without EPA having a clue as to what adverse effects they may be causing.
 
6. Honey bees may avoid higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in plants with pollen and nectar.
Evidence suggests that honey bees have an innate ability to detect higher concentrations of neonicotinoids in plants and may avoid feeding on those plants to avoid chemical exposures, which lead Bayer scientists to conclude there were no effects below 20 ppb (Schmuk et al., 2001). But the Bayer's studies may not have considered that honey bees have an innate detection ability to sense the presence of neonicotinoids above 20 ppb.
 
7. These neonicotinoid substances carry acute toxicity that is extremely harmful to bees.
EPA-OPP has identified imidacloprid and clothianidin as highly toxic to honey bees. According to the EPA Fact Sheet on Clothianidin, "Clothianidin is highly toxic to honey bees on an acute basis
(LD50>0.439 mg/bee). It has the potential for toxic chronic exposure to honey bees, as well as other non-target pollinators through the translocation of clothianidin residues in nectar and pollen. In honey bees, the affects of this toxic chronic exposure may include lethal and sublethal effects in the larvae and reproductive effects on the queen." Seeds are treated with clothianidin in advance or sprayed with it in the field, and the insecticide can also be blown onto other crops. The chemical is often sprayed on corn fields during spring planting to create a protective film on cornfields.
 
Conclusion
The EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs needs to promptly suspend use of the nicotinyl insecticides until EPA obtains scientific evidence that sublethal effects do not cause harm to America's honey bees.
 
Sincerely yours,
  
Laurel Hopwood
Chair, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee
2459 Queenston Road
Cleveland Heights, Ohio 44118-4315
 
cc: members of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Committee on Agriculture Subcommittee on Horticulture and Organic Agriculture; Marcel Howard
 
 









Document Number: 8165 
USDA, Lobbyists and Bees

PRESS RELEASE 06-10-08
Contact:  Laurel Hopwood, Chair, Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Committee
lhopwood@roadrunner.com
 
U.S.D.A. caves in to lobbyists over massive bee deaths while Germany takes a major step to keep their pollinators pollinating crops
 
In light of the mounting evidence that new seed chemical coatings are deadly to bees and action by Germany calling for their immediate suspension, the Sierra Club today reaffirmed its call for a U.S.moratorium on specific chemical treatments to protect our bees and crops until more study can be done.
 
Recently Germany's federal agricultural research institute noted, "It can unequivocally be concluded that poisoning of the bees is due to the rub-off of the pesticide ingredient clothianidin from corn seeds."  At issue are the neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, being used in a new way -- as seed coatings.
 
For years, farmers have been spraying neonicotinoids onto their crops to stop insect infestation. Now Bayer, Syngenta and Monsanto have acquired patents to coat their proprietary corn seeds with these neonicotinoids.
 
"Part of the equation in the U.S. is genetically engineered corn, as more and more corn seeds are being gene spliced with a completely different species -- a bacterium," said Walter Haefeker of the German Beekeepers Association Board of Directors.  "Bayer and Monsanto recently entered into agreements to manufacture neonicotinic-coated genetically engineered corn.  It's likely that this will worsen the bee die-off problem."
 
David Hackenburg, former president of the American Beekeeping Federation, has been urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do more study. "Look at what's time based. The massive bee decimation started when regulatory agencies rubber stamped the use of neonicotinoid spraying and coating," he said.
 
"Sierra Club joins the concern of beekeepers," said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Chair. "It's unfortunate that regulatory agencies are using double speak. They claim to protect our food supply - yet they aren't doing the proper studies.  The loss of honeybees will leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers. We call for a precautionary moratorium on these powerful crop treatments to protect our bees and our food."










Document Number: 7707
 Comments to APHIS on Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Secretary Mike Johanns

Docket No. APHIS-2006-0112

U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD

APHIS, Station 3A-03.8

4700 River Road, Unit 118

Riverdale, Md. 20737-1238

Via electronic format at: http://www.regulations.gov
Re: Comments on the Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Docket No. APHIS-2006-0112 on Introduction of Organisms and Products Altered or Produced Through Genetic Engineering

 

Dear Secretary Johanns: 
The Sierra Club is submitting comments on the USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) due to concerns about serious scientific gaps and regulatory flaws in the proposal. The Sierra Club represent 750,000 members nationwide and has a vital public interest in the future releases of new genetically engineering organisms into the environment and the exceptionally poor scientific basis and weak regulatory oversight that the Department of Agriculture persists in pursuing a fast pace in approving and deregulating genetically engineered crops. The agency, for example, is heavily responsible for its regulatory role in the numerous cases of genetic contamination by new genetically engineering organisms impacting American agriculture since the 1990s and continuing to occur in 2007.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS), a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is responsible for regulating the introduction-meaning the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release-of genetically engineered (GE) organisms. Finally APHIS has made available a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates potential revisions to existing regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement and environmental release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms. During the past 15 years, APHIS has been reviewing and revising its biotechnology regulations in attempting to ensure what APHIS views as being "grounded in the latest science and are robust enough to keep pace with the demands of technology", but the unfortunate reality is that APHIS has failed to apply the best available science in its review of new GE crops.

In January 2004, APHIS publicly announced it was beginning a review of its regulations and published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS. The notice identified potential issues and alternatives to be studied in the EIS and requested public comment to further shape the scope of the issues and alternatives. The draft EIS outlines several key areas APHIS is evaluating and seeking public comments on, including expanding APHIS' regulatory scope through additional provisions in the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000, utilizing a tiered permitting system based on potential environmental risk and implementing a process for continued oversight of crops that do not meet the criteria for deregulation. Input received regarding these areas and all aspects of the draft EIS will enable APHIS to make an informed decision regarding any possible future changes to the regulations.

While APHIS publicly claims it is committed to an open and transparent regulatory process that takes all comments into consideration and reflects the latest science, while continuing to protect America's agricultural and natural resources, the opposite seems to be the case since the best available genetic science is not been considered by APHIS and due to the increasing numbers of cases of genetic contamination continue to plague agriculture in the US. APHIS is primarily responsible for the growing genetic contamination mess facing more and more American organic and conventional farmers facing economic chaos and financial ruin when their crops have been contaminated by GE crops. APHIS's actions and inactions are resulting in hundreds of American farmers being economically devastated and ruined by the deregulation disaster that APHIS has spawned. At this time, it appears that APHIS it bent on continuing the deregulation disaster and genetic contamination debacle that will cripple more and more American farmers, especially based on the draft EIS.

Although APHIS' broad biotechnology regulatory authority falls under the scope of the PPA, which has combined and modernized the various authorities and under which APHIS is in theory supposed to safeguards domestic plant resources and regulated GE organisms, including the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act, the Sierra Club is seriously concerned that APHIS is failing miserably to protect American organic and conventional crops from genetic contamination.

The Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS), a program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), is responsible for regulating the introduction-meaning the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release-of genetically engineered (GE) organisms. Finally APHIS has made available a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that evaluates potential revisions to existing regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement and environmental release of genetically engineered (GE) organisms. During the past 15 years, APHIS has been reviewing and revising its biotechnology regulations in attempting to ensure what APHIS views as being "grounded in the latest science and are robust enough to keep pace with the demands of technology", but the unfortunate reality is that APHIS has failed to apply the best available science in its review of new GE crops.

In January 2004, APHIS publicly announced it was beginning a review of its regulations and published a notice of intent to prepare an EIS. The notice identified potential issues and alternatives to be studied in the EIS and requested public comment to further shape the scope of the issues and alternatives. The draft EIS outlines several key areas APHIS is evaluating and seeking public comments on, including expanding APHIS' regulatory scope through additional provisions in the Plant Protection Act (PPA) of 2000, utilizing a tiered permitting system based on potential environmental risk and implementing a process for continued oversight of crops that do not meet the criteria for deregulation. Input received regarding these areas and all aspects of the draft EIS will enable APHIS to make an informed decision regarding any possible future changes to the regulations.

While APHIS publicly claims it is committed to an open and transparent regulatory process that takes all comments into consideration and reflects the latest science, while continuing to protect America's agricultural and natural resources, the opposite seems to be the case since the best available genetic science is not been considered by APHIS and due to the increasing numbers of cases of genetic contamination continue to plague agriculture in the US. APHIS is primarily responsible for the growing genetic contamination mess facing more and more American organic and conventional farmers facing economic chaos and financial ruin when their crops have been contaminated by GE crops. APHIS's actions and inactions are resulting in hundreds of American farmers being economically devastated and ruined by the deregulation disaster that APHIS has spawned. At this time, it appears that APHIS it bent on continuing the deregulation disaster and genetic contamination debacle that will cripple more and more American farmers, especially based on the draft EIS.

Although APHIS' broad biotechnology regulatory authority falls under the scope of the PPA, which has combined and modernized the various authorities and under which APHIS is in theory supposed to safeguards domestic plant resources and regulated GE organisms, including the Federal Plant Pest Act and the Plant Quarantine Act, the Sierra Club is seriously concerned that APHIS is failing miserably to protect American organic and conventional crops from genetic contamination.

DEIS Issue 1 and 5: Scope of the Program

The federal review of the relatively weak regulation and oversight of genetically engineered organisms is certainly overdue considering the numerous problems facing American organic and conventional farmers and the genetic contamination mess spreading nationwide. We strongly urge APHIS to classify and recognize as "noxious weeds" under its regulations the genetically engineered crops (biopharm crops) that are designed for producing substances such as insecticides, pharmaceutical products and industrial chemicals. The dilemma is that if genetic contamination occurs from the new biopharmaceutical and bio-industrial crops, the American food supply and export markets will be placed at risk and more American farmers will be confronted with economic devastation and ruin, which APHIS has essentially ignored to this point. Farmers facing genetic contamination can no longer sell their crops and have to turn to the courts for relief which is very difficult to do considering the high legal costs and burden of winning such cases in the state and federal court systems. Many farmers will more likely be driven into economic ruin and bankruptcy before they see any relief from the state and federal court systems. Yet more and more scientists report field observations and laboratory evidence in the form of contaminated DNA that genetically engineered plants present a hazard to other farm crops, and most importantly, pose a serious threat to the health of humans, animals, insects and other wildlife as well as ecological systems. Synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals produce powerful physiological effects. If APHIS allows the planting of GE crops that produce synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals, new biopharm and bio-industrial genetic contamination is not a matter of if it will occur but when it will occur. APHIS has seriously failed to adequately assess the American food supply and economic disaster it will create if it approves the growing of GE crops producing synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals.

In addition, when synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals are accidentally eaten by consumers once genetic contamination occurs, a range of significant adverse health effects can be anticipated and deaths and permanent injuries will occur if APHIS moves ahead in deregulation of biopharm and bio-industrial crops that are also being used for food crops. Without a doubt, all of our food crops must never be allowed to produce synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals. APHIS should not even authorize field testing of these biopharm and bio-industrial crops.

APHIS has failed to assess the economic harm to organic and conventional farmers when their crops and fields become contaminated by pollen, seeds and vegetative material capable of propagating a new plant. These kinds of economic harm to American farmers needs to be fully considered and evaluated by APHIS.

APHIS has also failed to properly and fully assess the harm to American consumers when organic and conventional foods are contaminated. APHIS needs to get its act together and seriously consider harm to American consumers who are growing more suspicious of GE crops as a whole and who are turning more increasingly to organically grown foods for their families and pets.

EIS's needed for non-food biopharm and bio-industrial crops to consider threats to public drinking water supplies and other environmental and health impacts.

APHIS also needs to conduct environmental impacts of every single non-food biopharma and bio-industrial crop to determine if other environmental impacts may be likely to occur. Public water supplies today are finding more and more traces of pharmaceutical compounds, and the potential exists to contaminate public and private drinking water supplies if synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals escaped into the environment.

Plant Species with Genetically Compatible Native Relatives should not be used for Biopharm and Bio-industrial Chemical Production

APHIS also needs to carefully assess potential contamination of native plant species if their relatives are used for producing synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals. Genetic contamination of native plants is unacceptable since once released into the environment, the genes and organisms cannot be recalled. Sierra Club opposes the use of plant species with wild relatives in the U.S. for producing synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals.

Annuals vs perennials used for Biopharm and Bio-industrial Chemical Production

Annual plant species present enough environmental hazards if they escape into ecosystems and become weedy organisms, but fertile perennial plant species may present even greater environmental threats due to their long-lived biology and capability to produce thousands of fertile seeds over time. APHIS needs to require EIS's for all new GE crop varieties intended for producing synthetic pharmaceutical agents and toxic industrial chemicals because these novel organisms have significant potential to cause environmental impacts. Containment systems are not feasible unless they are grown in well-controlled, large greenhouses. So far, little interest has been expressed in growing biopharm and bio-industrial crops in large greenhouses.

Ethanol production vs Food production vs Drugs/Chemical production

The American food supply may also be threatened in other ways such as by diverting large acreage's to ethanol production and drugs and industrial chemicals. Yet APHIS has not comprehensively evaluated the economic and environmental impacts if large farm acreage is lost to food production. APHIS needs to thoroughly assess these impacts.

Sierra Club opposes the growing of GE crops for biopharmaceutical drugs and bio-industrial chemicals and cannot support commercialization through permitting. These crops are extremely hazardous and should not be grown at all since contamination is inevitable.

Genetic contamination at any level is totally unacceptable and APHIS must not approve even low-level genetic contamination since this is bad science not based on any scientific evidence but on purely political and vested economic interests seeking to profit from these non-food GE crops. Yet GE food crops are causing enough chaos for organic and conventional farmers and consumers.

The one gene-one protein theory from molecular biology is no longer applicable since modern genetics shows that cellular biochemical regulation is far more sophisticated and complicated via alternative splicing and epigenetics. Unfortunately, APHIS regulations seem to be based on outdated scientific models and not the best available science from epigenetics, alternative splicing and other discoveries in recent decades.

Sincerely,

 

Neil Carman, Ph.D.

Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee










Document Number: 4332 
A VICTORY!

Judge Breyers final ruling in the alfalfa case holds that the USDAs approval of Monsantos RoundUp Ready alfalfa in 2005 was illegal because it should have and did not conduct a complete Environmental Impact Statement.  Further planting isnt allowed.  GPS coordinates of previous plantings are to be made public.

 

Conducting an EIS is plain common sense, says Neil Carman, a founding member of the Clubs Genetic Engineering Committee.  This ruling reaffirms what Sierra Club has been saying all along: the government needs to look before it leaps and must comprehensively examine through an EIS how genetically engineered alfalfa could impact the environment before approving its widespread use.











Document Number: 3039 
GE and bee Colony Collapse Disorder -- science needed!

Dear Senator Thomas Harkin,

             

We share similar concerns. The viability of a robust food supply is paramount to the American people.

 

One out of every three bites of food that we consume is due to the work of honeybees, serving as crucial pollinators in agriculture and farming communities. Yet agriculture and food production may be severely impacted by Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), a trend documented in honey bee colonies and prominently featured in a New York Times story (1). Beekeepers are reporting estimates as high as 80% loss of their honey bee colonies. Such a huge loss of the services of bees is extremely serious and beekeepers report it's a growing trend.

 

The cause of CCD is unknown. Although factors being considered include pesticides, mites, microbial disease and habitat decline, there's a possible link that's not being investigated. Highly respected scientists believe that exposure to genetically engineered crops and their plant-produced pesticides merit serious consideration as either the cause or a contributory factor to the development and spread of CCD.(2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10) In searching for the cause of massive honey bee losses nationwide, we must leave no stone unturned to find the answer.

 

This past decade we are seeing releases into the environment that we have never before seen on this planet. Genetic engineering involves the artificial transfer of genes from one organism into another, bypassing the protective barrier between species. Scientists admit that "unintended consequences" may occur due to the lack of precision and specificity in the DNA sites on different plant chromosomes where the inserted genes randomly end up. According to the prominent biologist Dr. Barry Commoner and pioneer in ecology, "Genetically engineered crops represent a huge uncontrolled experiment whose outcome is inherently unpredictable. The results could be catastrophic."(11) Dr. David Schubert has expressed similar concerns in pointing out some of the significant holes existing in current genetic engineering technology that raise serious questions about how well we understand it and how to apply such a new emerging science.(12) An issue Dr. Schubert raises is the "unpredictability" in the artificial gene splicing technology that is routinely performed in genetic engineering because it may lead to unpredictable consequences. Are the honey bees trying to tell us about the "unintended consequences" from large-scale genetic engineering in agriculture?

 

Investigators have raised the possibility that honey bees are experiencing a sublethal effect such as a "suppressed immune system" from an unknown toxin. However, sublethal effects have not been fully investigated. Dennis van Engelsdorp, a bee specialist with the state of Pennsylvania who is part of the team studying the bee colony collapses, said the "strong immune suppression" investigators have observed "could be the AIDS of the bee industry," making bees more susceptible to other diseases that eventually kill them off. (1) Nonetheless, a concern is that genetically engineered crops are being ignored as a possible culprit, especially with tens of millions of acres now being planted each year of cultivars producing large concentrations of pesticides that did not exist on such a scale just a decade ago.

 

Currently regulators fail to require adequate analysis of transgene insertion sites. This omission results from the failure to appreciate the magnitude of genetic damage sustained by transgenic plants.(11,12)  Regulators have also failed to adequately assess the potential for lethal and sublethal impacts of engineered crop pesticides on pollinators like honey bees and wild bees, including the larvae brood and young bees. Studies are needed to evaluate the impact of GE crops on sublethal effects such as learning and feeding behavior. In addition, honey bee colonies are being fed GE corn syrups and parts of recycled hives containing additional GE food residues. The effect of these feeding practices on bees needs study.

 

Considering that loss of honeybee pollinators can leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers, it would be prudent to use caution. If genetically engineered crops are killing honeybees, a moratorium on their planting should be considered.

 

Senator Harkin, as Chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, you are in a key position to initiate investigations to determine if exposure to genetically engineered crops is the missing link. Emergency funding for research on the pollinator decline needs to be available to researchers and the USDA.

 

Most sincerely,

 

Laurel Hopwood, Chair

Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee

 
 









Document Number: 4339 
A Silent Forest (new DVD)

A Silent Forest: The Growing Threat of Genetically Engineered Trees is an award winning video narrated by Dr. David Suzuki, a Canadian scientist with a background in genetics, a noted environmentalist and host of "The Nature of Things." A Silent Forest exposes the threats posed by the introduction of genetically engineered trees into our environment. The film breaks down complex scientific concepts while detailing the dangerous impacts genetically engineered trees will have on human health, native forests, forest-dwelling indigenous peoples, and wildlife. The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee has limited copies of this DVD.











Document Number: 1396 
Health risks of GE food

Dangers From Consumption of Foods Containing Transplanted DNA

by Hugh S. Lehman, Ph.D.

hughslehman@hotmail.com

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are organisms that have been produced when DNA from other organisms is incorporated into the cells from which the GMO develops.  The inserted DNA becomes part of the genome of the GMO and becomes active in the cells of the GMO.  If this GMO is consumed, then the inserted DNA enters the digestive tract along with any products that result from the activity of that DNA.  For example, if the inserted DNA produced a toxic substance then consumption of the GMO entails consumption of that toxin.  There are many food products available to consumers in the United States that contain GMO's. Among these are corn and soybeans. Presumably there are many American consumers who consume significant amounts of food containing GMOs since, aside from the direct consumption of corn and soybeans, these foods are used in producing many other food products.  The United States government regards these food products as safe for human consumption even though there were no experimental tests to determine that consumption of such foods caused no harm. [1]

There are good theoretical reasons to be concerned about the possibility of harm resulting from the consumption of GMOs.  Some of these arise from the nature of the DNA that is inserted; some of these arise from the instability of inserted DNA generally.  First let's talk about some questions that arise from the nature of the inserted DNA.  Along with the DNA that is inserted to produce a desired trait in a plant or other organism there is additional DNA that is used to show that the insertion has succeeded and further more DNA that is used to activate the DNA that produces the desired trait.  To show that the insertion of DNA into the organism was successful, DNA that produces antibiotic resistance is used.  To activate the desired DNA, some DNA from the cauliflower mosaic virus is widely used.  Possible harms that might result from consumption of inserted DNA include spread of antibiotic resistance to disease-causing intestinal organisms. In addition other foreign DNA,  not described by the producer, has been found in GMOs. [2] This creates additional uncertainty regarding possible harms that could result from consuming the GMOs in question.  Due to the instability of the inserted DNA there is also risk of harm to the organism from the cauliflower mosaic viral DNA.[3]   Indeed, in 2002 a histopathologist, Dr. Stanley Ewen, warned that the DNA from the cauliflower mosaic virus could contribute to the growth of malignant tumors.[4]   In the same year the Institute of Science in Society warned of such dangers from horizontal gene transfer[5].

There was a time when genetic researchers thought that consuming the DNA inserted into GMO's would not cause harm as the inserted DNA would be destroyed in the digestive tract.  However evidence has been available for several years that the inserted DNA is not fully digested.  As early as July 17, 2002, a report published in the Guardian in the United Kingdom asserted that research by British scientists, from Newcastle University, shows that transplanted DNA survived the digestive process and was able to enter bacteria resident in the human gut.[6]   Our digestion depends on the wide range of bacterial organisms that inhabit our digestive tracts.  We have evolved to live in commensal relationships with these microorganisms. The introduction of novel DNA could change those relationships in harmful ways. Were they modified by incorporation of novel DNA they could either fail to contribute to our digestive functioning or become toxic and produce injury or illness.  While this is a significant consideration for young healthy adults, it is a consideration that should be taken7 even more seriously for people whose digestive system is compromised by illness or injury.  The novel DNA produces proteins that may be toxic to humans, possibly causing problems only after prolonged exposures.  Large populations are being exposed and potential toxicities aren't being studied; nor is there long-term surveillance or even labeling.

On June 13, 2003, The Institute of Science in Society (a group of scientists not affiliated with the agricultural industry) published a report calling attention to scientific evidence suggesting danger from consumption of GMOs. The report notes that genes for Bt toxin and the toxin that it codes for are taken up into bacteria in the human gut. As we have observed there is risk that such bacteria may become pathogenic. [8] The dangers posed by the consumption of GMOs may be more than theoretical.

Furthermore, even though GMO's were approved for human consumption in the United States without experimental tests to determine whether such consumption was safe, there is growing evidence from observations of animals that consuming GMOs may indeed cause injury or disease.  While there has been subsequent research the most well known studies were performed by the distinguished food scientist Arpad Pusztai.   Pusztais research rats were fed GMOs and suffered modifications to many of their organ systems, e.g., liver, testicles, etc. More recently, in an April 2002 report of the British Broadcasting System it was asserted that research in which chickens fed genetically modified maize were compared with chickens fed on conventional maize.  Twice as many of the chickens fed genetically modified maize died.[9]

In an article from the French newspaper Le Monde, reported by GM Watch in April 2004, rats suffered harm to their organs.[10]  In an article in January 2004, the Institute of Science in Society noted reports of the death of cows fed genetically modified maize.  In a report published May 27, 2004, GM Watch reported that the liver cells of mice fed on GMO's were abnormal.[11]  That research was performed in Italy.  In a report in April 2004 the Institute of Science in Society published a report concerning the deaths of chickens that had been feed genetically modified maize.  Not only are there apparent dangers from the consumption of GMOs, there are reports of debilitating illnesses to farm workers who lived near fields containing a GM hybrid maize crop (reported in the April 28, 2004 report of the Institute of Science in Society.)  Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, has reported on much of the observational and experimental harms associated with the consumption of GMO's in that work and elsewhere.

We have discussed only some reasons for questioning the safety of consuming GMOs. While GMOs are consumed widely in the United States and Canada, to our knowledge there is no systematic effort to monitor the health of consumers to detect harms from such consumption.  The health of consumers may already be affected but, since nobody is investigating, it is virtually certain that such harm will go undetected for a very long time.











Document Number: 2858 
Sierra Club joins suit over genetically engineered alfalfa

Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy products), making it the country's third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop.  Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and it also greatly contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production.  Consumers also eat alfalfa as sprouts in salads and other foods.

 

It's a perennial (it sprouts more than once) and is pollinated by bees which can carry the pollen for many miles.  Seeds can also be disbursed by wind and by transportation of the crop.  Deregulation of this crop will thus mean that RoundUp Ready (herbicide resistant) alfalfa will spread throughout the country whether farmers want it or not.  In some places it will be a genetically engineered, RoundUp resistant weed. 

 

The lawsuit filed in federal court in the Northern District of California on February 15th calls on the court to rescind the deregulated status of Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa, calling USDA's decision to approve the crop arbitrary and capricious.  The lawsuit also challenges USDA for its inadequate environmental review of the crop and calls for a full environmental impact statement. 










Document Number: 6370 
Pharming

January 10, 2006 
The Honorable Mike Johanns 
Secretary of Agriculture 
U.S. Department of Agriculture 
1400 Independence Ave., S.W. 
Washington, DC 20250 

Dear Secretary Johanns: 
The U.S. Department of Agricultures Inspector General recently released an audit demonstrating that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued permits for, but had little to no knowledge of where, genetically engineered "pharm" crops were planted. ("Pharm" crops are genetically engineered crops made by splicing human, animal and other unrelated genes into plants in order to produce biopharmaceuticals or industrial compounds.) It also found that there was too little monitoring to ensure public health and safety.
The Inspector Generals audit recommends a number of controls that should be immediately instituted. The Sierra Club, the countrys largest grassroots conservation organization with more than 750,000 members, is dismayed that the regulatory agency continues to fail to ensure that common agricultural products are not contaminated by non-approved substances. As a result, USDA is not meeting its obligation to protect the public and farmers.
The solution is to create a better regulatory framework, something we and others have been asking for for many years. Among the elements of a new and more effective system would be:

No "pharm" in food crops. Food crops should not be genetically engineered to produce pharmaceuticals.
No outdoor field trials of pharm crops  experimental work should be done in secure, enclosed spaces.
Applications must include a plan for extreme weather conditions (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, etc.).
The full genetic sequence of the insert and any partial inserts or induced mutations, and the name of the biopharmaceutical chemicals must be included in the application, not shielded as confidential business information.
A test kit able to detect contamination must be made available to the Agency for free and to the public for a reasonable price.
The application process should be open to public scrutiny.
Test locations should be accurately specified including GPS latitude and longitude coordinates.
Companies and institutions should be required to have adequate insurance against liability caused by gene outflow into farms or wilderness.
No genetically engineered biopharm product should ever be categorized as GRAS.
There should be labeling and post-marketing surveillance of any genetically engineered products.
I urge you to establish an effective regulatory program to protect the public from genetically engineered pharm crops. Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Carl Pope 
Executive Director 
The Sierra Club






Document Number: 5750
Scarcity of safety tests


Soybeans were genetically engineered to make them herbicide resistant. Photo: Scott Bauer.

How can the public make informed decisions about genetically modified (GM) foods when there is so little information about its safety? The lack of data is due to a number of reasons, including:

Information is scarce about health hazards, such as toxicity in genetically modified (GM) crops.
Its more difficult to evaluate the safety of crop-derived foods than individual chemical, drug, or food additives. Crop foods are more complex and their composition varies according to differences in growth and agronomic conditions.

Publications on GM food toxicity are scarce. An article in Science magazine said it all: Health Risks of Genetically Modified Foods: Many Opinions but Few Data.1 In fact, no peer-reviewed publications of clinical studies on the human health effects of GM food exist. Even animal studies are few and far between.

The preferred approach of the industry has been to use compositional comparisons between GM and non-GM crops. When they are not significantly different the two are regarded as substantially equivalent, and therefore the GM food crop is regarded as safe as its conventional counterpart. This ensures that GM crops can be patented without animal testing. However, substantial equivalence is an unscientific concept that has never been properly defined and there are no legally binding rules on how to establish it.2

GM foods may cause bacteria to become resistant to antibiotics.They can also produce allergies.
When food-crops are genetically modified, (genetically modified food is a misnomer!) one or more genes are incorporated into the crops genome using a vector containing several other genes, including as a minimum, viral promoters, transcription terminators, antibiotic resistance marker genes and reporter genes. Data on the safety of these are scarce even though they can affect the safety of the GM crop. For example:

DNA does not always fully break down in the alimentary tract.3,4 Gut bacteria can take up genes and GM plasmids5 and this opens up the possibility of the spread of antibiotic resistance.
Insertion of genes into the genome can also result in unintended effects, which need to be reduced/eliminated by selection, since some of the ways the inserted genes express themselves in the host or the way they affect the functioning of the crops own genes are unpredictable. This may lead to the development of unknown toxic/allergenic components, which we cannot analyze for and seriously limiting the selection criteria.
Current testing methods need radical improvements.
Currently, toxicity in food is tested by chemical analysis of macro/micro nutrients and known toxins. To rely solely on this method is at best inadequate and, at worst, dangerous. Better diagnostic methods are needed, such as mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics and secondary metabolite profiling.6 However, consuming even minor constituents with high biological activity may have major effects on the gut and bodys metabolism, which can only be revealed from animal studies. Thus novel toxicological/nutritional methods are urgently needed to screen for harmful consequences on human/animal health and to pinpoint these before allowing a GM crop into the food chain.7

Safety tests on commercial GM crops

GM tomatoes: The first and only safety evaluation of a GM crop, the FLAVR SAVRTM tomato, was commissioned by Calgene, as required by the FDA. This GM tomato was produced by inserting kanr genes into a tomato by an antisense GM method. The test has not been peer-reviewed or published but is on the internet.8 The results claim there were no significant alterations in total protein, vitamins and mineral contents and in toxic glycoalkaloids.9 Therefore, the GM and parent tomatoes were deemed to be substantially equivalent.

In acute toxicity studies with male/female rats, which were tube-fed homogenized GM tomatoes, toxic effects were claimed to be absent. In addition, it was concluded that mean body and organ weights, weight gains, food consumption and clinical chemistry or blood parameters were not significantly different between GM-fed and control groups. However:

Some rats died within a few weeks after eating GM tomatoes.
The unacceptably wide range of rat starting weights (18% to 23%) invalidated these findings.
No histology on the intestines was done even though stomach sections showed mild/moderate erosive/necrotic lesions in up to seven out of twenty female rats but none in the controls. However, these were considered to be of no importance, although in humans they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.
Seven out of forty rats on GM tomatoes died within two weeks for unstated reasons.
These studies were poorly designed and therefore the conclusion that FLAVR SAVRTM tomatoes were safe does not rest on good science, questioning the validity of the FDAs decision that no toxicological testing of other GM foods will in future be required.
GM maize: Two lines of Chardon LL herbicide-resistant GM maize expressing the gene of Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase Enzyme (PAT-PROTEIN) before and after ensiling showed significant differences in fat and carbohydrate contents compared with non-GM maize and were therefore substantially different. Toxicity tests were only performed with the PAT-PROTEIN even though with this the unpredictable effects of the gene transfer or the vector or gene insertion could not be demonstrated or excluded. The design of these experiments was also flawed because:

Rats ability to digest was decreased after eating GM corn.
The starting weight of the rats varied by more than 20% and individual feed intakes were not monitored.
Feed conversion efficiency on PAT-PROTEIN was significantly reduced.
Urine output increased and several clinical parameters were also different.
The weight and histology of the digestive tract (and pancreas) was not measured.
Thus, GM maize expressing PAT-PROTEIN may present unacceptable health risks.

Compositional studies

Allergen content increased when soybeans were genetically modified.
GM soybeans: To make soybeans herbicide resistant, the gene of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase from Agrobacterium was used. Safety tests claim the GM variety to be substantially equivalent to conventional soybeans.10 The same was claimed for GTS (glyphosate-resistant soybeans) sprayed with this herbicide.11 However, several significant differences between the GM and control lines were recorded10 and the statistical method used was flawed because:

Instead of comparing the amounts of components in a large number of samples of each individual GTS with its appropriate parent line grown side-by-side and harvested at the same time, the authors compared samples from different locations and harvest times.
There were also differences in the contents of natural isoflavones (genistein, etc.) with potential importance for health.12
Additionally, the trypsin inhibitor (a major allergen) content was significantly increased in GTS.10
Because of this, and the large variability ( 10% or more), the lines could not be regarded as substantially equivalent.

GM potatoes: There is only one peer-reviewed publication on GM potatoes that express the soybean glycinin gene.13 However, the expression level was very low and no improvements in the protein content or amino acid profile were obtained.

GM rice: The kind that expresses soybean glycinin gene (40-50 mg glycinin/g protein) has been developed14 and is claimed to contain 20% more protein. However, the increased protein content was probably due to a decrease in moisture rather than true increase in protein putting a question mark over the significance of this GM crop.

The toxin level of GM cotton is unpredictable.
GM cotton: Several lines of GM cotton plants have been developed using a gene from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki providing increased protection against major lepidopteran pests. The lines were claimed to be substantially equivalent to parent lines15 in levels of macronutrients and gossypol, cyclopropenoid fatty acids and aflatoxin levels were less than those in conventional seeds. However, because of the use of inappropriate statistics it is questionable whether the GM and non-GM lines were truly equivalent, particularly as environmental stresses could have unpredictable effects on antinutrient/toxin levels.16

Nutritional/toxicological studies

Herbicide-resistant soybean: Studies have been conducted on the feeding value17 and possible toxicity18 for rats, broiler chickens, catfish and dairy cows of two GM lines of glyphosate-resistant soybean (GTS). The growth, feed conversion efficiency, catfish fillet composition, broiler breast muscle and fat pad weights and milk production, rumen fermentation and digestibilities in cows were claimed to be similar for GTS and non-GTS. However:

These experiments were poorly designed since the high dietary protein concentration and the low inclusion level of GTS could have masked any GM effect.

No individual feed intakes, body or organ weights were given and no histology was performed, except some qualitative microscopy on the pancreas.

The feeding value of the two GTS lines was not substantially equivalent either because the rats grew significantly better on one of the GTS lines than on the other.

The experiment with broiler chicken was a commercial and not a scientific study.

The catfish experiment showed again that the feeding value of one of the GTS lines was superior to the other.

Milk production and performance of lactating cows also showed significant differences between cows fed GM and non-GM feeds.

Moreover, testing of the safety of 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase which renders soybeans glyphosate-resistant18 was irrelevant because in the gavage studies an E. coli recombinant and not the GTS product was used. Their effects could be different as the differences in post-translational modification could have impaired their stability to gut proteolysis.

Thus, the claim that the feeding value of GTS and non-GTS lines was substantially equivalent is at best premature.

Rats had meager weight gain when fed GM soybeans.
In a separate study19 it was claimed that rats and mice which were fed 30% toasted GTS or non-GTS in their diet had no significant differences in nutritional performance, organ weights, histopathology and production of IgE and IgG antibodies. However, under the unphysiological  basically, starvation  conditions of these experiments when, instead of the normal daily growth of 5-8 g per day, the rats grew less than 0.3 g and mice not at all, no valid conclusions could be drawn.

GM corn: One broiler chicken feeding study with rations containing transgenic Event 176 derived Bt corn (Novartis) has been published.20 However, the results of this trial are more relevant to commercial than academic scientific studies.

GM peas: The nutritional value of diets containing GM peas expressing bean alpha-amylase inhibitor when fed to rats for 10 days at two different (30% or 65%) dietary inclusions, was shown to be similar to that of parent-line peas.21

GM peas seem to have no harmful effects on animals but that doesnt mean they are safe for humans.
Even at 65% level the difference was small mainly because the alpha-amylase inhibitor expressed in the peas was quickly digested in the rat gut and its antinutritive effect abolished. Unfortunately no gut histology was done or lymphocyte responsiveness measured.
Although some organ weights, mainly the caecum and pancreas were different, those of others were remarkably similar suggesting that GM peas may be used in the diets of farm animals at low/moderate levels if their progress was carefully monitored.
However, to establish its safety for humans a more rigorous specific risk assessment will have to be carried out with several GM lines. This should include:

An initial nutritional/toxicological testing on laboratory animals
If no harmful effects are then detected, it should be followed by clinical, double-blind, placebo-type tests with human volunteers, keeping in mind that any possible harmful effects would be particularly serious with the young, old, and disabled.
A protocol for such testing was given at the OECD conference in Edinburgh, February 2000 and subsequently published.22

GM potatoes: In a short feeding study to establish the safety of GM potatoes expressing the soybean glycinin gene, rats were daily force-fed with 2 g of GM or control potatoes/kg body weight.23 Although no differences in growth, feed intake, blood cell count and composition and organ weights between the groups was found, the potato intake of the animals was too low and unclear, whether the potatoes were raw or boiled.

Toxins were found in mice after eating GM potatoes.
Feeding mice with potatoes transformed with a Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki Cry1 toxin gene or the toxin itself was shown24 to have caused villus epithelial cell hypertrophy and multinucleation, disrupted microvilli, mitochondrial degeneration, increased numbers of lysosomes and autophagic vacuoles and activation of crypt Paneth cells. The results showed that despite claims to the contrary, CryI toxin was stable in the mouse gut and therefore GM crops expressing it need to be subjected to thorough teststo avoid the risks before marketing.24

When the health risks of GM potatoes were revealed in some studies, a debate ensued.
In another study, young, growing rats were pair-fed on iso-proteinic and iso-caloric balanced diets containing raw or boiled non-GM potatoes and GM potatoes with the snowdrop (Galanthus nivalis) bulb lectin (GNA) gene.25 The results showed that the mucosal thickness of the stomach and the crypt length of the intestines of rats fed GM potatoes was significantly increased. Most of these effects were due to the insertion of the construct and not to GNA which had been been pre-selected as a non-mitotic lectin unable to induce hyperplastic intestinal growth26 and epithelial T lymphocyte infiltration. Although there is controversy about the tests, most of the adverse comments on this Lancet paper were personal, non-peer reviewed opinions and, as such, of limited scientific value. The findings, on the other hand, were published in a peer-reviewed publication25 and the criticism replied to.7 The work, however, has not been repeated nor results contradicted and it is therefore imperative that the effects on the gut structure and metabolism of all other GM crops developed using similar techniques and genetic vectors should be thoroughly investigated before their release into the food chain.

GM tomatoes: This study with a GM tomato expressing B. thuringiensis toxin CRYIA(b) gene was published in a book and not in a peer-reviewed journal. However, its importance was underlined by the immunocytochemical demonstration of in vitro binding of Bt toxin to the caecum/colon from humans and rhesus monkeys.27 Although in vivo the Bt toxin was not bound by the rat gut, this was possibly due to the authors use of recombinant Bt toxin.

Allergenicity studies

One of the major health concerns with GM food is its potential to increase allergies and anaphylaxis in humans eating unlabeled GM foodstuffs.

Allergies are a major concern with GM food, especially if ingredients are not labeled in packaged food.
When the gene is from a crop of known allergenicity, it is easy to establish whether the GM food is allergenic usingin vitrotests, such as RAST or immunoblotting, with sera from individuals sensitised to the original crop. This was demonstrated in GM soybeans expressing the brasil nut 2 S protein28 or in GM potatoes expressing cod protein genes.29
It is also relatively easy to assess whether genetic engineering affected the potency of endogenous allergens.30 Some farm workers exposed to B. thuringiensis pesticide were shown to have developed skin sensitization and IgE antibodies to the Bt spore extract. With their sera it may now therefore be possible to test for the allergenic potential of GM crops expressing Bt toxin.31 It is all the more important because Bt toxin Cry1Ac has recently been shown to be a potent oral/nasal antigen and adjuvant.32
There are no reliable ways to test GM foods for allergies.
Assessment of the allergenicity of a GM foodcrop, however, is difficult when the gene is transferred from a source not eaten before or with unknown allergenicity or on gene transfer/insertion a new allergen or adjuvant is developed or the expression of a minor allergen is increased. Unfortunately, while there are good animal models for nutritional/toxicological testing, no such models exist for allergenicity testing.

Presently only indirect and rather scientifically unsound methods, such as finding SHORT sequence homologies (at least 8 contiguous amino acids) to any of the about 200 known allergens, are used for the assessment of allergenicity.

The decision-tree type of indirect approach based on factors (such as size and stability) of the transgenically expressed protein33 is even more unsound, particularly as its stability to gut proteolysis is assessed by an in vitro (simulated) testing34 instead ofin vivo(human/animal) testing and this is fundamentally wrong. The concept that most allergens are abundant proteins is also misleading because for example Gad c 1, the major allergen in codfish, is not a predominant protein.29

However, when the gene responsible for the allergenicity is known, such as the gene of the alpha-amylase/trypsin inhibitors/allergens in rice, cloning and sequencing opens the way for reducing their level by antisense RNA strategy.35

Thus, in the absence of reliable methods for allergenicity testing, it is at present impossible to definitely establish whether a new GM crop is allergenic or not before its release into the human/animal food/feed chain.

In conclusion

We need more and better testing methods before making GM foods available for human consumption.
One has to agree with the piece in Science1 that there are many opinions but scarce data on the potential health risks of GM food crops, even though these should have been tested for and eliminated before their introduction. Our present data base is woefully inadequate. Moreover, the scientific quality of what has been published is, in most instances not up to expected standards. If, as claimed, our future is dependent on the success of the promise of genetic modification delivering wholesome, plentiful, more nutritious and safe GM foods, the inescapable conclusion of this review is that the present crude method of genetic modification has so far not delivered these benefits and the promise of a superior second generation is still in the future. Although it is argued by some that small differences between GM and non-GM crops have little biological meaning, it is clear that most GM and parental line crops fall short of the definition of substantial equivalence. In any case, this crude, poorly defined and unscientific concept outlived its possible previous usefulness and we need novel methods and concepts to probe into the compositional, nutritional/toxicological and metabolic differences between GM and conventional crops and into the safety of the genetic techniques used in developing GM crops if we want to put this technology on a proper scientific foundation and allay the fears of the general public. We need more science, not less.6,7

 2001, American Institute of Biological Sciences. Educators have permission to reprint articles for classroom use; other users, please contact editor@actionbioscience.org for reprint permission. See reprint policy.

Arpad Pusztai, Ph.D., received his degree in Chemistry in Budapest, Hungary and his B.Sc. in Physiology and Ph.D. in Biochemistry at the University of London in England. Over his nearly 50-year career, he worked at universities and research institutes in Budapest; London; Chicago, U.S.; and Aberdeen, Scotland (Rowett Research Institute). He has published close to 300 primary peer-reviewed papers and wrote or edited 12 scientific books. In the last 30 years he pioneered research into the effects of dietary lectins (carbohydrate-reactive proteins), including those transgenically expressed in GM crop plants, on the gastrointestinal tract. Since his contract was not renewed with Rowett as a result of disagreements, Dr. Pusztai has been lecturing on his GM potato research all over the world and acting as a consultant to groups starting up research into the health effects of GM food. 




Document Number: 851

U.S. Congress Turns Up The Heat On Genetically Engineered Salmon
WASHINGTON, D.C.  July 18, 2011 

23 Members of Congress say GE fish would not be in the public interest

NEWLY PUBLISHED STUDIES HIGHLIGHT ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS OF ESCAPED GE FISH

Members of Congress turned up the heat on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) last Friday, sending strongly worded, bipartisan letters calling on the agency to halt approval of a controversial genetically engineered (GE) salmon under review.

Members of Congress have once again raised the stakes in the GE salmon debate, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. FDA simply cannot continue to ignore the growing calls to stop this misguided approval.

The two letters were sponsored by Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) and Rep. Don Young (R-AK) and joined by 21 members of the House and Senate. The letters remind FDA of an ever-growing Congressional opposition to the fish and call on the agency to shift priorities in light of the Young-Woolsey amendment that was included in the house-passed Agriculture Appropriations Act of 2012 that would bar the FDA from using funds in the 2012 fiscal year to approve GE salmon.

More than 90 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with fishing groups and associations and food companies and businesses have celebrated the passage of the Young-Woolsey amendment, which is currently awaiting debate in the Senate.

In September 2010, more than 40 members of Congress sent letters
requesting FDA halt the approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon, the first GE animal intended for human consumption. The mounting Congressional opposition not only cites major environmental, health and economic concerns with the GE salmon in question but with the FDA approval process.

The FDA currently approves GE animals through its new animal drug law, yet critics fault the process as failing to require adequate safety assessments and lacking transparency and public engagement. The decision to regulate GE animals as animal drugs was announced by FDA in 2009 in the form of a Guidance to Industry, a non-binding form of regulation.

The House letter ends by saying, Given the strong and ever-growing Congressional opposition to the approval of GE salmon in both chambers, we conclude that spending more time and additional taxpayer money on reviewing GE fish would not be in the public interest.

Also released last week were two pivotal new studies highlighting the serious risks that escaped GE fish can pose for wild salmon. One study conducted by Canadian researchers found that transgenic Atlantic salmon can pass their genes on to wild salmon if they escape into the wild. Echoing the concerns raised by members of Congress and the public over the past year, lead author Darek Moreau from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada said, little is known about the potential impact on wild salmon populations if the GM species were to escape captivity.






Document Number: 3791
U.S. House Of Representatives Passes Amendment To Prohibit Genetically Engineered Salmon Approval
June 16, 2011 

Sixty-Seven Organizations and Businesses Endorse Amendment; CFS Calls upon FDA to Reject Approval of GE Salmon

The Center for Food Safety (CFS) applauds the U.S. House of Representatives for its decision yesterday to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from approving genetically engineered (GE) salmon.

We thank members of the House for stepping in to correct FDAs misguided decision to go ahead with this approval process which fails to take into account a plethora of economic, human health, environmental and animal welfare concerns, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. Any decision to approve GE salmon would be a continuation of the Obama Administrations illogical biotech bailout at the expense of American jobs and our fishing economy.

During full floor debate of the Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture and FDA appropriations bill, members of the House passed an amendment offered by Reps. Don Young (R-AK) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) to prohibit the use of FDA funds to approve any application for approval of genetically engineered salmon. The full appropriations bill entitled The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (H.R. 2112) passed today by a 217-203 vote.

The FDA currently approves GE animals through its new animal drug law, yet critics fault the process as failing to require adequate safety assessments and lacking transparency and public engagement. The decision to regulate GE animals as animal drugs was announced by FDA in 2009 in the form of a Guidance to Industry, a non-binding form of regulation. We need a robust regulatory system that assesses the full suite of economic, human health, environmental and animal welfare risks posed GE animals and allows for full and open public participation, added Colin ONeil, Regulatory Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety.

In September 2010, more than 40 members of Congress sent letters requesting FDA halt the approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon, the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.

The FDAs hastily completed approval process puts American consumers and the environment at risk. GE salmon could be devastating to fishing and coastal communities, our food source, and already depleted wild salmon populations. The FDA should put the interests and safety of American families and our ocean resources above special interests, Rep. DeFazio said in September.

In February, Senator Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Representative Don Young (R-Alaska) introduced complimentary legislation that would ban genetically engineered (GE) fish and require mandatory labeling if approved. The two pieces of legislation were endorsed by 67 consumer, worker, religious and environmental groups, along with commercial, recreational and subsistence fisheries associations, and food businesses and retailers. Those groups include the Center for Food Safety, Ocean Conservancy, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development, the Alaska Trollers Association, Food and Water Watch, the National Cooperative Grocers Association, Trout Unlimited and the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations among others.

Last fall more than 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBountys GE salmon. Additionally nearly 400,000 public comments were sent to FDA from citizens demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.






Document Number: 1256

FDA temporarily suspends use of some arsenic in animal feeds
WASHINGTON, D.C.  June 8, 2011 

Center for Food Safety and Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy urge continued action to remove all arsenic from animal feeds permanently  

The federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) today announced that Alpharma, a division of the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, has agreed to stop selling (for now) its arsenic-containing product, 3-Nitro, for use in chicken, turkeys and swine. In 1944, 3-Nitro became the first arsenic-containing product approved by the FDA for use in food animals.

When combined with antibiotics and other drugs, 3-Nitro is widely used by poultry producers to help control a parasitic disease in animals, but also has been used to induce greater weight gain and to create the appearance of a healthier color in meat. IATP estimated in its 2005 report, Playing Chicken: Avoiding Arsenic in Your Meat, that more than 70 percent of all U.S. chickens raised for meat are fed arsenic. Neither European poultry producers nor organic producers use 3-Nitro.

The sales suspension follows new FDA findings that use of 3-Nitro, which contains the organic arsenic roxarsone, also increases cancer-causing inorganic arsenic in chicken liver. The FDA did not test chicken muscle, the meat that most people eat.

The FDA stressed that it did not think the increased arsenic in chicken posed a human health threat. Inorganic arsenic, however, is known to cause multiple cancers in humans, and the science suggests that any additional exposure in food or elsewhere will increase the risk across the population of developing those cancers.

The use of arsenic in meat production is unnecessary, and, from a public health perspective, reckless, says Dr. David Wallinga, a physician and author of the IATP report. Given what we know about this age-old poison, our exposure to all arsenic should be reducedespecially in food.

Pfizer markets 3-Nitro by itself as a feed additive. However, the suspension also affects another 70 or so other products containing 3-Nitro in combination with other antibiotics and other ingredients, also marketed to poultry producers. In effect, the Pfizer move to voluntarily take its product off the market means that after 30 days, none of these 70 products will be on the market. However, Pfizer is not giving up the NADA or FDA-approvalit could resume manufacture and sale of its product at a later point in time.

We applaud Pfizers voluntary step, says Paige Tomaselli, staff attorney with the Center for Food Safety, but we urge the FDA to now move forward on banning all arsenic-containing additives in animal feed. These include Pfizers own feed additives containing nitarsone, another arsenic compound as well as those containing arsanilic acid and carbarsone. Clearly, producers can do without them, and they pose a very real threat to public health.

As IATP and the Center for Food Safety asserted in a 2009 petition to the FDA calling for a roxarsone ban, there is abundant science both that organic arsenics are directly toxic, but also that they convert into the more worrisome inorganic forms of arsenic in chickens, in chicken meat, and in humans. The 2009 petition is also supported by Food Animal Concerns Trust, Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility, San Francisco Physicians for Social Responsibility, Food and Water Watch, Center for Biological Diversity, National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Center for Environmental Health, Institute for a Sustainable Future, Health Care Without Harm and Ecology Center of Michigan.

On April 12, 2011, Rep. Steven Israel introduced H.R.1487, the Poison-Free Poultry Act of 2011, which would ban all uses of roxarsone as a food additive.





Document Number: 5124
Family Farmers Amplify Complaint Against Monsantos GMOs, Reinforcing Their Arguments With Two Dozen Additional Plaintiffs
NEW YORK, NY  June 1, 2011 

Monsantos Failure to Provide Binding Legal Covenant To Protect Family Farmers Threatened by GMO Contamination Necessitates Amended Complaint

New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) in its suit on behalf of family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizationsincluding the Center for Food Safetychallenging Monsantos patents on genetically modified seed. Twenty-three new plaintiffs have joined with the original 60 in the amended complaint, bringing the total number represented in the case to 83. The plaintiffs in the suit, titled Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA), et al. v. Monsanto and pending in the Southern District of New York, now include 36 family farmer, food, agricultural research, food safety, and environmental organizations representing hundreds of thousands of members including several thousand certified organic, biodynamic, or otherwise non-transgenic family farmers.

Our clients dont want a fight with Monsanto, they just want to be protected from the threat they will be contaminated by Monsantos genetically modified seed and then be accused of patent infringement, said PUBPAT Executive Director Daniel B. Ravicher. We asked Monsanto to give our clients reassurance they wouldnt do such a thing, and in response they chose instead to reiterate the same implicit threat to organic agriculture made in the past.

Soon after the March filing of the lawsuit, Monsanto issued a statement saying they would not assert their patents against farmers who suffer trace amounts of transgenic contamination. In response, and in the hope the matter could be resolved out of court, PUBPAT attorneys wrote Monsantos attorneys asking the company to make its promise legally binding. Monsanto responded to PUBPATs request by hiring former solicitor general, Seth P. Waxman, a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of WilmerHale, who rejected PUBPATs request and instead confirmed Monsanto may indeed make claims of patent infringement against organic farmers who become contaminated by Monsantos genetically modified seed. Copies of both letters are available as exhibits at the end of the amended complaint [link].

Monsantos letter was an empty, indefensible, and self-evident evasion showing they are only interested in spinning propaganda without taking serious steps to resolve the problem created for organic and non-transgenic agriculture, said one of the co-plaintiffs in the suit, Don Patterson of Virginia. With the Monsanto letter signed by Waxman, the company rolled out their biggest legal cannon, but they fired off only fluffy wadding and smoke, as he views it. The letter shows Monsanto wanting to protect their freedom to threaten farmers with patent infringement suits, he states; Both the threats and the lawsuits are clearly important to their marketing strategy and business model.

Despite their empty propaganda to the contrary, they plainly do not want to give up these tactics, Patterson asserts. Monsanto has collected multiple millions of dollars in settlements often from family farmers without the resources to defend themselves, he reports; Too many have had to settle because they could not afford to fight.

The serious issues being engaged in this case require a constructive and socially-acceptable response from the defendant in the public interest, adds Maine farmer Jim Gerritsen, President of OSGATA, the lead plaintiff in the suit. In the absence of that, we reassert the essential importance of the arguments stated in March and reinforced now by the additional evidence of the Monsanto intransigence. Monsantos utter failure to act reasonably to address our concerns has only reaffirmed the need for our lawsuit.

We dont think we are asking too much to want assurance that if Monsantos transgenic genes contaminate our crops we will not be sued by Monsanto, adds Iowa organic dairy farmer Francis Thicke, owner of plaintiff Radiance Dairy; It is bad enough that we face the threat of contamination of our organic and non-transgenic crops.  The least Monsanto can do is give us assurance that they wont sue us for their own genetic trespass.

The amended Complaint elaborates a fear tangibly vexing many family farmers: Monsanto continued in the statement to perversely characterize this suit as an attack, when Plaintiffs seek no money from and no injunction against them.  All Plaintiffs seek is peace of mind if they are ever contaminated by Monsantos transgenic seed, the company could never sue them for patent infringement. This is not an attack by the Plaintiffs and to characterize it that way only further evidences Monsantos aggressive and threatening attitude with respect to its patents. Thus, the statement made by Monsanto in response to this suit has only served to heighten Plaintiffs fear that Monsanto will seek to enforce its patents against them should they ever be contaminated by Monsantos transgenic seed.

It is outrageous that our entire farm, family business, and livelihood could be at risk because of Monsantos backward and oppressive response and enforcement towards farmers in regards to transgenic pollen drift, unasked for and unwantedand the subsequent results in fields and farms, says Ruth Chantry of Common Good Farm in Nebraska; Any transgenic pollen drift that would ever come onto our farm is of great detriment to us, and as such, it is an invasion upon and a contamination of our crops, the multi-species habitat we are assisting and creating hereand to the integrity of how we are farming organically and Biodynamically.

The request for court protection through a declaratory judgment is a primary objective of the case. The suit also argues the invalidity of Monsantos transgenic Roundup Ready patents under both statute and case law precedent requiring patented products to demonstrate clear social utility and not be dangerous to health. Four basic contentions, ranging from the patent invalidity, through the establishment of proper requirements for a finding of patent infringement to patent unenforceability and Monsantos lack of entitlement to collect damages were asserted in the original complaint filed March 29, 2011. Court relief is being sought to protect organic farmers and other growers of non-transgenic crops from liability should unwanted transgenic contamination occur in their fields. The response to the PubPat letter of April 18 was received on April 28 from the Monsanto attorneys. When no binding legal covenant was provided, Ravicher states, the filing of the amended complaint was required to make the defendants position fully clear. The reply from Monsanto is insufficient and unsatisfactory to protect the interests of my clients, said Ravicher.

The biotech impact on the quality, safety, and nutritional integrity of food will be brought up for public and courtroom scrutiny, so that the truth can be determined between their arguments and ours, states Ravicher; If Monsanto is proud of what they do, they should be happy for the opportunity to present the evidence in support of their ideal. To help stimulate and promote objective debate between the differing agricultural philosophies, the new group of plaintiffs has joined the case as part of todays filing. Included among these are groups long committed to food safety and environmental responsibility in the public interest. Some of the new plaintiffs have been prominent in other legal actions and advocacy against Monsantos efforts to aggressively and monopolistically assert its chemically and transgenically-dependent agricultural system.

Marty Mesh, Executive Director of Florida Organic Growers, states, We join this suit with sadness but feel compelled to seek justice. If Organic farmers, seed growers, and companies have no assurance that technology they have never asked for, never signed a licensing agreement to use, have no desire to be a part of, and in fact, go to great lengths to avoid, can still trespass on their farms and subject them to a lawsuit by the patent holder who seemingly escapes all  liability for that trespass,  then it is not only morally wrong, ethically  unjust, but also legally perverse.

In addition to supplementing the complaint with Monsantos most recent clarifying statement confirming its threat to the plaintiffs and GMO-free agriculture, the new group of 23 organizations, seed companies, farms and individual farmers includes fourteen organizations: Weston A. Price Foundation, Center for Food Safety, Beyond Pesticides, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Rhode Island, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New Hampshire, Northeast Organic Farming Association of Connecticut, Northeast Organic Farming Association of New York, Western Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Manitoba Organic Alliance, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (Wisconsin), Midwest Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Florida Organic Growers, Peace River Organic Producers Association (Alberta and British Columbia) and Union Paysanne (Quebec); two seed companies: Seed We Need (Montana), Wild Garden Seed (Oregon); and seven farms or individual farmers: Common Good Farm, LLC (Nebraska), American Buffalo Company (Nebraska), Full Moon Farm, Inc. (Vermont), Radiance Dairy (Iowa), Brian L. Wickert (Wisconsin), Bruce Drinkman (Wisconsin), and Murray Bast (Ontario).

These plaintiffs join the 60 plaintiffs from the original filing of the lawsuit in March including twenty-two organizations: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc. (OCIA); OCIA Research and Education, Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network (California); Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems (Montana); Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders, Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; twelve seed companies: FEDCO Seeds, Inc. (Maine); Adaptive Seeds, LLC (Oregon); Sow True Seed (North Carolina); Southern Exposure Seed Exchange (Virginia); Mumms Sprouting Seeds (Saskatchewan); Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC (Missouri); Comstock, Ferre & Co. LLC (Connecticut); Seedkeepers, LLC (California); Siskiyou Seeds (Oregon); Countryside Organics (Virginia); Cuatro Puertas (New Mexico); Interlake Forage Seeds, Ltd. (Manitoba); and, twenty-six farms and farmers: Alba Ranch (Kansas); Wild Plum Farm (Montana); Gratitude Gardens (Washington); Richard Everett Farm, LLC (Nebraska); Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc. (Wisconsin); Genesis Farm (New Jersey); Chispas Farms, LLC (New Mexico); Kirschenmann Family Farms, Inc. (North Dakota); Midheaven Farms (Minnesota); Koskan Farms (South Dakota); California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm (North Dakota); Taylor Farms, Inc. (Utah); Jardin del Alma (New Mexico); Ron Gargasz Organic Farms (Pennsylvania); Abundant Acres (Missouri); T & D Willey Farms (California); Quinella Ranch (Saskatchewan); Natures Way Farm, Ltd. (Alberta); Levke and Peter Eggers Farm (Alberta); Frey Vineyards, Ltd. (California); Bryce Stephens (Kansas); Chuck Noble (South Dakota); LaRhea Pepper (Texas); Paul Romero (New Mexico); and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr. (Virginia).

In the face of the established historical record of over 100 lawsuits brought against farmers, the amended PUBPAT complaint asserts, Monsanto implicitly acknowledges that its transgenic seeds can contaminate the property of non-transgenic farmers, but in its asserted commitment to not sue farmers over inadvertent, and trace amounts of contamination, the company fails to define either term. Therefore, the Complaint argues, the clear implication is that Monsanto indeed intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and non-transgenic farmers who come to possess more than trace amounts of Monsantos transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault.

When Monsanto sued family farmer Percy Schmeiser in Canada over contamination caused by transgenic seed blown off a passing neighbors truck, it cost him a half million dollars to fight them, and he had to mortgage his farm to raise the money, Patterson recalls. In the process, he lost control over 50 years of his own traditional, non-transgenic seed development work, according to Patterson and published reports telling the Schmeiser story. Monsanto reportedly spent $4 million on their case against Schmeiser, Patterson says. Percy Schmeiser told him Monsanto had 19 lawyers at one point in the courtroom up against his own single lawyer. In the school yard and in the NFL, that is called piling on, he concludes.

The issues raised in the lawsuit are critical, not just to organic farmers and others who do not want to grow genetically-modified (transgenic) crops, Gerritsen says, but also to the safety of food and everyone who eatsand that includes everyone concerned about environmental protection and public health. As Gerritsen sees the lawsuit, This is not just a minor dispute between a few family farmers and a powerful corporation accustomed to getting its own way; it is a debate over who offers the best and most responsible way to feed the people of the world over the decades and centuries ahead. Monsanto offers an expedient short-cut with enormous long-term risks and consequences for public health and environmental degradation, he says; This, we intend to prove in court.

We believe Monsanto has anti-competitively and improperly abused their rights under patent law and have used their patents to gain monopoly dominance over major sectors of the seed industry, said lawyer Ravicher; They have gained control over as much as 90% of the U.S. corn and soybean seed market. Independent research on the safety of transgenic food has not been permitted because Monsanto has used its patent control to prevent that, Ravicher adds, though he notes some information has begun to emerge despite the tight control exercised. Often the most illuminating research findings have come from other nations or from U.S. researchers who have retired from positions where they were formerly under contractual constraint imposed by Monsanto and other biotech companies, Ravicher reports. The operation of the patent system against the public interest will be an important issue to be examined as part of this case, Ravicher affirms; In arguing the invalidity of Monsantos Roundup Ready patents, we will show how the Patent and Trademark Office has too readily and even profligately served the interest of politically-influential corporations at the expense of the public.

The USDA, the White House, and the Congress have evaded responsibility to protect the public from the potential and unstudied dangers of transgenic food, not even requiring careful, long-term, independent testing nor the clear GMO labeling long-demanded by the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens, states Bryce Stephens, a Kansas wheat farmer, who is OSGATAs vice-president. President Obama said he wanted to see mandatory GMO labeling during his 2008 presidential campaign, but he has not provided it, Stephens reminds us. We need someone to act in the publics defense if our officials will not, he says, and that is part of the motivation for Stephenss decision to join the case as an individual plaintiff alongside his participation in plaintiff organizations.

Stephens is also a spokesman for the second leading plaintiff in the case, the Organic Crop Improvement Association-International (OCIA). He points out, Long-term, fully objective, independent, multi-generational studies about the safety of transgenic food are scarce world-wide and virtually non-existent in the United States; studies have not been done in the U.S. to replicate, verify, or rebut the findings of studies undertaken in other nations.

When GMO crops were first given the green light to enter the market in 1992 by the Bush-Quayle administration, they were declared Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) based almost entirely on internal industry studies and industry-sponsored research done under controlling company contract, Stephens states. Given the serious potential long-term dangers and only minimally and briefly-studied risks, this was reprehensibly irresponsible, and the government has not shown any more prudence over the years since 1992, Stephens charges. With the long-term health consequences of GMO food yet to be understood and in the absence of objective studies, we have all been involuntarily co-opted into a giant biotech industry experiment, he concludes; Our citizens and the people of the world deserve better than that.






Document Number: 2746
Environmental Groups Petition Federal Government to Complete Full and Transparent Review of Environmental Impacts Associated with Frankenfish
May 26, 2011 

FDA poised to take action on the first-ever application to market a genetically engineered salmon without adequate consideration of environmental risks and public input

Earthjustice, on behalf of Ocean Conservancy, Friends of the Earth, Center for Food Safety, Food & Water Watch, the Center for International Environmental Law, and Greenpeace, submitted a citizen petition yesterday to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) urging the Agency to withhold final action on an application to market the first ever genetically engineered (GE) salmon intended for human consumption in the U. S. The petition requests that FDA complete a comprehensive environmental impact statement on the risks GE fish could present to the natural marine environment before making a final decision.

After a decade of behind-the-scenes work with the GE fish sponsor, AquaBounty Technologies, FDA announced last fall that it intended to approve AquaBountys application. In response, the public sent over 400,000 comments to the FDA opposing the Frankenfish and demanding mandatory labeling of any GE fish approved for sale to US consumers. FDA has not yet taken final action on the AquaBounty application.

According to the petition, the application material released to the public raises serious concerns regarding potential destruction of wild salmon populations that require FDA to prepare an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The petitioners argue that the environmental assessment AquaBounty previously submitted to FDA, and FDAs evaluation of that assessment, fails to provide necessary assurances that AquaBountys AquAdvantage Salmon, which are supposedly engineered to grow twice as fast as wild Atlantic Salmon, will not endanger natural fish populations by outcompeting non-GE fish.

As far as we and the public can tell, FDA has not comprehensively assessed the full range of environmental risks inherent in the production and distribution of genetically engineered fish, explained George Leonard, Ocean Conservancys aquaculture program director. Instead, FDA is relying on the companys own scientific analysis that no fish will escape, survive, or reproduce in the wildeven though that type of security cannot be guaranteed. 

The groups concerns are heightened by the fact that FDA has thus far refused to consider AquaBountys publicly stated intent to expand production and commercialization of AquAdvantage Salmon throughout the U. S. and abroad.

FDA wants to consider this application in a bubble to avoid doing a more comprehensive environmental review, but if it follows the law, it simply cannot avoid the fact that this is just the first step in a broader plan to produce these GE fish and others like them around the world, said Eric Hoffman, biotechnology policy campaigner for Friends of the Earth. FDA must take this opportunity to conduct a thorough review of the environmental risks associated with genetically engineered fish and prevent potentially irreversible ecological harm before it is too late.

The petition also challenges FDAs continued closed-door review of the AquaBounty application and asks the Agency to revise its regulations to better account for the environmental risks attendant to the production and distribution of GE food animals.

FDAs regulatory framework for reviewing applications to market genetically engineered animals is fundamentally flawed, said Earthjustice attorney Khushi Desai. The process fails to ensure that FDA closely studies the full impact of such applications, and it keeps the public in the dark.  

While the FDA considers AquaBountys application, several states have taken up the issue of labeling genetically engineered fish. This is a watershed moment, explained Leonard. While the FDA is poised to approve the first ever genetically engineered animal for human consumption, fourteen states across the nation are considering legislation to require mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food.

The petitioners find the FDA approach to GE salmon woefully inadequate, and simply hard to believe:

When you stop to consider that even other federal agencies like the U. S. Fish & Wildlife Service are wondering what in the world the FDA is thinking  literally asking in disbelief if theyve watched Jurassic Park  you realize this is an environmental disaster waiting to happen, said Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of Food & Water Watch. Unfortunately, it appears the FDA has conflicting interests since they continue moving forward with genetically engineered salmon despite strong consumer opposition  perhaps because the biotech industry has spent over half a billion dollars pushing this science experiment.

This genetically engineered fish has no redeeming value, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety. It has lower nutrition and represents other potential hazards to consumers; it puts the entire US salmon industry at risk, and most importantly it could threaten the very survival of our native salmon populations. FDA needs to assess all these risks and then take the only rational step, which is to deep-six this hopelessly misguided and dangerous product.








Document Number: 8702
CA GE Fish Labeling Bill Held
SAN FRANCISCO, CA  May 24, 2011  Today, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) was informed by Assemblymember Huffmans office that they have decided to hold AB 88the California bill which would require that all genetically engineered (GE) fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labelingas a 2-year bill. This means it will not be up for a second vote in the Appropriations Committee this week and will instead be held until next year when it will go through the committee process again. This will give CFS and other organizations working on the bill more time to educate California legislators about the importance of this bill and its role in protecting consumers right to know how theyre food is produced.

The California Assembly Health Committee passed the bill on May 3rd, 2011. CFS, a co-sponsor of the bill, testified before the Committee. Unfortunately, last week the bill didnt get enough votes to pass in the Appropriations Committee, and was to be reconsidered this week. Instead of going to a vote this week, the bill will be held until next year.

While we were hopeful that the bill would pass this year, we will still have a good shot at it again next January and were optimistic the bill will reach the Governors desk next year.

Thank you all for your tremendous support for this bill! Though the bill fell short in Appropriations Committee votes, there was strong support from several Assemblymembers. The bills failure in Committee came despite clear consumer demand for labeling of GE fish, as indicated by Assemblymember Gattos comments in moving the bill in Appropriations, stating that he had received hundreds of passionate letters from his constituents in support of the bill.

Had it not been for our CFS True Food Network members emailing and calling Committee members, the bill would not have received the support it did. Thank you!








Document Number: 5738
Court of Appeals Dismisses Monsantos Appeal of Biotech Beets Case, Preserves Victory for Farmers, Environment
SAN FRANCISCO, CA  May 20, 2011 

Upholds Lower Courts Rulings Requiring New USDA Approval Decision And Rigorous Review of the Crops Impacts

Litigation Over USDAs Interim Approval of Planting Continues

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order concluding a long-standing lawsuit over the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready sugar beets.  As a result, previous court rulings in favor of farmers and conservation advocates will remain, including the order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a rigorous review of the impacts of GE sugar beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsantos Roundup herbicide, before deciding whether to again allow their future commercial use.

Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell: Todays order cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food.  Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.

CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club, represented by CFS and Earthjustice, challenged the USDA approval in 2008.  They argued that GE sugar beets would contaminate organic and non-GE farmers of related crops, such as table beets and chard, as well as increase pesticide impacts on the environment and worsen the current Roundup-resistant superweeds epidemic in U.S. agriculture.  In September 2009, Judge Jeffrey S. White in the federal district court in San Francisco agreed, and ordered USDA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing these and other impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).  In August 2010, after a year of vigorous litigation over the proper remedy for USDAs unlawful approval, the court again agreed with plaintiffs, threw out the USDAs approval, and halting planting. 

Monsanto and other biotech industry intervenors appealed on procedural grounds which, if granted, threatened to undo the earlier rulings.  Todays order dismissed that appeal and affirmed the lower courts rulings.

Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff: Dismissal of the appeal confirms that the district court rightly concluded that in this case, as in every other case that has challenged USDAs oversight of genetically engineered crops, the agency has flouted the law, favoring the interests of Monsanto over those of American people.  With every court decision the need for fundamental reform in this area becomes ever more obvious.

Remarkably, the EIS is only the second USDA has undertaken for any GE crop in over 15 years of approving such crops for human consumption.  Both analyses were court-ordered.  USDA said it expects to finish the GE sugar beets EIS and have a new decision on commercialization in 2012.

Despite the absence of lawful review or a new agency decision, in summer 2010, USDA and the biotech industry demanded the court allow planting to continue unabated.  The district court refused to do so and instead set aside USDAs approval of the crop based on the agencys failure to comply with environmental laws.  That precedential ruling was also preserved by todays order.

During this cases appeal, USDA approved 2011-2012 planting of GE sugar beets under the terms of a novel permitting and partial deregulation scheme while it conducted the court-ordered analysis.  That decision is the subject of separate litigation that is ongoing in the District of Columbia.

Monsanto created Roundup Ready crops to withstand its Roundup herbicide (with the active ingredient glyphosate).  Growing previous Roundup Ready crops such as soy, cotton, and corn have led to greater use of herbicides.  It has also led to the spread of herbicide resistant weeds on millions of acres throughout the United States and other countries where such crops are grown, as well as contamination of conventional and organic crops, which has been costly to U.S. farmers.






Document Number: 1644
California Assembly Health Committee Passes Bill to Require Labels on Genetically Engineered Salmon
May 4, 2011 

In Wake Of Pending FDA Approval Of GE Salmon, California Bill Could Restore Americans Right To Choose In The Marketplace

Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administrations (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, late yesterday the California Assembly Health Committee approved a bill which would require that all GE fish sold in  California contain clear and prominent labeling.  The bill, AB 88, was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds the Health Committee for protecting the publics right to know how their food is produced.

The FDA has indicated that it will not require these GE fish to be labeled once they are approved, said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. As such, it is incumbent on the California State legislature, starting with the Health Committee, to let the people of California make informed choices about the food they eat by requiring the labeling of GE fish sold in California.

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling.  Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

The Center for Food Safety recently called on the FDA to recognize the immense public outcry for mandatory labeling of untested, unapproved transgenic salmon. CFS led a broad coalition of consumer, environmental, religious and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs in demanding the FDA deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish is approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered animal intended for human consumption.

Until FDA completes an adequate environmental and human health review of genetically engineered salmon, it is up to individual states to protect consumers and their families, said Spector. California has always been a leader in environmental and food safety laws, and AB 88 continues this tradition by protecting the public from a potentially harmful food technology.  More importantly, it gives consumers the right to know what they are eating and gives them a choice in the marketplace.







Document Number: 9146 
Seed Saving and Seed Banks
INTRODUCTION
By Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director

My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that erupted over the Fort Collins collection in the mid 1980s.  Journalists had published stories dramatically detailing the grossly negligent manner in which deposits to the seed bank were treated.  Numerous seed deposits were spilling out onto the floors of the facility, the facility was woefully understaffed, there was no testing of the seed and a virtually complete failure of required regeneration  in short a seed saving disaster. A legal petition by my organization to rectify the decision seemed to get the United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) attention. But when no real action resulted we litigated. I was a very active member of that legal team. As such I reviewed much of the material in the case that documented USDAs complete disregard for the safety and integrity of the seeds under its care. This litigation ultimately forced a settlement where USDA agreed to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conditions at the seed bank improved somewhat.

Since that first experience I learned that bigger is definitely not better or safer when it comes to seed saving. As noted elsewhere on this site, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) strongly advocates for in situ protection of plant diversity, and when ex situ seed saving is required it should reside at the most local and ecologically appropriate level. This has been one of the bases for CFS longstanding concerns about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Not surprisingly these fears have recently been justified. In December 2010 NordGen, the entity overseeing Svalbard, fired its Director Jessica Kathle.  Some at NordGen believed that she was a scapegoat for the seed banks well known problems including continuing deficits, significant understaffing, and failure to do routine tests on the deposited seed to determine viability. (http://dagendresen.wordpress.com/about/Dot.) Sadly it seems like the Fort Collins fiasco redux.

There is however yet another important concern about Svalbard.  The Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), which supports the operational costs of Svalbard, has received almost $30 million dollars in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Global Diversity Trust, Funding Status 1-1-2011. http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)This is by far the largest support of any non-governmental entity.  As is well known, the Gates Foundation has very close working ties to Monsanto. The Gates Foundation invested $23 million in Monsanto in 2010 to help the company through some financial woes, and has been a determined supporter of spreading Monsantos genetically engineered crops throughout the developing world. In 2006 the Gates Foundation hired Rob Horsch, a former Monsanto Vice President and a key scientist involved in the creation of the companys Round Up Ready crops in the 1980s, as their Senior Program Officer for their International Agriculture Development Program.  This Monsanto connection to Svalbard is very troubling as the corporation owns almost a quarter of all the worlds commercial seeds and is the worlds leader in the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of plant genetics (including plant genes, cells and seeds). Monsanto has also had a decade long history of persecuting and prosecuting thousands of farmers for saving seeds.

Svalbards ties to the Gates Foundation and Monsanto are not the only issue. Only two private corporations have donated to the GCDT.  Dupont/Pioneer Seeds has donated $1 million as has Syngenta. (Global Diversity Trust, Funding Status 1-1-2011. http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)Together these two companies own another 25% of the worlds commercial seeds and are also among the leaders in agriculture biotechnology and in patenting of plant genetics. So a major question looms. Why this interest by these biotech companies and their surrogates in paying the operational costs of Svalbard? These companies have no record of altruistic concern for the integrity and diversity of seeds and have in fact been destroying that diversity through genetic engineering and patenting for decades. The most obvious hypothesis is that these corporations see in Svalbard an opportunity to gain further control of the worlds plant genetics  being able to utilize the seed bank as a resource for germplasm that can be used for creating patentable hybrid or genetically engineered seed varieties.

To test that hypothesis I requested that the CFS legal team investigate the deposit agreements at Svalbard. The point of this analysis was to see if in some way the contract between Svalbard and depositors created an advantage for these corporations in their efforts to control and patent seed genetics. As the legal memorandum reveals, the answer to the question is yes. The Svalbard agreement does provide corporations seeking to patent plant genetics additional advantages in their efforts.

Determining this, however, turned out to be no easy task.  As the following legal memorandum indicates, the Svalbard deposit agreement is extremely complicated, opaque, at times downright misleading and involves difficult questions and interpretations of international law.  The very complexity of this deposit agreement is another major red flag with Svalbard. Numerous seed banks only require a simple Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with depositors. This allows for informed consent by the depositors. By contrast, there is little chance that some seed banks and collections, especially those that are local, smaller scale and/or from developing countries, have the legal expertise, or funding to hire attorneys to decipher the myriad complications of the Svalbard contract.  Meanwhile the GCDT, and it supporting biotech companies and their surrogates, are advertising how they are spending millions of dollars trying to acquire local and smaller seed collections from developing countries for Svalbard.  As noted, these local collectors have little chance to understand, much less give informed consent, to what can happen to their deposits. As will be discussed in the Memorandum, this informed consent problem, and the issue of corporate patenting of the genetics of the seeds deposited in Svalbard, can only be resolved through major revisions in the Agreement. 

CFS will continue to monitor both the operational and legal aspects of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and provide on this website new material and analysis on an ongoing basis. 

View CFS Legal Memorandum

For an alarming example of the damage that the usurping of local seed saving by Svalbard advocates can cause, and for a trenchant critique of Svalbard, please see a recent speech given by Kent Whealy at Wes Jacksons Land Institute on what happened to the Seed Savers Exchange which he founded and tended for more than three decades.






Document Number: 2322 
Broad Coalition Petitions EPA to Regulate Ammonia Gas Pollution from Factory Farms
WASHINTON, D.C.  April 7, 2011  21 Groups:  Industrial-Scale CAFO Emissions Meet Legal Standard for Listing as Clean Air Act Criteria Pollutant; Evident Public Health Threat Posed by Ammonia Emissions from Mega-farms.

More than 20 national, state, and local organizations representing millions of Americans are filing an extensive petition today with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), laying out a case for an endangerment finding for ammonia gas and requesting that EPA list ammonia as a Clean Air Act criteria pollutant. 

The criteria pollutant program requires EPA to establish air quality standards that protect public health and the environment, and has been responsible for dramatic reductions in hazardous small particles, smog-forming chemicals, and lead pollution nationwide, saving billions of dollars in health care costs.  Factory farms are the nations leading source of ammonia pollution, which causes respiratory health problems even at very low levels, yet air emissions from Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), including toxic ammonia, have escaped Clean Air Act regulation for decades.

The effort is led by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), and includes a diverse group of organizations that advocate for environmental protection, public health, animal welfare, and rural economies and communities.  The petitioners include such groups as the Bloomberg School of Public Healths Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, the Sierra Club, the Humane Society of the United States, the Waterkeeper Alliance, and rural community organizations in California, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, and Wisconsin.  These organizations represent many rural Americans and family farmers who are directly affected by ammonia pollution from factory farms in their communities.

For the full text of the petition, click here.

The new petition filed today at the EPA states: Congress enacted the Clean Air Act (CAA) to protect public health from diverse sources of air pollution, and empowered the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish regulations for different pollutants as scientific knowledge evolves, and the dangers they pose to human health and welfare become apparent  [A]mbient ammonia pollution currently endangers human health and welfare, and EPA has an affirmative obligation to exercise its authority to regulate sources of ammonia emissions  Ammonia gas, an air pollutant emitted in vast quantities by Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), meets the criteria for listing as a CAA criteria pollutant, because ammonia emissions from numerous CAFOs and other sources cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.  

Environmental Integrity Project Attorney Tarah Heinzen said:  The Clean Air Act exists to protect all Americans, but it has not lived up to its promise in rural communities. This petition demonstrates that ammonia from factory farms threatens public health, diminishes quality of life, and pollutes our water, and asks EPA to write rules that will hold factory farms to the same standards as other major polluters.

Lynn Henning, a family farmer in Michigan said: In Lenawee and Hillsdale counties, MI, people exposed to air from CAFOs and liquid manure applications have reported worsening asthma symptoms, requiring inhalers.  Other side effects of living near the CAFOs have included frequent, reoccurring episodes of bronchitis and cough.  Other people exposed to dairy and hog CAFOs in both counties over 10 years have reported sore throats, feeling like they were suffocating, difficulty breathing, burning sinus burning eyes and choking from strong emissions of ammonia.

Scott Edwards, Director of Advocacy for the Waterkeeper Alliance, said:  Factory farming is one of the last holdout polluting industries where our regulators still fear to tread.  These facilities create massive amounts of pollution that poison our air and watersheds. EPA cannot continue to turn a blind eye and ignore its mission to protect the environment and the welfare of communities.

Jonathan Lovvorn, Senior Vice President & Chief Counsel for Animal Protection Litigation at the Humane Society of the United States, said:  Confining hundreds of thousands of animals in tiny cages at a single location is not only unconscionably cruel to farm animals, but also destroys local communities, harms wildlife, and pollutes the natural environment.

Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, said: EPA cannot ignore its mandate and place the interests of CAFOs over communities and the environment.  It is time EPA addresses this serious public health issue.  

The petition also points out: Several federal agencies, including EPA, have documented ammonias acute and chronic adverse health effects.  Numerous peer-reviewed studies further demonstrate that ambient ammonia pollution in some rural communities near CAFOs currently exceeds recommended exposure levels, and citizens living near CAFOs experience adverse health effects from CAFO air pollution, including ammonia.  Ammonia gas also reacts with other gases to form ammonium aerosols, inhalable small particles that further endanger public health. 

On March 9, 2011, EIP released a major report showing that factory farms emit hazardous air pollutants on an industrial scale, yet have escaped regulation under the Clean Air Act and pollution reporting laws.  EIP reviewed the findings of an industry-funded EPA study that monitored ammonia, particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and volatile organic compounds from CAFOs across the country.  The report found that ammonia pollution levels at some facilities exceed worker health recommendations and emissions reporting thresholds, and recommended that EPA begin regulating ammonia and other CAFO emissions under the Clean Air Act. The EIP report is available online at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org/03_09_2011.php.

For the full text of the petition, click here.

The full list of petitioners includes: Environmental Integrity Project, Association of Irritated Residents, Caballo Concerned Citizens Group, Center for Food Safety, Citizens for Pennsylvanias Future, Clean Wisconsin, Crawford Stewardship Project, Environmentally Concerned Citizens of South Central Michigan, Food & Water Watch, the Humane Society of the United States, Illinois Citizens for Clean Air and Water, Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement, Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Midwest Environmental Advocates, Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Rio Valle Concerned Citizens, Sierra Club, Socially Responsible Agricultural Project, Sustain Rural Wisconsin Network, Vernon County Alliance Concerned with Environmental Safety, and Waterkeeper Alliance.







Document Number: 2926 
California Assembly Health Committee Considers Bill to Require Labeling of Genetically Engineered Fish
April 27, 2011  On April 26, 2011, the California Assembly Health Committee considered a bill which would require that all GE salmon sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling.  The bill, AB 88, was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, testified before the Committee. 

Officially the bill failed, with four Democrats abstaining from the vote.  However, the bill will be up for reconsideration on Monday, May 2nd, and another vote will be taken. Thus it is possible the bill could pass next week.

Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling.  Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.

CFS is watching the bill closely, and well update the website as soon as voting takes place on Monday.






Document Number: 4966
Coalition Reveals Immense Opposition To Transgenic Fish, Demands Mandatory Labeling
Posted on November 18, 2010 by Admin
As Comment Period on Approval and Labeling Winds Down More than 360,000 Send Comments to FDA Demanding Action on GE Fish
A coalition of consumer, environmental and animal welfare groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers, grocers and chefs held a joint press conference today demanding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) deny approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon and require mandatory labeling of the fish if approved despite intense opposition. If approved the transgenic salmon would be the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.
Consumers clearly do not want to eat genetically engineered salmon and should FDA decide to move forward despite overwhelming opposition it must be labeled, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.  Today the coalition presented the over 360,000 public comments that have been sent to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it.
Anticipating the stark danger to our fisheries and ocean environments  and trying to circumvent analyses of those dangers  AquaBounty has claimed that they will only raise their fish in land-based facilities.  However, many states ban raising transgenic fish in land-based facilities.  Moreover, a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request revealed that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). Other FOIA documents newly revealed serious concerns within the Fish and Wildlife Service about the approval of GE salmon.
Poll after poll has shown than consumers are against the commercialization of GE salmon, and that any GE fish to reach the market should be labeled as such, said Patty Lovera, Assistant Director of Food and Water Watch. A Lake Research Partners poll  commissioned by Food & Water Watch and released in September found that 91 percent of Americans believe FDA should not allow genetically engineered fish and meat into the marketplace.  Additionally, a 2008 Consumers Union nationwide poll  found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled. Circumventing public opinion, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations spent over half a billion dollars over the past decade in campaign contributions and lobbying Congress in support of controversial industry projects like genetically engineered (GE) food animals according to a new analysis by Food & Water Watch. 
FDAs decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and fails to take into account the numerous human health, environmental and animal welfare concerns that have been raised, said Dr. George Leonard, Aquaculture Program Director at Ocean Conservancy.  The FDA currently approves GE animals through its new animal drug law, yet critics fault the process as failing to require adequate safety assessments and lacking transparency and public engagement.  We need a robust system that is open, transparent and takes a rigorous approach to risk assessment rather than one that favors backdoor approvals and closed-door meetings, added Leonard.  
On September 19 and 20, the FDA convened its Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee for a public meeting to discuss the approval of the AquAdvantage salmon.  The 2-day meeting was followed by a public hearing on the labeling of the transgenic salmon.   FDAs briefing materials for the meeting suggest that the AquAdvantage salmon has significantly lower levels of Omega 3 fatty acids (the healthy fat in salmon) compared to wild salmon and may have a greater potential to cause possibly fatal allergic reactions. FDAs own Advisory Committee raised its own concerns regarding inadequate sample sizes, incomplete data, questionable culling practices, troubling physical abnormalities and poor environmental and scientific assessments. Additionally, the absence of data on disease resistance and inadequate nutritional composition data leave the safety of these animals largely unknown.
FDA requires labeling of foods when there is a material difference from other foods.   In laymans language, that means there is a difference that consumers care about.  The differences between genetically engineered and conventional salmon are definitely differences that consumers care about that should trigger a mandatory label.  Given the unanswered questions about increased allergy risks, labeling is doubly important, states Michael Hansen of Consumers Union.
We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to farm genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to work to bring our wild salmon populations back said Jonathan Rosenfield, Ph. D. fish ecologist for SalmonAid.  The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problem.






Document Number: 7060
Major U.S. Environmental Groups Call for Full Environmental Review of Genetically Engineered Salmon
Posted on November 8, 2010 by Admin
FDA considering approval of first genetically engineered animal for human consumption despite inadequate environmental review

Credit: Timothy Knepp/USFWS
Today 12 executive officers of some of the nations largest environmental organizations requested that the Food and Drug Administration conduct a thorough Environmental Impact Statement before deciding whether to approve the first ever genetically engineered animal for food.
This new animal, AquaBounty Technologies AquAdvantage salmon, containing genetic material from Chinook salmon, Ocean pout, and Atlantic salmon, is engineered to grow nearly twice as fast as wild salmon, according to company claims. 
As the groups letter states, a full Environmental Impact Statement is necessary to review the potential harm that commercialization of this genetically engineered fish could inflict on the environment, biodiversity, and human health.
The FDA has announced its intention to conduct its own cursory environmental assessment of AquaBountys genetically engineered salmon, although by law it is not required to do so before approval of the application. A full Environmental Impact Statement would provide the FDA with the time needed to fully evaluate these threats instead of rushing through the approval process with a less thorough assessment, said Eric Hoffman, Biotechnology Policy Campaigner with Friends of the Earth.
The groups also asked that the FDA consult with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Fish and Wildlife Service before deciding to approve genetically engineered salmon.
Wild Atlantic salmon have been listed as an Endangered Species since 2000, partly due to genetic and fitness impairments caused by inbreeding with farmed salmon escaping from pens, said Patti Goldman, Vice President for Litigation with Earthjustice. It would be irresponsible for the FDA to approve this genetically engineered salmon without looking at the threat approval poses to these endangered populations.
The threats to wild salmon populations and natural ocean ecosystems are real and must be thoroughly reviewed, said Dr. George Leonard, Director of Ocean Conservancys Aquaculture Program. That is why the environmental community is united with consumer advocates, food safety experts, and countless concerned citizens in its call for the FDA to produce a full Environmental Impact Statement before any decision about approval is made.






Document Number: 6633
Newly Disclosed Government Documents Conclude GE Salmon Pose A Critical Threat To Marine Environments
Posted on October 27, 2010 by Admin
EXPERT FISHERIES AGENCIES PROHIBIT GROWING ENGINEERED SALMON IN OPEN-WATER NET PENS UNDER THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
FDA Declined to Disclose Evidence During September Hearings on Aquabounty Salmon
 

Credit: Hans-Petter Fjeld/USGS
Adding a new twist to the controversy over genetically engineered (GE) salmon, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) revealed today that, in recent hearings on transgenic fish, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knowingly withheld a Federal Biological Opinion by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) prohibiting the use of transgenic salmon in open-water net pens pursuant to the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA).
This adds further evidence that in fact GE salmon pose a serious threat to marine environments and is another compelling reason for the FDA not to approve the fish for commercial use, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety.  While the FDA applauded the companys choice of land-based containment as responsible, it never revealed that it is illegal in the U.S. to grow genetically engineered salmon in open-water net pens.
The Biological Opinion and supplemental information, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, challenge claims by AquaBounty Technologies, the developer of the GE salmon, that the transgenic fish pose no threat to marine environments.  The GE Atlantic salmon under consideration was engineered with growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).
The Biological Opinion issued by FWS and NOAAs National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 2003 expresses concerns that transgenic salmon would threaten and adversely affect wild Atlantic salmon, currently on the Endangered Species List.  Federal agencies are required by Section 7 of the ESA to consult with the expert fisheries agencies when any action may impact a protected species.  As part of the consultation, the expert agencies draft a Biological Opinion explaining under what circumstance the proposed activity would not endanger the survival of the protected species.  The Biological Opinion here analyzed the authorization of net pen salmon aquaculture and required:
The prohibition on the use of transgenic salmonids at existing marine sites off the coast of Maine in order to eliminate the potentially adverse disease and ecological risks posed by the use of transgenic salmonids in aquaculture.
Despite this knowledge, it appears that FDA has not consulted in depth with the expert fisheries agencies regarding the current Aquabounty GE salmon.  FDA acknowledges that preliminary discussions have been held.  However, the documents released today by CFS also include an email from FWS staff to NOAA further revealed that:
Shortly after the Atlantic salmon was listed as endangered, several of us from USFWS and NMFS spent 2 days down in Maryland meeting with Aqua Bounty and FDA about development of genetically modified salmon and discussion around the need for FDA to engage in Section 7 consultation with the Services. We never heard a peep out of FDA or Aqua Bounty after that.
The recent developments only add to the increasing concerns raised by the public, members of Congress and the FDAs own Advisory Committee, said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety.  The documents received make clear that some data was even kept from FWS and NMFS scientists who would not sign the confidentiality agreements requested by the FDA. If the FDA wont even share confidential company data with government scientists, what else is it keeping secret from the public? added Hanson. 
In a similar Biological Opinion issued by FWS and NMFS to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, also included in the material released by CFS today, the agencies noted:
It is reasonable to assume that genetically-modified salmonids, possessing a greatly accelerated growth potential and occupying the same habitat as wild fish, would have a greater displacement impact on wild fish than non-transgenic domestic strains. 
Conversations between NOAA and FWS staff in 2009 highlight a Swedish study that found that in simulated escapes, transgenic fish have a considerably greater effect on the natural environment than hatchery-reared, non-transgenic fish when they escape. The study further noted that genetically modified fish survive better when there is a shortage of food, benefit more than non-transgenic fish from increasing water temperatures, and can be more resistant to environmental toxins that may ultimately end up in consumers.
Today the public gains much needed insight about the risks of GE fish, we hope that FDA will take heed, added Kimbrell.  We strongly oppose the approval of these genetically engineered salmon and urge FDA to reject this application.
More Documents:
View comments from Gregory Moyer, PhD, Regional Geneticist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to FDAs Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee on GE salmon approval.
View comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Genetics Community of Practice (COP) to the FDAs Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee on GE salmon approval






Document Number: 9722 
Genetically Engineered Crops
The genetic engineering of plants and animals is looming as one of the greatest and most intractable environmental challenges of the 21st Century. Already, this novel technology has invaded our grocery stores and our kitchen pantries by fundamentally altering some of our most important staple food crops.

By being able to take the genetic material from one organism and insert it into the permanent genetic code of another, biotechnologists have engineered numerous novel creations, such as potatoes with bacteria genes, super pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects. At an alarming rate, these creations are now being patented and released into the environment.

Currently, up to 40 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is 80 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that upwards of 60 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelvesfrom soda to soup, crackers to condimentscontain genetically engineered ingredients.

A number of studies over the past decade have revealed that genetically engineered foods can pose serious risks to humans, domesticated animals, wildlife and the environment. Human health effects can include higher risks of toxicity, allergenicity, antibiotic resistance, immune-suppression and cancer. As for environmental impacts, the use of genetic engineering in agriculture will lead to uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and the potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material.

Despite these long-term and wide-ranging risks, Congress has yet to pass a single law intended to manage them responsibly. This despite the fact that our regulatory agencies have failed to adequately address the human health or environmental impacts of genetic engineering. On the federal level, eight agencies attempt to regulate biotechnology using 12 different statutes or laws that were written long before genetically engineered food, animals and insects became a reality. The result has been a regulatory tangle, where any regulation even exists, as existing laws are grossly manipulated to manage threats they were never intended to regulate. Among many bizarre examples of these regulatory anomalies is the current attempt by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate genetically engineered fish as new animal drugs. Yet, at the same time, the FDA claims it has no jurisdiction over genetically engineered pet fish like the Glofish.

The haphazard and negligent agency regulation of biotechnology has been a disaster for consumers and the environment. Unsuspecting consumers by the tens of millions are being allowed to purchase and consume unlabeled genetically engineered foods, despite a finding by FDA scientists that these foods could pose serious risks. And new genetically engineered crops are being approved by federal agencies despite admissions that they will contaminate native and conventional plants and pose other significant new environmental threats. In short, there has been a complete abdication of any responsible legislative or regulatory oversight of genetically engineered foods. Clearly, now is a critical time to challenge the governments negligence in managing the human health and environmental threats from biotechnology.








Document Number: 1395 
Forty Representatives And Senators Call On FDA To Halt GE Salmon Approval
Posted on September 29, 2010 by Admin
Over Fifty Organizations and Businesses Endorse Congressional Letters;  CFS Calls upon FDA to Reject Approval of GE Salmon 

Credit: Hans-Petter Fjeld/USGS
The Center for Food Safety applauds the 40 Representatives and Senators for requesting the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) halt the approval of the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon, the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.
 
Congressmen Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Mike Thompson (D-CA) led 29 Members of the House of Representatives in asking the FDA to halt the approval process of AquaBounty GE salmon in a letter to FDA Commissioner, Margaret Hamburg.  Senator Mark Begich (D-AK) led 10 Senators in a similar letter to FDA Commissioner Hamburg. The letters call on the agency to halt approval as well as thoroughly examine and address the serious flaws with FDAs approval process and include greater public input and scientific data. 
The FDAs hastily completed approval process puts American consumers and the environment at risk.  GE salmon could be devastating to fishing and coastal communities, our food source, and already depleted wild salmon populations.  The FDA should put the interests and safety of American families and our ocean resources above special interests, Rep. DeFazio said. 
The Congressional letters were supported by 53 consumer and environmental groups, commercial and recreational fisheries associations, and food businesses and retailers. Those groups include the Center for Food Safety, Alaska Marine Conservation Council, Bristol Bay Regional Seafood Development, and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermens Associations. 
FDAs own Advisory Committee has raised numerous concerns regarding the environmental, food safety, and economic risks this GE fish may pose, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.   These included small sample sizes, incomplete data, improper culling practices, and poor scientific assessments. FDAs decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, Kimbrell added.
 
Over 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBountys GE salmon.  The Center for Food Safety and a coalition of allied groups also submitted nearly 172,000 comments from individuals opposing the approval. In addition, 13 members of the California State Legislature sent a letter to FDA and President Obama requesting that FDA deny the approval until the full suite of environmental and food safety concerns are addressed.
 
 





Document Number: 2157
Misguided FDA Opposition to Labeling Could Leave Public Permanently in the Dark About GE Animals
Posted on September 21, 2010 by Admin
Recent Poll Shows 91% of Americans Oppose GE Animals; CFS calls for clear, mandatory labeling
After a two-day public hearing on the approval of the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption, the AquAdvantage GE salmon, FDA held a public hearing today to discuss whether or not these GE fish should be labeled as such should they be approved. A 60-day public comment period on the labeling issue will be open until November 22, 2010.
 
This transgenic salmon is the first GE animal intended for food, yet the human health impacts of eating these GE fish are completely unknown, said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director at the Center for Safety  (CFS). These GE fish also pose unacceptable risks to wild salmon and the marine environment. These unknowns were raised repeatedly at yesterdays Veterinary Medicine Advisory Committee (VMAC) hearing, and the Committee was unable to come to any conclusion as to the safety or efficacy of the GE salmon.  The hearing on labeling is premature given that the VMAC has not approved this salmon for human or animal consumption.
 
The public has not been quiet about the possible approval of GE salmon. In fact, over 300 environmental, consumer, health, and animal welfare organizations, along with salmon and fishing groups and associations, food companies, chefs and restaurants signed joint letters to the FDA opposing the approval of AquaBountys GE salmon.  CFS and a coalition of allied groups also submitted 172,000 comments from individuals opposing the approval and urging clear, mandatory labeling should the fish be approved despite overwhelming public opposition (CFS comments to the VMAC and the joint letters can be found on our website).  
 
Announcements by FDA officials and speakers today suggest that the Agency may not require labeling of GE salmon should it be approved. While FDA is operating under the fiction that transgenic animals are new drugs, the Agency does not feel that they need to be labeled in the same way that drugs are.
A Lake Research Partners poll  commissioned by Food & Water Watch and released yesterday found that 91 percent of Americans believe FDA should not allow genetically engineered fish and meat into the marketplace; 83 percent felt strongly that it should not be allowed.  Additionally, a 2008 Consumers Union nationwide poll  found that 95 percent of respondents said they thought food from genetically engineered animals should be labeled, and 78 percent strongly agreed with this.
 
In his comments today, CFS Senior Staff Attorney George Kimbrell asserted that labeling in the 21st Century cannot be based on 20th Century policy decisions.  The FDA currently uses its 1992 interpretation of material to inform its decisions on labeling, an interpretation that occurred prior to commercialization of any transgenic animal.  
 
CFS and others have also criticized the process established by FDA. After the numerous concerns raised by the VMAC yesterday, it is inappropriate to hold a hearing on the labeling of a product the Agency has yet to approve, said George Kimbrell. To ensure meaningful public comment and confidence in the Agencys processes, the agency should have separately convened the labeling hearing, after any initial decision on approval. This is a backwards process at best and a dog and pony show at worst  labeling is not an adequate substitution for proper regulation and safety assessments, added Kimbrell.
 
Apparently heeding public outcry about the lack of a public comment period on the approval of GE salmon itself, FDA announced yesterday that after the VMAC meetings, the Agency plans to publish the final environmental assessment (EA) as well as issue a notice in the Federal Register establishing a 30-day public comment period on the EA.
 
It is totally unacceptable for GE fish not to be labeled if approved for commercial use, said Jaydee Hanson, Senior Policy Analyst at the Center. Consumers want more information about the foods they buy and feed to their families, not less.  Leaving consumers in the dark not only prohibits them from  making informed choices, but without mandatory tracking and labeling of these GE fish we may be putting public health at risk as well.
 
We strongly oppose FDA approval of GE salmon, said Andrew Kimbrell. Should FDA decide to approve the AquAdvantage GE salmon despite overwhelming consumer opposition and potential threats to the environment, human health, and native salmon populations, we urge that clear, mandatory labeling be unconditional.  






Document Number: 410
National Call-in Day to Stop GE SalmonToday!
Posted on September 16, 2010 by Admin
In just a few days, the FDA is deciding whether or not to approve genetically engineered salmon. If it goes through, this would be the first GE animal approved for human consumption. Were doing everything we can to stop it and need your help.
Today we are holding a rally and press conference in front of the White House urging FDA and the Obama Administration to reject the approval of GE salmon. Can you call the White House today to support our efforts?
There are a number of problems with the potential approval of GE salmon. First, the FDA doesnt do its own testing, but relies on information provided by the company that wants approval. And since GE salmon are being considered as a new animal drug, the process isnt focused on the potential impacts on consumers. Additionally, GE salmon pose unacceptable risks to human health, the environment and native fish populationsalong with the men and women who depend upon native salmon fisheries for their livliehoods. So, were calling on the Obama Administration to step in and direct the FDA not to approve GE salmon.






Document Number: 3174
Coalition Demands FDA Deny Approval Of Controversial Genetically Engineered Fish
Posted on September 2, 2010 by Admin

Credit: Timothy Knepp/USFWS
FDA Considers Approval of GE Salmonthe First GE Food AnimalYet Fails to Inform the Public of Environmental and Economic Risks
A coalition of 31 consumer, animal welfare and environmental groups, along with commercial and recreational fisheries associations and food retailers submitted a joint statement criticizing an announcement this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquAdvantage transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption
The engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).  This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate. This could allow factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.
Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. We believe any approval of GE salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations, many of which have already suffered severe declines related to salmon farms and other man-made impacts, Marianne Cufone, director of Food and Water Watchs fish program said.  
If the FDA opens this door, GE fish will likely be among the millions of salmon that currently escape from open ocean pens every year.  This could be the last blow to wild salmon stocks and in turn the thousands of men and women who depend on fishing for their livelihoods.  Approving genetically engineered salmon is a sharp contradiction to the agreements the United States has signed at NASCO, where transgenic salmonids are considered a serious threat to wild salmon said Boyce Thorne Miller, Science and Policy Coordinator for the Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance and accredited observer at the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization. 
Escaped GE salmon can pose an additional threat  genetic pollution resulting from what scientists call the Trojan gene effect. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 generations.
Anticipating the stark danger to our fisheries and ocean environments  and trying to circumvent analyses of those dangers  AquaBounty has claimed that they will only raise their fish in land-based facilities.  However most salmon farmers in the real world ply their trade in low-lying coastal areas and competing corporations will no doubt race to produce GE fish in crowded open ocean facilities already in use for fish production.  Backsliding on its original claims, reports have circulated that AquaBounty may only suggest producers raise GE fish in inland waters  presenting novel threats to our nations lakes, rivers, and estuaries  many of which are already under attack by invasive fish species like the Asian carp and Northern snakehead.
FDAs decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous, and is made worse by its complete lack of data to review said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.  FDA has been sitting on this application for 10 years and yet it has chosen not to disclose any data about its decision until just a few days before the public meeting.
On Wednesday, FDA officials announced that they had begun the approval process for the engineered salmon and have scheduled public meetings beginning Sunday, September 19.  Speakers wishing to present oral comments are expected to submit their requests in writing by September 7th; one day after the FDA has said it may post some of the data to its website.  This is not a process that leads to full and informed public participation, said Charles Margulis, Sustainable Food Program Coordinator for the Center for Environmental Health.
FDA announced the same day that it will hold a public comment period and a hearing on labeling for the transgenic salmon, which seems to presuppose that the controversial GE fish will be approved. If the GE fish is approved, Agency officials are undecided as to whether they will require any product labeling.
We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to farm genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to work to bring our wild salmon populations back said Jonathan Rosenfield, PhD, a Conservation Biologist and President of the SalmonAID Foundation, a 28-member coalition of commercial, tribal, and sportfishing interests, conservation organizations and chefs.  The approval of these transgenic fish will only exacerbate the problems facing our wild fisheries.







Document Number: 5975
Obama Administration Announces Hearings On Approval Of Controversial Genetically Engineered Fish
Posted on August 31, 2010 by Admin

Credit: Hans-Petter Fjeld/USGS
CFS Announces Major Campaign, Calls Decision to Move Forward with Approval of GE Salmon Misguided and Dangerous
Salmon Would be First-Ever GE Food Animal
 
The Center for Food Safety today criticized an announcement by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that it will potentially approve the long-shelved AquaBounty transgenic salmon as the first genetically engineered (GE) animal intended for human consumption.
FDAs decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous.  CFS has been following this issue for many years and our campaign will take all steps needed to halt any approval said Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director for the Center for Food Safety.  
FDA officials today contacted the Center for Food Safety about its upcoming approval process and posted information about potential approval and labeling of the engineered salmon.  This process includes public meetings scheduled for September 19-21 as well as a 60-day public comment period until Nov 22, 2010.  FDA plans to approve the GE salmon as a veterinary drug, a review process conceived before GE products became a reality. If the GE fish is approved, Agency officials are undecided as to whether they will require product labeling.
In its announcement, FDA has yet failed to provide data on the food safety and environmental risks that this GE fish may pose, said Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst for the Center for Food Safety.  This animal should not be approved for human consumption until further study indicates that they are safe for consumers and the environment. The promise that the FDA would provide the data before the hearing is not good enough, in that it affords precious little time to assess the data the FDA is reviewing.
The genetically engineered Atlantic salmon being considered was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon, (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout (Zoarces americanus).  This modification causes production of growth-hormone year-round, creating a fish the company claims grows at twice the normal rate, allowing factory fish farms to crowd fish into pens and still get high production rates.
Genetically engineered fish pose serious risk to wild populations of fish.  Each year millions of farmed salmon escape from open-water net pens, outcompeting wild populations for resources and straining ecosystems. We believe any approval of the salmon would represent a serious threat to the survival of native salmon populations already teetering on the brink of extinction, said Kimbrell. 
Escaped GE salmon can pose an additional threat  genetic pollution resulting from what scientists call the Trojan gene effect. Research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences notes that a release of just sixty GE salmon into a wild population of 60,000 would lead to the extinction of the wild population in less than 40 generations.
In 2002, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report saying that GE fish could cause significant environmental and food safety problems. More recently, a 2009 study commissioned by the European Union revealed that fish engineered to grow faster have a resultant high tolerance to environmental toxins.  The studys authors expressed grave concerns that both toxins and growth hormones had a high potential to end up in consumers bodies, calling for further tests to determine safety.
The AquaBounty company says that it will only produce sterile females; however fish are known to change sex. FDA has difficulty tracking salmonella in hen eggs; to believe that the FDA can track whether salmon eggs are sterile or not is ludicrous says Jaydee Hanson, Policy Analyst at the Center for Food Safety.





Document Number: 2218
Transgenics

"Transgenic organism" means an organism whose DNA is modified by transgenic manipulation. Such organisms are sometimes referred to as "genetically engineered organisms" ("GE organisms") or "genetically modified organisms" ("GMOs").

"Transgenic manipulation" means the extraction of DNA from an organism (the "donor organism") followed by its introduction into the same or a different organism (the "recipient organism") in such a manner that the introduced DNA can be transmitted through the reproduction of the recipient organism.

"Transgenic manipulation" does include methods utilized to reduce the viability or fertility of the recipient organism as a means of "biological containment", including but not limited to so-called "genetic use restriction technologies" or "terminator technology". "Transgenic manipulation" does not include traditional breeding, conjugation, traditional fermentation (such as in the making of beer, wine, bread and yogurt), hybridization, in-vitro fertilization, or tissue culture.
Living Modified Organisms

A Living Modified Organism (LMO) is defined in the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety as any living organism that possesses a novel combination of genetic material obtained through the use of modern biotechnology.

Common "LMOs" include agricultural crops that have been genetically modified for greater productivity or for resistance to pests or diseases. Examples of modified crops include tomatoes, cassava, corn, cotton and soybeans.

Modern biotechnology means the application of: In vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles, or the fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family, that overcome natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection.







Document Number: 9383

Release of Larvicidal Cry Proteins in Root Exudates of Transgenic Bt Plants
Deepak Saxena and Guenther Stotzky
Transgenic plants engineered to express larvicidal Cry proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) can reduce the use of 
broad-spectrum chemical insecticides. However, there is some concern that Bt toxins (Cry proteins) released to soil may 
pose risks to the environment. The toxins could accumulate to concentrations that may constitute a hazard to nontarget 
organisms, such as the soil microbiota, benecial insects, and other animal classes, and may result in the selection and 
enrichment of toxin-resistant target insects. Conversely, the accumulated toxins could increase the control of target pests. 
Accumulation is enhanced when the toxins are bound on surface-active particles in the environment (e.g., clays, humic 
substances) and, thereby, are rendered less accessible for microbial degradation but still retain their toxic activity. The 
toxins produced by  B. thuringiensis subsp.  kurstaki (Btk; antilepidopteran),  subsp.  morrisoni strain  tenebrionis (Btt; 
anticoleopteran), and subsp. israelensis (Bti; antidipteran) bound rapidly on these surface-active particles, persisted in soil 
and water, and remained larvicidal to the tobacco hornworm (Menduca sexta), the Colorado potato beetle (Leptinotarsa 
decemlineata), and a mosquito (Culex pipiens), respectively, which were used as assay species


1.Although the major introduction of the toxins to soil occurs after harvest of a Bt crop, the Cry1Ab protein was released 
in root exudates from transgenic Bt corn plants throughout their growth in sterile hydroponic culture and in sterile and 
nonsterile soil

2.The presence of the toxin was demonstrated by SDS-PAGE and conrmed by immunological and larvicidal 
assays. The toxin from root exudates was also detected in natural soil 180 days (the longest time evaluated) after growth 
of Bt corn in a plant-growth room, as well as in the eld after harvest and after frost from Bt corn plants that had been 
dead for several months. The Cry1Ab protein was released in root exudates from all 13 Bt corn hybrids, representing three 
transformation events (Bt11, MON810, and 176) and evaluated in both the plant-growth room and the eld

3. To determine whether the release of Cry proteins in root exudates is a common phenomenon in transgenic Bt plants, the 
release of different Cry proteins (Cry1Ab, Cry3A, and Cry1Ac) in the root exudates of Bt corn (Zea mays L.), and rice 
(Oryyza sativa L.), potato (Solanum tubersoum L.), and canola (Brassica napus L.), cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), and 
tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), respectively, was evaluated. Soil and hydroponic solution in which Bt corn, rice, or potato 
had been grown were both immunologically positive for the presence of the Cry proteins and toxic to the larva of M. sexta
(corn and rice) and L. decemlineata (potato). No Cry proteins were detected immunologically or by larvicidal assay in any 
soil or hydroponic solution in which Bt canola, cotton, or tobacco, as well as all near-isogenic non-Bt plant counterparts 
or no plants, had been grown

4. However, the Cry proteins were detected in the tissues of all Bt plants. There were apparent 
differences in exudation of the proteins (as evaluated immunologically and by mortality and weight of surviving larvae) 
between plant species: exudates from Bt corn were more larvicidal than those from Bt rice and potato. No green uorescent 
protein (GFP) was detected in hydroponic solutions from canola and tobacco genetically modied to express GFP or both 
GFP and the Cry1Ac protein.
Cry proteins released in root exudates of Bt corn, rice, and potato accumulated in soil and retained larvicidal activity, 
probably as the result of the binding of the proteins on surface-active particles in soil, which rendered them resistant to 
rapid biodegradation

1,2,3
. Although some Cry proteins were probably released from sloughed and damaged root cells of 
corn, rice, and potato in soil, the major portion was apparently derived from root exudates, as there was no discernable root 
debris when plants were grown in hydroponic culture, and no Cry proteins from Bt canola, cotton, or tobacco were detected 
when grown in soil where some damage to roots probably occurred.
In addition to the introduction to soil of Cry proteins in plant biomass and some in pollen, the proteins will also be released 
in root exudates during the entire growth of some Bt plants. The continual presence of the Cry proteins in soil could 
improve the control of insect pests, enhance the selection of toxin-resistant target insects, and/or constitute a hazard to 
nontarget organisms. The Cry1Ab protein released in root exudates and from biomass of Bt corn had no apparent effects on 
earthworms, nematodes, protozoa, bacteria, and fungi in soil

5. it was not taken up by radish, carrot, turnip, and non-Bt corn

6. and it did not move far vertically in soil

7. 
Why Cry proteins were released in root exudates of Bt corn, rice, and potato but not in exudates of Bt canola, cotton, and             
ISB News Report                  February 2005
tobacco is not known. The methods of transformation of the cry genes, somaclonal variation, differences in level of protein 
expression (although all species had the cauliower mosaic virus 35S promoter, except rice, which had the ubiquitin 
promoter from corn), or location of the endoplasmic reticulum relative to the plasma membrane (in corn, this appears to be 
a close relation) may have been involved
1
. Although Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac proteins differ in some aspects, the differences 
are apparently small, as their insect targets are similar and they cross-react with antibodies to each other
1
. Nevertheless, 
the differences may be responsible for release of the Cry1Ab protein and the lack of release of the Cry1Ac protein in root 
exudates. Further studies, especially by plant physiologists and anatomists, are obviously necessary.
The relevance of these observation also requires clarication, especially as at least 26 plant species, including corn, cotton, 
potato, canola, rice, broccoli, peanut, eggplant, and other crop species, have been modied to express Cry proteins, and 8.1 
million hectares of Bt corn or 26% of total corn acreage, 2.4 million hectares of Bt cotton or 45% of total cotton acreage, 
and 0.02 million hectares of Bt potato or 3.5% of total potato acreage were planted in the United States alone in 2000
4
.
The release of Bt toxins in the root exudates of some plant species, and their persistence in soil, indicate that caution 
must be exercised before plants and animals genetically modied to express pharmaceuticals (e.g., vaccines, hormones, 
antibiotics, blood substitutes, enzymes) and other bioactive compounds (pharms) are introduced to the environment
8,9
. 
In contrast to pesticidal transgenic plants, the targets of these compounds, which are seldom found in natural habitat
5
 (i.e., 
they are essentially environmental xenobiotics), are human beings and other higher level eukaryotes rather than insects, 
nematodes, and protozoa. Inasmuch as the persistence in and the effects on the environment of these biomolecules have 
not been studied adequately, their potential hazards are not known and cannot be predicted. As with Bt plants, where only 
a portion of the plants is harvested and the remainder of the biomass is incorporated into soil wherein the toxins released 
from disintegrating biomass are rapidly bound on surface-active particles, a substantial portion of the biomass of plant 
pharms containing the products of introduced novel genes will also be incorporated into soil. With pharms of transgenic 
animals, the feces, urine, and subsequently even carcasses containing bioactive compounds will eventually reach soil and 
other natural habitats. If these bioactive compounds (including prions from diseased animal carcasses) bind on surfaceactive particlesand as many of these compounds are proteinaceous, they most likely willthey may also persist in these 
habitats. If they retain their bioactivity, they could affect the biology of these habitats. Consequently, before the large-scale 
use in the eld of such plants and animals pharms, the persistence of their products and the potential effects of the products 
on the inhabitants of soil and other habitats must be thoroughly evaluated






Document Number: 1239
Soy Story: The Politics Behind the Boneless Protein

By Britt Bailey

The soybean has had a glorified past. Known in ancient Asia as the "Yellow Jewel," "Brings Happiness," and "Heaven's Bird," the soybean was the cherished "boneless protein" for Buddhist monks and religious sects who customarily avoided animal products in their diets. For centuries, its potent ingredients remained a mystery.

Soy's Past 
Though soy did not land on "Western" dinner plates until nearly the end of the twentieth century, the bean has served as an icon for a counterculture of back-to-the-land types stepping away from post WWII meat and potatoes dinner. But not everyone initially sees soy as a food, much less a drug. Chances are if you mention the word "tofu" to a cattle rancher living in the Midwest, he'll say that's the "cardboard those hippies eat." For others, perhaps those hippies, making and/or eating a block of tofu symbolizes an ideal of treading lightly on the land. This fact is told by the romanticized names on some soy product packaging, "Wildwood," "Living Farms," and "Country Life."

Soy Goes Mainstream 
Now, the little "Yellow Jewel," of the ancient Buddhist monks, has become big business. Of the principle food crops grown in the United States in the last half of the twentieth century, soybean production has increased the most. In fact, production has doubled in the last ten years alone. Nearly 3 billion bushels of soybeans were produced in 1997 compared with 1.5 billion bushels produced in 1987. More than 63 percent of the world's soybeans originate in the United States. Ironically, the U.S. now provides Japan with 80% of its soy and is the US's largest single country customer. Europe continues to be the largest region to import whole soybeans from the United States market.

While soy production is growing, so is talk of its purported benefits. Everywhere you turn it seems the media is touting soybeans and their derivatives. The powers that be, namely Monsanto, DuPont, Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland are betting their future on soy.

Back in the wings, a growing number of scientists are quietly expressing concerns over soy's hidden risks. It is, after all, a plant-borne hormone. And as history has shown , adding hormones to the body is fraught with danger. The sorry tale of DES is but one example. As example of the hidden downside to hormones, high-dose estrogens users who blithely took the first generation of contraceptives experienced cramping, and a rash of estrogen-induced liver tumors that were hidden from the medical profession and the public alike.

It is entirely possible that comparable risks will be exponentially magnified as soy protein production shifts into high gear and people ingest more and more of the refined, plant-hormone based extracts. Companies are aggressively attempting to add soy's concentrated hormone-containing "protein isolate" under the guise of providing added nutrition to crackers, sport bars, cereals, and infant formulas. Here is how one company has done it.

Spotlight on DuPont 
DuPont Company has been quietly standing by as Monsanto Company gets the flack for introducing genetically altered soybeans developed for herbicide sprays. In turn, Monsanto has suffered the brunt of consumers "yuk" factor. Dupont's 1998 Annual Report proudly states:

"New product development projects are principally aimed at significantly improving the functionality, color, taste, and flavor of soy protein isolate for use as a food ingredient in cheese, coffee whiteners, milk, egg and meat alternatives, baking products, and nutritional/ sport drink products."
But since 1998, standing idly by has been far from DuPont's strategy. In March 1999, they completed the purchase of Pioneer Hybrid for $7.7 billion allowing DuPont to be a major player in agricultural biotechnology. Heeled with Pioneer's multitude of corn and soybean seed varieties, DuPont has now formed a partnership company called Optimum Quality Grains (OQC). Optimum Quality Grains is set to provide consumers with the second wave of bioengineered goodies such as "high sucrose soybeans," "high oleic soybeans," and "Optimum Low Saturate Soybeans."

In addition, DuPont has also quietly purchased the largest soy protein isolate company in the world, Protein Technologies International (PTI). Once owned by Ralston Purina Company, PTI provided added soy protein supplements to animal feeds. Now in the hands of DuPont, PTI is expanding its capabilities and providing soy isolate for sport drinks, healthy protein bars, and other "healthy" products. While Dupont is an odd actor to be added to the soy world, it is not the only company jumping onto the bean's bandwagon. Archer Daniels Midland has trademarked their "Novasoy" brand of isolate rich in two major isoflavones, genistein and daidzein.

What is Soy Isolate? 
Soy isolate is the most concentrated source of soy protein. It is manufactured by a water extraction process from defatted and dehulled soybeans while retaining soy's natural isoflavones, or phytoestrogens. Soy isolate then can serve to be added as a "functional" ingredient in many familiar products. PTI has registered its soy isolate known as Supro, and is adding it to baked products, beverages, and extruded snack bars, such as "GeniSoy" and "Balanced."

The Benefits of Soy 
If the abundance of phytoestrogen-enriched foods in health-food shops and supermarkets is anything to go by, the public is already being convinced of the health benefits of weakly estrogenic, plant-derived steroids. Enthusiasts promote plant estrogens as the natural alternative to hormone replacement therapy (HRT), But, for post-menopausal women, as with other "food therapies," public acceptance has raced ahead of medical consensus. Post-menopausal women have been eating soy in droves, while new evidence suggests cancers which are estrogen dependent may actually be stimulated by additional dietary genistein.

The medical establishment began extensively researching the risks and benefits of soy and its accompanying isoflavones in the early 1990s. Nearly 300 scientific papers were published in 1994, alone. In the latter quarter of 1998, over 100 articles appeared in the National Library of Medicine. Often cautiously worded scientifically based research papers are used to tout soy's ability to lower the risk of heart disease, reduce the uncomfortable symptoms associated with menopause (i.e. hot flashes), protect against the weakening of bones known as osteoporosis, and potentially protect against breast and prostate cancer. While such benefits may be garnered from judicious use of soy, even the slightest miscalculation can send the body into a dangerous hormone tail spin. For it is the nature of hormones, and estrogen ion particular, to be a double-edged sword.

The purported benefits of soy allegedly stem from the presence of chemicals in the plant known as phytoestrogens, or plant estrogens. There are three major classes of phytoestrogens, namely coumestrans, lignans, and isoflavones. Most medical researchers focus on the isoflavones in soy as their raison d'tre. The two most biologically active isoflavones, genistein and daidzein are now in the spotlight. Each has powerful hormone-like effects. Each can bind with so-called estrogen like receptors. And, in our view, each brings risks as well as benefits to any user.

Once again companies at the helm of its products and public acceptance may be leaping ahead of medical consensus. While companies have assured consumers that the trypsin inhibitors and phytates, two elements of soy which could be detrimental to human health, have been properly removed from soy isolates, they have said little about the levels of estrogen circulating in the body after ingesting what may seem to be a "healthy" tofu burger, glass of soymilk, and a sport bar loaded with isolate. These hormone levels may be extraordinarily high. A child ingesting soy-based formula may receive 13-22,000 times the normal plasma estrogens she would get from being breast fed. There does not seem to be a consensus on the "recommended daily allowance," if any, of soy's estrogenic products.

While the Food and Drug Administration's policy arm concerning food, the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition, is not regulating soy's phytoestrogens and has not conducted any safety studies of ingestion of soy, there is at least one person in the FDA concerned about the aggressive marketing of soy and its concentrated isolates. Dr. Daniel Sheehan of FDA's National Center for Toxicological Research says "there is abundant evidence that some of the isoflavones found in soy, including genistein and equol, a metabolite of daidzein, demonstrate toxicity in estrogen sensitive tissues and in the thyroid." He goes onto to say, "genistein is clearly estrogenic, and it induces estrogenic responses in developing and adult animals and in adult humans."

While Dr. Sheehan is one of the few voices of concern in government circles, he is not alone in his thought. A small number of people who are raising questions about the addition of soy in the diet sans proper knowledge of its estrogenic effects. To date, there is no consensus of how much additional hormones may be needed by a post-menopausal woman compared to a menstruating woman versus an infant, pregnant woman, or an adolescent boy should eat. In fact, no one knows how much soy is 'good' for you. What evidence exists is hardly reassuring.

A recent study points out that a pre-menopausal woman eating textured vegetable protein (TVP) containing 45 mg of isoflavones can lengthen and prolong her menstrual cycle to nearly 32 days. Possibly such an effect may protect against breast cancer as the woman will have a lowered exposure to estrogen over her lifetime. But, there is some reason for concern as well. For example, it is likely the isoflavones will cross the placental barrier. As many people may remember, similar transplacental passage of a non-steroidal estrogen known as diethylstilbestrol in the popular "anti-miscarriage drug" desPLEX caused an increase in vaginal cancers in the offspring. Now a third generation offspring of those children may be experiencing similar adverse effects. Many of the most respected isoflavone specialists have been erring on the side of caution with regard to these physiology altering substances.

The benefits of soy may be in doubt. Dr. Kenneth Setchell, a world renowned phytoestrogen scientist, states precisely, "the clinical data supporting many of the currently claimed health benefits of phytoestrogens remain to be established definitively."

Conclusion 
Soy is permeating our food chain. Soybean oil constitutes 80% of the vegetable oil consumed in the United States. Soy lecithin permeates candies, cookies, and chocolates as an emulsifier. Soy protein isolates are used in infant formulas and sport protein drinks and bars. Soy has become so popular companies are literally betting its derivatives will be worth its weight in gold. Soy derived isolates of genistein and daidzein are already selling for over $15.00 a gram, while a bushel of soybeans sells for $1.65 on the commodities market.

If companies such as Archer Daniels Midland and DuPont have their way, our Frosted Flakes, Wheat Thins, and Health Nut bread will be saturated with protein isolate from the little "Yellow Jewel." While it may be not be a bad idea nutritionally, it may be devastating for some members of the population, particularly young developing children and pregnant women. Currently the Food and Drug Administration is holding open the flood gates allowing companies to add the estrogenic material directly to our foods. As long as the companies claim the material is a "food" there are no laws which regulate its entrance to our food supply. And, we as consumers may be the next generations in harms way.







Document Number: 4168
Being Fed Lies

By Britt Bailey

By the year 2025, it is estimated that 8.25 billion people will populate our planet. Will there be enough food for all? The looming population increase is of importance to agricultural based corporations that create herbicides, pesticides, and devise seeds for superior yield and disease resistance.

The impending need to produce more food is ostensibly a very "noble" cause, particularly for financial analysts who chart the stock markets and closely watch these chemical companies devise new products to meet the partly real and partly hyped demand for increased food supplies. Economists, along with executives of companies, that make agricultural herbicides, know that as plantings increase so will the production of herbicides . Many large companies are now involved in both the planting and chemical aspects of agriculture. For example, Monsanto Company, a known chemical manufacturer, has recently developed engineered technologies for crop seed. In addition to the latest developments in bioengineered foods, they are buying or controlling seed companies in order to market their new technologies. Biotechnology, in their view, promises farmers greater yields with less crop tillage. Tilling the soil less is considered an environmentally benevolent action which decreases the loss of soil and thus precious habitat damage.

But is the vastly increased productivity seemingly guaranteed by biotechnology really needed? Two fifths of the world's current food production comes from only 17% of land that is irrigated. The issue may not be food production at all. Many developing countries are producing food for export, while the United States dumps much of its subsidized foods. In India for example, wheat grown for export sells for $60 a ton. The wheat sells on the open market for $240 a ton. In the winter when the people of India run out of wheat, they must buy it back at $480 a ton.

According to many experts, including the World Bank, access to food may be at least as great a problem in feeding the world than the amounts of food produced. Nevertheless, much of the rationale behind the United States global leadership in the development of bioengineered food crops comes under the guise of feeding the burgeoning population. Others, notably the United Nations (U.N.) assert is that the world population growth is slowing, and food production is on the rise. The U.N. contends that it is poor resource management which is to blame for much of the world's food woes. Improper and over use of pesticides and poor farming methods are taking a toll on food production with 300 million hectares of farmland worldwide severely degraded, and 1.2 million hectares showing moderate fertility loss . United States based companies, such as Monsanto, AgrEvo, and Dupont, are world leaders in this technological development that will perpetuate further chemical abuse and farmland degradation. In part they encourage poor farming technologies by creating products that rely upon their herbicides. Presently, two thirds of all engineered food crops are being engineered for herbicide tolerance. Current U.S. government regulations are silently supporting this engineering movement, though in Europe there is not such reticence.

Engineered Food Crops and the Public Desire for Labeling:
As an example of these misplaced priorities, many of the new generation of "feed the world" products actually were engineered to have only cosmetic improvements. The first engineered food crops to be introduced into the commercial market were the "McGregor" Flavr-Savr tomato, created by Calgene. The public was made aware that the Flavr-Savr gene technology was to be used in commercial tomatoes. The media carried stories about their enhanced ability to stay fresh on the vine due to the introduction of a gene that delayed its ripening capacity. U.S. citizens were skeptical about these engineered tomatoes and they floundered in the marketplace. The company who created the tomato, Calgene Inc., was forthcoming, acknowledging that the tomatoes altered genetics may have led to its failure. In response to the consumer wariness of the Flavr-Savr tomato, Monsanto, now owner of Calgene Inc., has re-marketed the tomatoes under the name of just "McGregor". Monsanto, when they first began buying interest in Calgene Inc., gave Calgene a company that they owned, Garguilo LP, the largest US tomato grower. When Monsanto completed the buyout of Calgene Inc. in January 1997, they reacquired Garguilo and began production of the "McGregor" and the "Garguilo Farms" tomatoes. These Promethean names do not give the public any hint of their potential accessorized genomes. The lesson learned from the introduction of Flavr-Savr, as seen through industry eyes, is concealment. If disclosure will cause "irreparable harm," the answer lies in non-disclosure.

The present wave of engineered crops is entering into our food supply in a much more insidious way. Industry has decided to silence the genetic invasion of our food crops by denying any visible identifiers. If there is a label, it is only on the seed bag seen by the farmer under euphemistic names such as; Bollgard. Endless Summer, and New Leaf. This is where the labeling stops. Once the food product has reached the open market, the engineered products have been mixed with their non-engineered family members in large silos. According to one food giant, Pillsbury, the genetically engineered soybeans, in this case, are mixed in when they buy them as commodity. The mixing together of transgenic versus non-engineered food staples virtually guarantees that the end product cannot be labeled. The combined engineered and unengineered products has taken place in spite of a recent industry poll which found that 93% of all respondents deemed labeling necessary . Even though the public appears to want labeling, they may in fact not have that need granted. An recent example where citizen request was disallowed occurred when the people of the state of Vermont voted for labeling of dairy products that contain a growth hormone given to dairy cows. The growth hormone is called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), manufactured by Monsanto Company under the trade name Posilac. Regardless of the democratic vote voicing the inadequacy of labeling products containing additional hormones, on August 8,. 1996, the US circuit court of appeals ordered Judge Garvan Murtha to issue an injunction to block Vermont's rBGH labeling law after the Dairy Association in cahoots with Monsanto filed a lawsuit under the First Ammendment constitutional right "not to speak." This ordered "right" is continuing to conceal the fact that a rapidly growing amount of our dairy products contain rBGH and 94% of the American public would like labeling of these products . Industry concerns are seemingly overriding the desires of the American public. Interestingly enough, a large majority of the American public is not even aware that their food is being genetically engineered. The lack of cognizance in the U.S. is not entirely the fault of the public. There has been very little media coverage pertaining to the introduction of genetically engineered foods, thus little education. The European public, on the other hand, is very aware of the bioengineering of their food sources. Countries such as Germany and Austria are significantly more aware about biotechnology than the United States.

What's Happening in Europe:
The European Commission has proposed that companies must label products "may contain or may consist of genetically modified organisms." The European community has been very concerned about the absence of labeling of products that are genetically engineered; specifically soybean and maize. In January 1997, the Commission agreed upon definitions for novel food regulations that took effect in May 1997. In the definitions, genetically engineered food products must be labeled and sold separately In addition, the countries, Austria and Luxembourg, have banned the import of genetically engineered maize. The governments of these countries believe that the maize crop engineered by Ciba to contain a pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis, also contains a genetic marker conferring antibiotic resistance which could be transferred to humans or animals. Recently, 20% of the Austrian population, more than 1.2 million people, turned out to sign a petition calling for a ban on genetically modified foods and on patents on genetiacally modified plants and animals. This was the second highest turnout in their history of national petitions, and the highest ever for a grassroots initiative. Denmark decided that all foods containing genetically engineered soybeans must be labeled. In Germany, the Green Party has been diligently working to block engineered food products. Switzerland has passed laws stating that all food products containing genetically engineered soybean must be labeled. In fact, in April 1997, The chocolate maker Kraft-Suchard recalled 500 tons of chocolate after genetically engineered soybeans were detected in the soy lecithin which acts to bind fat and sugar.

The opposition in Europe to anything "genetic" or "contaminated may be due the reminiscence in their recent past of the "Mad Cow Disease" in which 15 cattle were incinerated after they were suspected of carrying transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) that killed a dozen or so people in Europe. The population of Europe has also within the last 60 years witnessed the atrocities at Nuremberg, where scientists and doctors, professionals, were implicated in a court of law and found guilty of human experimentation without proper informed consent. The European general public, therefore, may be more sensitive about the need for disclosure; procuring a right to choose. Labeling in the United States: The United States employs no labeling laws for bioengineered food products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in May, 1992 that engineered foods are not significantly altered; the similarity rendering no changes in labeling of the food products . The food companies; Proctor & Gamble, Nabisco, Frito-Lay, Ross Labs, Pillsbury, and Kraft do not have to manufacture labels which would otherwise alert the general public that the chips they are munching on likely contain soybean oil from Roundup Ready soybeans. Roundup Ready being the name Monsanto has assigned their revolutionary gene technology developed to allow the crop of choice the ability to withstand mass levels of their number one selling product, Roundup herbicide. If a person were to call Frito-Lay, for example, wondering whether or not Fritos contain oil from Roundup Ready soybeans, they answer, "we don't know, we don't test." Frito-Lay, like many other major food companies, receive their pressed oil from the likes of large grain traders, such as Cargill. U.S. based Cargill is the world's largest grain trader having a presence in 65 countries and providing grains to more than that. Ross Labs, the makers of Isomil and Similac soy-based infant formulas, on the other hand, admits to using engineered soybeans, if you speak with them via telephone . The labels of their products nowhere disclose the alteration of genes within the age old soybean. A bean once revered throughout cultures and religions as witnessed by their varietal names; Great Treasure and Brings Happiness.

Do folks in the United States care if their processed foods and raw commodities do not suggest all that they appear? The FDA is guided by a decree called the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996. This act amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) of 1938. The new act was ratified ion January 1997. The FQPA includes a section called "Consumer Right to Know" that promises within two years to include additional information on the risks and benefits of pesticide chemical residues. As long as industry is allowed to keep secret that fact that they have requested in some cases three times the originally determined safe residue levels for the newly engineered herbicide tolerant crops, the public may never know the truth behind their food products. Case in point occurred when Monsanto submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) petitions for increasing the allowable residue levels for the chemical glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup. In 1987, before the advent of Roundup Ready soybeans, the legal level of glyphosate residue for soybean as a raw commodity was 6 parts per million. Anticipating increased residues from the new ability to directly spray soybeans with the Roundup Ready technology, Monsanto had the "safe, allowable" levels of glyphosate in soybeans changed to 20 parts per million. What in 1987 was considered "safe" for human consumption was 8 years later "safe" at three times the amount.

Few people know that the U.S. government has patched together agency rules and guidelines for the regulation of bioengineered organisms. In fact, there has been no centralized regulatory body for the patenting and release of what represents billions of dollars in engineered food crops. It has been close to four years since the first engineered organism entered the U.S. marketplace. Yet, after the U.S. government's attempts to regulate organisms using a patchwork of agencies and laws, biotechnology regulations are finally being consolidated under the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) subgroup the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). With this decision to consolidate agencies and laws, the U.S. Government is also agreeing to instill simplified regulations permitting the expeditious release of these engineered foods into the environment. The release of these transgenic crops are not simply effecting the United States, but are executing changes globally as massive portions of the US food crops are exported.






Document Number: 3583
Engineered Crops Struggle in West Texas

By Britt Bailey and Marc Lapp

Conventional cotton growing amidst the West Texas heat. Photo provided by Texas farmer, July 1998
The daunting heat and ensuing drought in West Texas are taking their toll on livestock and crops alike, but nowhere more capriciously than on cotton. In mid-summer 1998, just as the last three Mississippi farmers received their settlements from Monsanto for the 1997 bioengineered cotton "failures," farmers in Texas are getting their first impressions of genetically engineered crops. And the reports coming in raise the specter of another year where genetically engineered cotton seed may not hold up to the fierce climate of the West Texas plains.

The "high plains" cotton farmers of West Texas boast nearly 4 million acres of cotton yearly, with nearly a million acres planted in and around Lubbock alone. This year, almost three quarters of this acreage has been sown with cotton genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate herbicide, known by its ironic sounding brand-name, Roundup Ready. Just as the 1998 cotton season began, unrelenting heat moved into and sat over the plains, decimating particularly the non-irrigated or "dry-land" cotton. Even plants in the 192,000 acres of irrigated cotton fields around Lubbock are struggling. But small farmers in this region are hot under the collar for reasons they believe may have nothing to do with Father Sun. Those who have contacted us believe much of the problem in these fields is concentrated in their new genetically engineered plantings. They report seeing unique growth abnormalities in Roundup Ready cotton unlike any ever seen before even during the droughts and floods that visit this area regularly.

According to our farmer contacts, most were convinced by Monsanto and Paymaster Seed representatives that Roundup Ready cotton was the "way to go" this season. The new genetically engineered seed came with assurances there would be no reduction in yields. According to the seed representatives, Roundup Ready cotton promised to make farm life easier as well. If true, such claims would be revolutionary on two counts: First, they would establish unequivocally the superiority of the much touted genetically engineered varieties. And, second, they promised to have a "desirable" socio-political impact. Specifically, growers would not have to hire migrant farm labor to control weeds because farmers would easily be able to tractor-apply Roundup herbicide over the top of the cotton plants a few times during the season. Accordingly, West Texas farmers planted nearly 70% of the plains crop with Roundup Ready varieties. Since these engineered versions were represented as "improved" varieties of the well-known conventional varieties such known as HS26 and HS200, the local farmers readily accepted them. For some, it looks like their decision may be a tragic mistake.

Engineering cotton to withstand a few herbicide applications must not have been an easy feat. Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) is known to have perhaps the most complex genetically controlled growth pattern of the major seed crops. In cotton, growth and development can be divided into five stages: 1) germination and emergence, 2) seedling establishment, 3) leaf and canopy development, 4) flowering and boll development, and 5) maturation. Although the transitions between these stages are not always distinguishable, a healthy cotton plant of a given variety will normally display consistent "phenotypic" characteristics. For example, the primary root, also referred to as the taproot or radical root, emerges from the seed coat during germination. Typically, this taproot extends long and deep into the soil as a single water-seeking probe. It is usually very straight and sturdy, providing the base for feeder roots that shoot off to the side and assure good access to deep soil moisture.

The Texas cotton farmers first began to suspect something was amiss just 2-3 weeks after planting. Even after soaking their fields with water, the genetically engineered remained stunted though still green. One farmer, who has asked to remain anonymous, realized that only the portions of his fields planted with Roundup Ready cotton were adversely affected. By mid-July approximately 600 acres of his Roundup Ready acres were not performing even as his conventional seed continued to grow relatively well under the oppressive plains heat. He pulled up some of each type, conventional and transgenic, only to discover that the root systems on the Roundup Ready varieties differed dramatically from the conventional norm (see photos).

'Normally' formed cotton taproot, conventional cotton. Photo provided by Texas farmer, 1998	
Roundup Ready root systems. Taproots are abnormally formed. Photo provided by Texas farmer, July 1998
"In some plants," he said in a recent phone call, "the roots are so deformed, it is like putting a kink in a water hose. The plants just don't seem to be getting any water or nutrients." After he started talking to his neighbors about his findings, he found others with similar problems. Steve Lee, another long-time cotton farmer from Lubbock County watched his Roundup Ready cotton come up and in spite of adequate irrigation, his plants began to lean, eventually falling over and breaking off at the base of the stalks. "In all my 36 years of farming I have never seen anything like this," he told us. "The roots are deformed, in some there is a good taproot but no feeder roots, and in others there are feeder roots but only on one side."

Though theories abound and answers are still being sought, so far the farmers are the ones wondering why the deformations (which they call "retarded roots") appear to be showing up in the Monsanto Roundup Ready varieties. Others are treating the problem as if it were simply a weather-related catastrophe. Agricultural extension agents, Paymaster seed representatives, and university crop specialists have combed the fields for environmental explanations for the kinked, twisted, and split appearance of the roots of Roundup Ready cotton plants. But they may be missing the point. The Roundup Ready plants are the first genotypes in the biotechnology revolution in food crops sweeping American and international agriculture. The farmers may not realize their pivotal role in vouchsafing this new technology to the world. But this fact is not lost on the makers of transgenic seed.

"I just can't take a financial hit like this," said one farmer. "The seed companies are blaming us, and yet I have conventional cotton 20 feet away that is doing fine," he continued. Another farmer exclaimed, "I have been farming for 36 years and I have never seen anything like this." In mid July, Lee Barron a farmer and broadcaster, initially did not believe that the failures were only in Roundup Ready fields. Two days later he called our office to say he had been looking at Roundup Ready cotton all day, "and something is definitely going on in those fields, what it is I do not know." In despondence, a farmer who wished to remain anonymous, germinated Roundup Ready seeds germinated in a controlled setting. To his surprise he found the tips of the roots deformed with nearly 80% of the roots twisted and disoriented.

While the farmers are scrambling for answers, representatives of Paymaster Seed Company based in Lubbock, Texas (a subsidiary of Delta Pineland acquired by Monsanto on May 11, 1998) seem to be trying hard to look the other way. Mr. Will Love of Paymaster denied that there even is a problem. When we spoke with him last week about the alleged failures, he tersely asserted, "Ma'am, I don't know what you are talking about." Puzzled, we replied that a Paymaster representative had been out to investigate a farmer's field just the day before. Still Mr. Love professed, "There's a lot of things failing in Texas, and it's all weather related."

When we called the agricultural extension offices for the district and county, we found more receptive ears, but nobody was willing to say that the failures were Roundup Ready related. In spite of the fact both Dr. Randy Boman and Mark Brown, both of the government extension service, agreed that root problems were occurring in some of the Roundup Ready varieties, Brown said, "there are too many confounding variables to consider it a Roundup Ready problem. At most what we are seeing is due to poor seed quality."

This story is not unlike the 1997 accounts of the Roundup Ready cotton failure in Mississippi when nearly 40,000 inaugural acres were affected by what is referred to as parrot beaked bolls, cotton bolls that were not only deformed but actually fell off the plant. Currently one Texas farmer is reporting "parrot-beaked" bolls in his Roundup Ready cotton. According to Dr. Dan Krieg of Texas Tech University, 60% of this year's cotton is gone, and with only 40% left, he believes he will see only more problems, not less in surviving fields. What percentage is Roundup Ready and what conventional remains to be flushed out, though it is clear from our contacts that the Roundup Ready seed varieties were ill prepared to adapt to the Texas heat wave.

Monsanto has clearly gone to great lengths to develop and rapidly market their Roundup Ready technology, including buying many of the largest seed companies throughout the world. But is has stopped short of guaranteeing its performance. For many of the farmers brave enough to plant these new genetically modified varieties, this omission may be crippling. Short of arbitration hearings, hiring lawyers, wrangling with insurance agents, many of the small farming operations are taking a financial hit.

Cotton farmers in Texas appear to be unwitting guinea pigs in Monsanto's continuing genetic and environmental experiment with transgenically modified seeds. And while the reasons for the cotton failures remain unknown, one thing is certain: the farmers are the losers in this one.







Document Number: 9121
Can Genetically Engineered Foods Compromise Social Equality?

Britt Bailey

Both the volume and extent of genetically altered food crops newly introduced into our food supply ensures they will have an impact on society. New genetic sequences are often introduced into such food crops from disparate species assuring a de minimus deviation from conventional food products. Of necessity, when a genetically modified seed is able to replicate and carry its features on the next generation of consumers, it poses special ethical issues both now and in the future. The central public health and ethical questions center on whether engineered changes are sufficiently new enough to pose unanticipated health risks, and if so, do they impact differentially on varying members of the population.

If genetically engineered foods differ significantly in terms of adverse health impacts, the skewed distribution could disproportionately burden vulnerable populations, exacerbating health gaps already created by differential access to health care and exposure to toxic substances. For instance, persons with deficient metabolizing or detoxifying systems including children may be unjustly burdened by genetically engineered foods. Some infants and newborns, especially those living in poorer socioeconomic conditions, may have little or no choice but to eat genetically engineered foods. This is because their parents food choices are constrained by poverty or because non-genetically engineered (e.g., organic) foods are unavailable.

Are susceptible populations unjustly burdened?
Currently in the United States, no mandate exists to label genetically engineered foods, in spite of the fact that 65-75% of the foods sold contain genetically engineered components or byproducts in the form of new proteins. This reality conflicts with consumers legitimate desires for labels that would reveal the presence of byproducts of genetic modification in their food. Presently the only way to avoid genetically engineered foods is by purchasing organic foods which by definition exclude genetically modified material. But many families are unable to purchase such premium priced, non-genetically engineered goods, raising the a question of access to non-genetically engineered foods. More critically, should any novel protein adversely stimulate the immune system, the inability of persons in the lower socioeconomic strata (for whom asthma and food allergies are special problems) to avoid such foods raises a critical question the equitable distribution of risk in society.

A second issue hinges on whether or not genetically engineered foods are in any way nutritionally deficient or defective compared to their conventional counterparts. Our own work suggests soybeans may lose valuable phytoestrogens after being genetically engineered. (We have recently confirmed our initial finding of below conventional levels - by some 12-18% - of genistin and daidzin in a third series of tests). Were genetically engineered foods, which are presently flooding world markets at below par prices, to prove nutritionally inferior as a group, they could compromise the very populations the life science industry claims to be interested in aiding.

Special Attention to Children
The fact that children seem to be more likely to react adversely to novel foods than do adults makes it important to ask if genetically engineered foods pose any undue burden upon this young population. Foods derived from the advances in genetic technology include new and potentially allergenic proteins coded by their novel genotypes. Should children from lower socioeconomic strata experience an especially elevated risk, such as from allergic reactions, as a result of their increased exposure to genetically engineered antigens, the inability of their parents to "exit" the system (e.g. no labels; because of the high price of organic foods, limited availability of conventional foods, etc.) compounds the ethical problem.

General Concerns
The debate surrounding the alteration of the food supply has been entrusted to the science community with very little input from those with differing philosophical and perceptual convictions. For instance, the scientific community has continued to debate the equivalency of genetically engineered foods in relationship to conventionally created ones, while neglecting the potential secondary effects of novel foodstuffs on exposed populations, or the necessity to perform extensive safety testing to assure the well-being of infants or children.

In spite of only a tiny fraction of the necessary testing being completed, the Food and Drug Administration has declared foods derived via molecular biology to be analogous to conventionally bred foods. Likewise the Life Sciences industry has published data asserting the comparability of genetically engineered foods, and have even claimed the novel foods may improve health and nutrition. However, the novel genes and their products, many originating from bacteria, have not been tested adequately for long-term safety. Nor have the foods active biological chemicals been tested for significant alterations which might create novel antigenic configurations, e.g. through differential folding of genetically engineered proteins.

Specific Concerns: Allergenicity
These realities are particularly eventful in light of the potential allergenicity posed by new genes which program for novel proteins. In part because of this concern, the National Academy of Sciences, after thorough review of potential harms stemming from genetically engineered crops, has recommended an extended testing protocol for allergenicity.

Allergic reactions can cause discomfort, including shortness of breath, hives, and in some cases can cause life-threatening anaphylactic shock. Since known food allergens tend to be proteins, foods with new proteins added via genetic engineering could potentially become newly allergenic food sources. Eighty-eight percent of people suffering from food allergies are "atopic" in that they have other allergic reactions including asthma or rhinitis, an inflammation of the nasal mucous membrane causing a runny nose and sneezing.

Were allergenicity to prove to be a problem, it would almost certainly impact differentially on the poor, and affect children specifically. Food allergies tend to affect susceptible individuals. They have become a serious public health concern, affecting roughly 2.5 to 5 million Americans. Up to two million, or 8%, of children in the U.S. are affected by food allergies as are up to 2% of adults. Food allergens - those parts of foods that cause allergic reactions - are usually proteins. Many food allergens can still cause reactions even after they are cooked or have resisted the degradation which normally accompanies digestion. Some like the Cry1A toxins expressed in insect resistant genetically engineered plants (for human consumption) fit this latter category.

Most proteins added to foods via genetic engineering cannot be tested directly for allergenicity prior to their incorporation into a foodstuff. Instead, industry scientists simply screen the biochemical characteristics of proteins to see if they are "consistent" with the characteristics associated with allergens. It remains to be seen how effective such screening will be in protecting the health of vulnerable populations of the public.

Ethical Considerations
In order to decide that special duty of care is owed to children who may be placed at a greater disadvantage due to the marketing and ubiquitous nature of genetically modified foods, there needs first to be a discussion as to why society should give special consideration to susceptible populations. The underlying premise for such consideration is the notion of equivalency: if two groups with varying degrees of vulnerability to a health limiting factor are to be kept equal in health outcome, the more vulnerable group requires differential treatment. In its broad sense, justice requires that distribution be fair as a means of respecting the equality of deservedness under an equal rights doctrine or to assure the fair distribution of goods in a system designed to guarantee equality of outcomes and/or utility.

Recall that as an independent ethical principle, justice permits a pattern of distribution to be morally right even if it conflicts with maximizing the aggregate social good. When patterns of distribution or risk status are unequal, such as when one group is disproportionately burdened with a health risk, egalitarian justice would defend assistance to those worse off.

Recall also that egalitarian theory strives for an equality of well-being, not of sameness. In the circumstance of the distribution of genetically engineered foods, the relevant question is whether children generally, and the children of adults not having access to non-genetically foods specifically, have equal opportunity to achieve well-being as do those with the means to avoid potentially deficient harmful foods. This problem is exacerbated if genetically engineered foods create differential risks say by virtue of their allergenicity, nutritional composition, or specific deficiencies, thereby unjustly burdening susceptible populations. Conversely, preferential marketing protections and "streamlined" safety testing might be justified if enhanced gene products had greater nutritional levels, greater yields, etc. Were these advantages afforded to "higher quality" genetically engineered foods under this system, it could be justified under the principle whereby basic inequalities are justified only when they work to the advantage of the socially worst-off group.

Genetically engineered foods thus may not deserve their apparent preferential treatment if they are not in fact "better." If the foods do place children and in particular children from lower socioeconomic classes at an increased rate of risk for allergenic reactions they would be deserving of differential restrictions, not permissiveness. What is clear is that no one has determined whether or not genetically engineered foods are physiologically neutral, inferior, or better than conventional varieties already on the market. Given that the new genetically engineered varieties have virtually supplanted their predecessors, the ethical question of equality is central to a deliberation of value to vulnerable populations. The penultimate question turns on whether are we permitting the creation of foods which could place an already vulnerable population at potentially greater risk instead of creating foods and new technologies which could truly create better health particularly for those who are worse off.





Document Number: 8557
Does Labeling Satisfy the Ethical Concerns Over Genetically Engineered Food?

By Britt Bailey

Abstract
The principle of consumer autonomy dictates labeling and disclosure of any salient nutritional differences or new production methods in foods. In the case of patented genetically engineered foods, industry opposes disclosure because it flags genetically engineered products, permitting "discrimination" against such products and potentially fueling "irrational" fears of health risks. Biotechnology proponents assert transgenic food crops are completely equivalent to traditional crops, and hence require no special labeling. Our own research challenges this view because of findings of differences in the composition of transgenic and conventional soybeans. The necessity for labeling and disclosure is further reinforced by industry's greatly accelerated production of transgenic varieties and the absence of sufficient pre-testing or monitoring to determine where and when true differences exist between bioengineered and conventional varieties.

The ethic of informed consent and transparency in corporate operations which affect public welfare support the legitimacy of enforcing a "risk status unknown" disclosure on all current transgenic crops as a minimum requirement. However, simply labeling genetically engineered crops provides an inadequate remedy for disclosing genuine risks known or unknown posed by genetically engineered foods. Such risks however small, would affect a considerable number of consumers.

Food and Drug Administration Claims rDNA Foods Do Not Warrant Labeling 
In the 1990's, the commercialization of transgenic crops expanded rapidly from barely 100,000 acres at the beginning of the decade to over 65 million worldwide acres at its end (Robinson, 1998). Public acceptance of the resulting genetically modified foods has varied widely. In one survey, 85% of those polled throughout the world thought labeling genetically engineered products was "very important" (Hoban and Kendall, 1991). In a later survey conducted by Novartis agribusiness company, 93% of Americans agreed bio-engineered food should be labeled (Feder, 1997). However, since 1992, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition (hereinafter referred to as FDA) asserts recombinant DNA techniques and cell fusion techniques are an extension of traditional genetic modification and hence has obviated a duty to label or disclose the transgenic status of food (Federal Register, 1992, 22984).

The Difference Between Labeling and Disclosure 
This view is not held elsewhere. In 1997-1998, the European Union and Japan agreed to label food sources created by transgenic technologies. The public often confuses the urge for labeling with the need for disclosure. Labels serve both proprietary (i.e. advertisement value) and public needs. In the case of virtually all contemporary food products in the United States and abroad, governments require labels of some kind be conspicuously placed . Generally, such labels inform a consumer what is known about the nutritional composition of a product. But in the U.S., labels may not make any unsubstantiated medical claims. A label may also identify the production methods used to prepare the products, i.e. "grown without the use of pesticides", "packaged without preservatives", "organic", or "does not contain rBGH". Such labels do not make safety pronouncements, although they do provide consumer information.

Labeling policies, whether for food sources or pharmaceuticals, are derived from an ethic established by the principle of autonomy. In its traditional sense, autonomy refers to the freedom to make decisions affecting one's own life; to consent to anything done on or to a person; and, to maintain privacy. Ideally, autonomy and its related concept, consumer sovereignty (Thompson, 1997), support a person's desire and right to know what they are ingesting, particularly when a product poses a foreseeable or potential harm.

The disclosure of information has its origins in medical ethics, particularly as a facet of informed consent. The primary function and justification of informed consent is to enable and protect autonomous choice. A key component of informed consent is full and sufficient disclosure of risks, benefits, and alternatives.For example, in the doctor-patient relationship a complete disclosure of relevant information is deemed essential to the informed consent of the patient. Occasionally, a patient may want information the physician deems unrelated to "medically" relevant data, such as "how will the medicine affect my appetite?" By analogy, a consumer might wish to know the features of a food that are not deemed "relevant" or salient by a regulator. Under such conditions, simple prudence and respect for the diversity of choice dictate labeling. It may desirable to disclose the existence of differences deemed important to the consumer even when a product has not been judged materially different by the manufacturer, ie. the method of slaughter used for religious purposes. Establishment of the equivalence of new products compared with those commercially available is the crux of the problem.

Likeness or Dissimilarity 
In the United States, foods created through the use of recombinant technologies are regulated within the existing framework of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act and, thus, utilize an approach identical "in principle" to foods developed by traditional plant breeding (Federal Register, 1992, p.22984). The FDA believes that the new techniques are extensions, at the molecular level, of traditional methods. FDA has stated that it is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way, or that, as a class, foods developed by the new techniques present any different or greater safety concern. For this reason, FDA does not believe the new method of development would require disclosure in the form of labeling (Federal Register, 1992,p. 22991).

The FDA has also stated that it will require special labeling only if the composition of a food developed through genetic engineering or any other methods differs significantly from its conventional counterpart "such that the common or usual name no longer applies to the new food, or usage issue exists to which consumers must be alarmed "(Federal Register, 1992, p.22991).

The FDA does not support labeling or disclosure because at a core philosophical level they do not believe transgenic methods of farming are different in any material way from conventional methods of farming. Such differences in nutritional quality may exist. For example, Monsanto Company, quantifying nutritional and toxicological equivalence in glyphosate-tolerant soy (enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase gene from Agrobacterium sp. strain CP4), had only to perform rudimentary testing. Our preliminary research has shown transgenic varieties exhibit significant decreases in one isoflavone, genistin (Lapp et al, 1999). Our research into glyphosate-tolerant soybeans supports the necessity of complete long-term testing of nutritional and toxicological equivalence prior to marketing.

Inconsistencies and Ethical Standards 
While labeling genetically engineered products may satisfy the desire and need for information about the simple origins of products, it does not satisfy the need for disclosure of the status of testing prior to full marketing. Such tests should extend to human health risks as well as ecosystem risks.

Contrary to the policies by the Center for Food, Safety, and Nutrition, another arm of the FDA does require full and complete safety tests be conducted prior to marketing modified versions of conventional products. The FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health requires industry to prove a new device is substantially equivalent to a marketed device that was or is currently in commerce (Premarket Notification 510(K) Regulatory Requirements for Medical Devices). If a device is deemed different in any salient way a full gamut of safety testing must be completed before the product is marketed. The Center does not approve of the commercialization of products while waiting for complete safety testing. By this analogy, transgenic crops would potentially not yet be available to the consumer.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) also requires that an assessment of "substantial equivalence" be carried out at the level of any food or food component used as human food. When substantial equivalence cannot be ascertained, the product must go through a tailored testing program. Again, a genetically engineered product would not be placed on the market until safety tests were complete and the health risks known. Both examples place the demonstration of equivalence and the burden of proof of showing absence of harm on the manufacturer.

The FDA's Center for Food Safety and Nutrition has taken the opposite approach. From the outset, FDA asserted transgenic products have been assumed to be similar to conventional ones. Only if industry judges a product component to be a food additive does the product require premarket approval and testing. In essence, U.S. regulators have given industry hegemony over its transgenic products, leaving the public to prove its difference or non-difference, and to call for labeling.

FDA Fails to Test Adequately New Transgenic Products 
Although the FDA has "determined" foods derived from genetic modification processes are not significantly different from foods bred and produced traditionally, its evidentiary base is extremely limited. Little if any scientifically available data support this assertion. Only a single 1996 study "established" equivalence between the composition of glyphosate-tolerant and conventional soybeans (Padgette et al, 1996). In this study, equivalence was tested by using unsprayed soybeans, not the soy actually placed on the market which typically receives two over-sprays of Roundup per growing season.

Conclusion 
Were labeling on product packages required, it would afford little or no useful data on the manner of production, or equivalence of transgenic foods. Labeling methods of production may actually serve to dilute the value of labels which could otherwise serve to warn consumers of the existence of nutritional or other differences. Even with mode of production labeling, consumers are potentially misled into believing foods are equivalent in nutritional or toxicological content. Only a full and complete disclosure of testing status, e.g. "this product's nutritional status and safety have not been fully tested", would accurately describe most transgenic crops thereby satisfying the minimal ethical requirements of informed consent.







Document Number: 2000
THE PACIFIC DECLARATION

We the undersigned, in recognition of the fundamental importance of our planet's natural genetic heritage and diversity, and in acknowledgment of the power of genetic engineering to transform this heritage, believe that the proponents and practitioners of genetic technologies must adhere to the principles of prudence, transparency and accountability.

We also aver that respect for life, ensuring a habitable planet, and protecting ecosystems are universally recognized and fundamental human values.  For this reason, those altering the genetic integrity of natural species bear the burden of proving their interventions will not jeopardize these values.

We also believe in democracy. In democratic societies, any decision to deploy powerful new technologies must be made with full public participation and accountability.  To date, our government, international agencies, public universities and biotechnology corporations have neglected these objectives.  Therefore we declare:

1)  Environmental safety and public health require the systematic study of any transgenically modified living organism over multiple generations before allowing its environmental release or marketing;

2)  All proposed products derived from genetic engineering must be shown  to contribute to the general welfare of consumers, farmers and society without compromising the viability of traditional agricultural practices, including organic farming;

3)  Farmers and agrarian peoples generally who have cultivated, nurtured and developed crops have the right to control their crop materials;

4)  Such control includes the right to cultivate indigenous or conventional species using traditional methods, and freely to use or re-use any genetic seed stock;

5)  People should have access to all relevant data concerning the potential effect of genetically modified organisms on the health of present or future generations;

6)  People have the right to accept or decline any food product for personal, religious or philosophical reasons;

7)  In the absence of compelling evidence showing the equivalence and safety of genetically engineered compared to conventional foods, all food products derived from genetic technologies must be accurately labeled;

8)  The medical injunction to do no harm requires adequate and sufficient pre- and post-market testing and surveillance of genetically engineered products;

9)  The present lack of such testing contravenes this injunction and thereby jeopardizes universal access to safe food,  potentially putting at risk present and future vulnerable populations including pregnant women and young children; and

10)  Because the fundamental discoveries of genetic engineering were developed through public funding, justice requires that any and all risks, costs and benefits of the products of genetic engineering be equitably distributed in society.

Until we have guarantees and assurances that the above stated requirements and objectives are no longer compromised by government and industry practices;

Until our government has created a comprehensive and effective regulatory system for all products of genetic engineering; and

Until such fundamental and constitutionally guaranteed protections of life and liberty, as well as protection of the health of the environment, food security and consumer right to know are vouchsafed;

We call upon our governmental representatives to suspend any further introduction of genetically engineered organisms and to hold the practitioners of genetic engineering, whether they be corporations, universities or governmental agencies fully liable for any adverse consequences of their work.






Document Number: 2506
Reductio ad Absurdum

By Britt Bailey

If we are going to talk about God, then this God of "thou shalt not play God" doesn't wash. Getting human is "playing God." But "play" knows that it plays: it respects its own limits not by setting rigid boundaries, but by transgressing creatively, lightly, knowingly. - Catherine Keller
The capacity to engineer genes generally and the success of biotechnology in particular, is forcing scholars to confront vexing philosophical concepts. For the first time, we have had to take a hard look at the basis of life itself and ask just how and if the alteration of genetic material poses novel ethical or moral problems. Is "life" held within the confines of a genetic sequence? Or do genes merely provide the building blocks of living entities which are then formed and framed by their interaction with nature?

Although biotechnology is often the focus of blanket opposition "on principle," such an attack ignores the core question of whether or not molecular biology is strictly a neutral science. While a simple answer is difficult, no one would deny that by the time molecular biology as a science becomes molecular technology, ethical analysis becomes imperative because of scope and scale of its potential impact.

Opposition to biotechnology is often couched in phrases such as "we should not be playing God." If molecular biology is critiqued by likening it to divine intervention, then all of biotechnology would be "off limits." Under this rubric, transgene movement should be reserved for realms far from the clumsy hands of humans. Some religions such as Christianity have advanced the notion that we are made in the image of God, and as such are entitled to reshape our natural world. Others, like Jainism or Buddhism have admonished humans not to interfere with the natural world. Whichever polar view one holds, humans have undeniably put themselves in god-like roles throughout their evolution. "Playing God" is not the right question. Humans have selected plants and animals for domestication for thousands of years. In so doing, admittedly we have changed their genetic makeup. Advocates in Life Science companies believe biotechnology simply serves as an extension of traditional crop breeding, and have asserted that any engineered crop is equivalent to any conventional variety.

The admonition not "To Play God" is also used to serve as a traditional moral ends, such as Christian opposition to low-tech medical interventions like abortion and euthanasia. Applying the phrase in response to biotechnology diverts attention from the real issues surrounding this science. Instead of providing enlightenment, such pronouncements may only supplant more profound arguments. By invoking the "playing God" card, debaters set absolute limits which omit the more deeply rooted complexity of how humans should interact and participate with the world. More useful analyses which might allow us to accept or reject of certain bioengineered developments are too easily obscured by the theological premise. Real philosophical discussion occurs behind the spurious walls of God's realm.

New Technologies
Implicit in the notion of divine intervention is the recognition that biotechnology introduces new ways to manipulate the world. How we do this manipulation is at the core of the controversy. Technologies operating on the scope and scale of genetic engineering in modern agricultural biotechnology, have the ability to radically alter and reshape public health and the ecosystem itself. Truly effective global technologies reshape society. Applications in the burgeoning field of agricultural biotechnology have the ability to re-shape soil and sub-soil biodiversity, food composition, and the agricultural system.

Perhaps a better question than "Are we playing God" is, "Should agricultural biotechnology be asked to contribute any differently to the common good than has any other technology?" If we follow important ethical and economic precepts, then the answer is, "perhaps, it should." While many technologies are not imposed upon society at large, biotechnology generally, and agbiotechnology particularly, do. At a minimum, technologies which can manipulate basic liberties, in this case, access to adequate sustenance, should contribute to the public good, and should do so optimally.

Contributions to the common good fall under the ethical principle of beneficence. The concept normally applies to "doing good" or acting to improve well-being. But beneficence in the context of agricultural biotechnology instead calls for a circumstance where risks and benefits associated with world-wide developments are balanced to assure "harm" is minimized and benefits are maximized.

Economic Parallels 
Because economic and ultimately public benefits are cited by the Life Science industry as the main argument for developing and marketing bioengineered crops, it would be meaningful to draw a parallel between ethics and economics.The principle of beneficence has much in common with the economic, business-oriented theorem, the "Pareto Optimum," named after the Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto.

According to this theory, private goods achieve a Pareto optimum when most individuals can be made better off without making others worse off. A new technology like bioengineering must then be evaluated for its contribution to the overall social welfare by assessing the degree to which it approaches this optimum. Does the introduction of biotechnology meet this test? More particularly, does agricultural biotechnology support the common good and the social system as a whole in accordance with the Pareto optimum? To date, no ethical baseline exists to evaluate the contribution of biotechnology to the common good. Should any corporation currently putting 98.6 million acres of genetically engineered food and animal grade crops under the plow have to prove it is contributing to the well being of society?

One can only hope an ethical analysis takes place before the biotechnological sweep across the global landscape goes too far to be recalled. Since the beginning of the nineteenth century, society has grappled with lacing together science and technology with some sense of ethics. While science furnishes new powers to humanity, what we do with its advances often sheds light on our most basic instincts and moral boundaries. In 1949, Winston Churchill properly stated, "Our codes of honour, morals and manners, the passionate convictionsare far more precious to us than anything which scientific discoveries could bestow. Those whose minds are attracted or compelled to rigid and symmetrical systems of government should remember that logic, like science, must be the servant and not the master of man."








Document Number: 7333
An Island Region's Self-rule: Kona Opposes Genetically Engineered Coffee

By Britt Bailey

For a few days a year, the hillside coffee plants in the Kona region of Hawaii's biggest island turn brilliant white, resembling the snows of the inland mountains of the continental United States. Interspersed along Mamalahoa and Queens Highways, the plants toss open their blossoms as if one, and release their sweet fragrance into the dewy air. The Kona coffee plants grow in the region's volcanic soils spread over nearly 600 small family farms. The coffee farms, collectives,- and associations successfully produce and supply an internationally recognized, distinctive product that generates a bountiful economy for the Kona area.

As I walked along the road near our house attempting to identify the tropical plants - mango, avocado, papaya - an older Hawaiian man called out "looks like snow, huh?" Surprised, I said "uh, yes" at the same time I recognized he was referring to the coffee. "How often does it bloom," I asked. "Just a few days a year" and he put his head down and went back to cleaning his yard. I realized I was experiencing something very special - the blooming of a product supported by small family style farmers steeped in evolutionary and agricultural history.

After decades of labor to secure a viable product and economy, the Kona coffee farmers now find themselves protecting their plants not from infestations and invisible blights, but from scientists and policy makers bent on conducting new and potentially dangerous genetic experimentation with coffee. Along with the private Integrated Coffee Technologies, the public University of Hawaii is developing genetically engineered coffee plants designed to withstand pests, produce decaffeinated beans, and control ripening. Perhaps understandably, given its unique commercial product, the Kona region is deeply concerned about genetic contamination to its widely exported crop. Recently, in response to the possibility of field-testing the genetically altered coffee varieties, the Kona Coffee Council, representing the views of nearly 600 farmers, drafted a resolution that opposed the introduction of genetically engineered coffee in the Kona region.

The Kona Coffee Council does not oppose the research per se, but wants regulations and safeguards in place before engineered coffee grows cheek to jowl with their own genetically pristine crop in the volcanic soils of Kona. Kona coffee farmers would like to retain their ability to make decisions for themselves. And, in the event they do accept genetically engineered coffee, they will only do so with proper safeguards in place. Unfortunately, at the moment such safeguards do not exist. No guidelines tell who is liable in the event of cross contamination of their native beans. The cost of labeling is also an issue that looms unresolved.

As it currently stands, should Kona's coffee become contaminated with the DNA from genetically "enhanced" varieties, its world market base could suffer. The coffee crop in Kona is valued at nearly 12 million dollars. With many countries choosing not to accept the importation of genetically engineered crops and others only accepting genetically modified crops with a label, the 650 or so families of farmers and many others involved in the export and roasting could experience economic ruin.

Kona Coffee History
In early February 2003, I was asked to speak to the farmers and University of Hawaii scientists about the social and ethical aspects of this new experiment of genetically engineering coffee. Little did I realize that my mental musings that began with the blooming coffee and continued into a deeper understanding of Hawaii's coffee plants, many over 100 years old, would be put to the test. The Hawaii Department of Agriculture's Plant Quarantine Program began over a hundred years ago when, in 1888, King David Kalakaua decreed that in order to protect the coffee industry, new plants would not be allowed into the Zislands. This protection has resulted in Hawaii's 100-plus year old trees lining the volcanic hillsides with histories as thick as their stalks. The coffee plants are similar to grape vines in their appearance and thrive as a result of assiduous care from generations of family farmers. To weigh the impact of genetically engineered coffee in the Kona region, consider what might result if the University of Sorbonne developed genetically engineered wine grapes and wanted to field-test them in the Bordeaux region of France.

100 Miles Away in Oahu 
Less than 100 miles away from Kona's volcanic slopes are the laboratories at the University of Hawaii, where government and industry-sponsored scientists are developing bioengineered coffee plants. The developments include growing decaffeinated beans, creating plants with built-in pest resistance, and designing plants with enhanced ripening characteristics. None of these developments can be said to be needed in the Kona region. In fact, the region boasts a relatively pest free environment. Very few pesticides need to be used. When there is an infestation, the region has had a high success rate using biological controls. But while the Kona region may not need genetically engineered plants, the region is being proposed as a testing site. And, since coffee plants self-pollinate as well as utilize insect pollination, there is a risk of genetic contamination to the established Kona coffee.

Kona and its Autonomy 
While the risk of genetic contamination is real, the wishes of the community and its desire to make decisions for itself as a growing region are exceedingly important.

One striking feature of Kona coffee's history includes the efforts spent on the part of the farmers in the region to produce, distribute, and market a product. In the eyes of those hard-working farmers, and in turn their importers, genetic engineering would make their coffee wholly different. And, while there have been countless scientific discussions regarding whether or not genetically engineered plants are actually different, disrupt ecosystems, or impact public health, very little attention is given to the heart of the debate: the social and ethical aspects which deserve thorough attention and consideration. These aspects include considering a region's needs, and the social dislocations that might occur when a product is changed. The economic impacts are equally important. A psychosocial impact could occur as well, were genetically modified plants that are owned by companies or governments to be substituted for plants that were previously tended by families and their ancestors.

No current model of assessing "risk" from genetically engineered plants incorporates these social aspects. No risk assessor can assign a value to a region wanting simply to remain autonomous and free from interference.

In its resolution to oppose the introduction of genetically engineered coffee, the Kona Coffee Council represents the desire of hundreds of coffee growers wanting nothing less than what the European Union has requested - a moratorium on introducing new genetically modified plants. This situation is exactly what the Mexican State of Oaxaca has requested in banning the genetically engineered corn to protect the weedy relative, the teosinte plant.

What are we to make of the Kona region's request that it remain autonomous and able to make decisions for itself?

The 19th century British philosopher, John Stuart Mill argued communities be granted the right to take steps to ensure adequate public discussion of what constitutes the "good" of that community. The democratic decision by the Kona coffee growers appears consonant with this assertion: open forums and discussion protect the integrity of the community's collective wishes. From the community's position, the Kona region is in a remarkable position. Not only can it remain free from genetic pollution because of its island location and isolation in the Pacific, but also it is situated to become the first region in the United States to make autonomous decisions regarding the introduction of genetically engineered organisms. At the moment, the Kona region's right to make decisions for itself and its community are seen by its opponents as superceding the rights of opportunity, progress, and science. But who is to say what is the "good" for Kona if not the people of Kona themselves? Supporting Kona coffee farmers desire to remain free of genetic contamination not only supports the autonomy and freedom of the region, but it ensures the region will be allowed to continue to grow a unique and highly prized product.






Document Number: 1285
Fact Sheet On Monsanto and Scott's Roundup Ready Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis stolonifera L.)


Based on potential environmental effects associated with the deregulation and commercialization of Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass, the USDA is drafting the first ever Environmental Impact Statement for a genetically modified organism. USDA scoping document: Federal Register 

Creeping bentgrass is used in many golf courses across the U.S. Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass is being modified to resist the herbicide Roundup. It is the first wind pollinated, perennial, and highly outcrossing GMO crop developed for commercial use. 

A recently published government study shows that the pollen from the modified creeping bentgrass can travel 13 miles. See study 

Creeping bentgrass is an outcrossing species and is compatible with at least a dozen other wild species in the United States. Deregulating this product will allow frequent and recurrent gene flow between the modified and wild species. 

If Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass is commercially successful and is widely adopted in the United States, the transgenes will be naturally introduced into related species. 

Introducing the transgenes into related grassy species is likely to cause "superweeds" or resistant weeds that can withstand the overspray of Roundup herbicide. 

The creation of "superweeds" means we will need to use bigger quantities of weedkillers, not less! 

Deregulation of the Roundup Ready creeping bentgrass will prove to be a huge problem for municipalities, counties, and other regions that have prohibited the planting of genetically modified organisms.








Document Number: 512
Taro Culture and Genetic Engineering
Information about taro, genetic engineering, and actions you can take

What is Taro?
Taro is the staple of the Native Hawaiian diet and at the core of the Hawaiian culture.  Hawaiians believe the taro plant to be sacred.  Taro, called "kalo" in Hawaiian, is central to the Native Hawaiian creation story.

Taro is a plant with a broad, beautiful, nutritious strong leaf shaped like a huge heart. Imagine a completely hypoallergenic, versatile, mineralized, satiating vibrant tuber with unique and starchy richness and the ability to be made into everything from pie, to burgers and chips, to  a smooth, purple-ish, creamy staple dish called poi. Even those who do not have the creation story of the taro in their heritage know that taro, in these islands that we love, is sacred. It is one of the single most well-know, important, and reliable plants in all of Polynesia, and the locals take a deep pride in its profound history.  Various names for parts of the taro plant indicate its interwoven history with the Hawaiian people: the place where the stem meets the leaf is called the piko, or navel. The stem is the ha, the breath, and the cluster of shoots (or keiki, meaning children) that surround the mother plant are called an ohana, or family.

Here in Hawai'i, the growing and cultivation of the kalo plant is a tradition that stretches back for more than a thousand years.  The Hawaiians loved, honored, and cared for kalo and were in turn, as the creation story implies, fed and supported by it for generations and generations.  By tending carefully the kalo, the Hawaiians eventually cultivated more than 300 varieties by selecting the plants for certain conditions, climates, and soils and by hand-pollinating over years and years.

Why A Moratorium on GMO Taro?
GMO taro:

Undermines the genetic integrity of taro, sacred to the Hawaiian people;
Threatens the taro market and livelihood of taro farmers. Taro production yields over 6 million pounds annually valued at $3.3 million.
Threatens the biodiversity of the taro plant;
Could cause new, unexpected problems in taro cultivation;
Could contaminate traditional varieties of taro and take away taro farmers ability to choose what they grow in their loi; and
Overlooks the wealth of traditional knowledge about growing taro that has been passed down through generations and generations.
History of GMO Taro In Hawaii

Native Hawaiians, along with Hawaii SEED, are fighting back. 
You can too.  Take action now!
Past Actions

It is no small matter when an indigenous people share the importance of their traditional knowledge and genealogy, and the dominant culture refuses to listen.  This is the time when we are making it perfectly clear that there is a kapu [ban] placed on all genetic modifications and patenting of our genealogical brother the taro. There should be limits to academic research when it conflicts with indigenous culture. No one can own our traditional knowledge, intellectual property rights or our biodiversity.

- Walter Ritte, Native Hawaiian of Moloka'i






Document Number: 4750
My name is Britt Bailey.  I am currently a law student at the University of Hawaiis, William S. 
Richardson School of Law. I am also Director of Environmental Commons, a non-profit 
organization dedicated to assisting in sound environmental decision-making.  Much of my work 
prior to attending law school centered on the issues and concerns raised by the growing of 
genetically modified foods (GMOs).  I do not intend to get into an exhaustive discussion of 
those issues, as I would like to focus my testimony on state and local preemption and its effects.  
Background:
Preemption bills related to GMOs were first introduced in 2005 after four California counties 
passed measures to regulate GMO usage. To date, fifteen states have passed such "preemption 
bills" disallowing local governments from regulating GMOs, thus reserving that regulatory 
authority for the States. An additional six states have introduced preemption bills though they 
have been defeated for various reasons. 
Hawaii's GMO preemption bill is very unique. Not only has the author introduced a bill that 
removes the regulatory authority of local governments, but also, in its reading, Hawaii will 
become the first and likely only state in the country to preempt itself to the federal government.  
The only other state to attempt such broad preemption of GMOs to the federal government was 
Missouri, home to Monsanto Company.  Missouri twice introduced such a bill and twice it failed.
HB1226
According to the puzzling language of HB 1226, the bill would disallow the agricultural agency 
from restricting ones testing, growing, or planting of GMOs as long as a valid permit has been 
issued by the federal government.  The bill further states a regulatory agency may regulate 
GMOs as long as it is in a manner that is considered "not discriminatory." A regulatory action is 
deemed "discriminatory" if the action has a regulatory effect on a genetically modified plant 
organism that differs from the effect on a similar non-genetically modified plant organism.  In a 
very round about way, this bill states Hawaiis agricultural agency can regulate GMOs as long as 
you do not regulate them.  The very essence of the bill eliminates the state's ability to regulate or 
respond in any way to foods that are genetically modified.
In HB1226, Hawaii is considering preempting itself to the federal government just as many 
states are embracing regulatory systems for GMOs.  In the past ten years, thirty states have 
passed laws providing special regulation or oversight for GMOs apart from their conventional 
counterparts.  The bills range from protecting farmers who choose to use or not use the 
technology, providing labeling, prohibiting certain types of crops such as GMO-based pharmaceuticals, creating public notification systems, and creating a study or task force to look 
at the effects of GMOs to health and the environment.  States such as Arkansas, Alaska, 
Minnesota, and Washington have passed bills regulating GMOs so that they can better protect 
their specific and unique non-GMO crops and foods.  
Why, particularly now, would Hawaii want to give up agricultural authority to the federal 
government? Not only have unfortunate incidents occurred which have required strong state 
response, but also the federal regulations concerning GMOs have proved to be sorely inadequate. 
The last two scientific assessments (National Academy of Sciences & an internal USDA audit 
report
1
) have concluded: 
o "APHIS lacks basic information about the field test sites it approves and is 
responsible for monitoring, including where and how the crops are being grown, and 
what becomes of them at the end of the field test.
o By refusing to require submission of protocols, APHIS is relinquishing its regulatory 
responsibility in favor of self-certification by the notification applicants." In many 
instances, this may represent a significant risk to public health and the environment.
o "Weaknesses in APHIS regulations and internal management controls increase the 
risk that regulated genetically engineered organisms will inadvertently persist in the 
environment before they are deemed safe to grow without regulation."
o "There has been no environmental monitoring of transgenic crops, so any effects that 
might have occurred could not have been detected. "
In closing, Hawaii is simply too unique both geographically and climatically, to pass on its 
responsibility for creating an economically viable, healthy, and secure food system to the federal 
government. I strongly urge your NO VOTE on HB1226.






Document Number: 3306 


Roundup herbicide and its active ingredient, glyphosate, have been getting a lot of bad press recently. But it seems there's worse to come.
In 1997, just when the first GM Roundup Ready crops were emerging in the fields, Monsanto scientists were successfully arguing against any possibility that weeds might also manage to make themselves Roundup Ready.
The evidence to support thier argument seemed to be that, in over 20 years of worldwide use, there had been no verified evidence of weeds evolving resistance to glyphosate (the key herbicidal ingredient in Roundup). This success was put down to glyphosate's unique chemical structure and metabolism, its unique mechanism of plant-annihilation, and the lack of residual activity in the soil. Moreover, even if the weeds did begin to become tolerant, they would still be so weakened by the glyphosate, they wouldn't survive. Weeds with tricks up their sleeves, such as stacks of duplicated genes to overwhelm the herbicide, were dismissed as unlikely (see WEEDS HAVE TRICKS UP THEIR SLEEVES - Archive news, February 2010).Common marestail. Image Wiki CommonsAs early as 2001, the first glyphosate-resistant marestail weeds were noticed: farmers began to find themselves with a problem which hadn't previously been a problem. Add to this that warnings were already sounding about a reduction (by up to 17%) in rental value of any farmland with uncontrolled weeds, with glyphosate-resistance as the No.1 concern.
The manufacturers of Roundup and Roundup Ready seed, however, continued to be dismissive. In 2003, Monsanto International's technical manager was telling soyabean farmers "If I were in growers' shoes, I would look for effective, cost-efficient weed control, which is what Roundup provides. If it's a dead weed, it won't produce seed. He assured customers that many growers had used Roundup Ready soyabeans (plus Roundup) continuously for eight years without any problems, and that long-term university research had demonstrated that growers could successfully grow Roundup Ready crops in rotation with each other. Complaints about the emergence of problematic glyphosate-resistant waterhemp were blamed on the farmers' bad management: they were taking too long to get around to applying the Roundup, and then using it at too low a concentration for the size of the weeds. Other grumbling about non-dead weeds were met with advice to use glyphosate at the maximum rate and to add in other herbicidal chemistries.
A policy of don't-look-don't-see was definitely in operation at this time. One US University weed specialist pointed out that, despite glyphosate's increasing failure, The companies aren't looking for new products. It's just not happening.
By 2010, 90 percent of GM crops were Roundup Ready varieties. The population of glyphosate-resistant weeds which, in 2007, had stood at eight weed species on 3,251 sites covering 2.4 million acres, exploded into 14,262 sites covering 5.4 million acres in 2009, and mushroomed to 19 weed species on 30,000 sites covering 11.4 million acres just a year later. Monsanto was reported to be paying farmers to spray chemicals made by other companies and some farmers were resorting to hand-weeding. One weed scientist caused a stir by proposing to the government that it should restrict the use of herbicide-tolerant crops and impose a tax on biotech seeds to fund research and educational programmes for farmers.
The situation was clearly getting out of control ...
While Monsanto's prototype herbicide/GM-crop package was having its successes and failures, other biotech companies were watching and learning. They could see that herbicide-tolerant GM crops were too lucrative to let slip, and that Roundup's days were numbered. All it needed was an alternative weedkiller effective enough be sold to farmers, and safe enough to be spun to regulators.
Dow AgroSciences has come up with just such a sales package to complement glyphosate-resistant crops.
The new weedkiller is an old one, 2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid), a plant-hormone mimic which has been around for some 60 years (much longer than glyphosate).
The GM genes put into crops to inactivate the 2,4-D are copied from a bacterium. The enzyme generated by the GM genes has been found to degrade, not only 2,4-D but a variety of other herbicides. This paves the way nicely for a deluge of chemicals on and in our food crops (providing they are GM).
2,4-D is described by Dow scientists as being low-cost, environmentally-friendly, and having low-persistence, plus low-toxicity to humans and wildlife. If this sound suspiciously like the glyphosate is safe as salt sound-byte of yesteryear (see GM time-bomb - ), the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service might agree. The Service's 'Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for the chemical notes that:... many non-accidental exposure scenario  i.e. exposures that are plausible under normal conditions of use  also exceed the level (triggering) concern, and often by a very substantial margin.Unless steps are taken to mitigate risks, workers involved in the application of 2,4-D and members of the general public who consume vegetation contaminated with 2,4-D could be exposed to 2,4-D levels greater than those which are generally regarded as acceptable. In some cases, the exceedances are substantial. Similarly, adverse effects in the normal use of 2,4-D salts of esters could occur in groups of non-target organisms including terrestrial and aquatic plants, mammals, and possibly birds.Regarding human exposure Based on recent studies published in the open literature, 2,4-D is toxic to the immune system and developing immune system, especially when used in combination with other herbicides. The mechanism of action of 2,4-D toxicity is cell membrane disruption and cellular metabolic processes. The molecular basis for 2,4-D toxicity to human lymphocytes and nerve tissue is likely the induction of programmed cellular death known as apoptosis.
In safety data sheets, 2,4-D is classed as 'Toxic' if swallowed or inhaled, and is described as an experimental carcinogen and teratogen which may cause central nervous system damage.Add to all the above comments that a plant genetically transformed to resist 2,4-D and other chemicals will end up accumulating any one such chemical, maybe all of them, and/or a host of their toxic breakdown products. People will then swallow this cocktail in their food, and inhale the cocktail in plant debris in the air.The USDA Forest Service paints a very different, and worrying, picture of 2,4-D compared with the glowing description given by the biotech company intending to sell it. Your future diet sounds as if it will deliver a double whammy of fertility damage from glyphosate and immunity damage from 2,4-D, plus whatever effects there might be from whatever other chemicals are there.That is, of course, if you decide to eat up whatever Mssrs. Monsanto and Dow have decided to feed you. The choice is yours.T. R. Wright, et al., 2010, Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes, PNAS, 107:47Human Health and Ecological risk Assessment for 2,4-0D, SDA Forest Service, 30.09.06Growing Roundup-resistant weed problem must be dealt with, expert says, www.physorg.com, 14.09.10Charles Margulis, Monsanto's Superweeds Come Home to Roost, Generation Green, 26.10.10As weeds become glyphosate-resistant, farmers asked to very control methods, Farm Industry News, 5.02.03A. D. Bradshaw, et al., 1997, Perspectives on Glyphosate Resistance, Weed Technology 11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3827 


'No one has ever been harmed by GM'... fact or wishful thinking

What is the evidence that no one has ever been harmed by GM?There's no doubt that GM foods have been part of the typical American diet for many years. This is hardly surprising when an estimated 70% of all foods on US supermarket shelves contain genetically modified ingredients, including most things bulked up with starches, sugar syrups, vegetable oils, 'protein' in various guises, imitation meat, and a host of additives. Over and above this 70% of processed food, the majority of animal products come from livestock given GM feed.US consumers, we are told have a high degree of faith in the food-safety oversight carried out by their regulatory agencies (the FDA, EPA,and USDA), and are happy to accept GM, even if most of them don't know they're eating it. The oft-repeated basis for this confidence is We can't argue with the record: no one has been made ill from eating genetically modified foods.The origin of this sound-byte seems to be the second edition of a booklet entitled Biotechnology and Food, prepared for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) in 2000. This not-for-profits organization describes itself as a consumer education consortium which accepts funding from industry and private foundations as long no strings (are) attached. Whistleblowers Stauber and Rampton, however, describe the ACSH as an industry front group that produces PR ammunition for the food processing and chemical industries. The main author of the ACSH booklet is Alan McHughen, a molecular geneticist now working in the University of California at Riverside. Back in 2000, McHughen had a powerful motive for getting GM accepted. At the time, he was busy manufacturing a GM flax so that it could withstand soil residues of the herbicides used on previous crops in the field. Demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the flax market, he argued that it was an ideal crop for transforming to produce industrial chemicals because it wasn't part of the food chain. He persisted in his GM flax venture despite strong opposition from flax growers, and even gave away packets of his GM seed for farmers to try out. The outcome has been an absolute nightmare for flax growers (Canadian NFU), the collapse of the Canadian flax seed market, and a substantial loss of money for the University of Saskatchewan where McHughen was working at the time. Global contamination of flax by McHughen's genes persists to this day, along with various versions of his time-tested 'proof' of GM safety. In 'Biotechnology and Food', McHughen's pseudo-scientific evidence for dismissing 'public concerns' and 'general food safety issues' of GM food is: Three hundred million North American consumers have been eating several dozen GM foods grown on hundred of millions of acres since 1994 , with no documented adverse effects (later in the report this statement reappears` as there are no documented cases of harm attributable to the process by which the GM crops were bred, which actually says something quite different). The 'evidence' for safety surfaced again in November 2010, in a report designed to influence the Vatican's ongoing GM-unfriendly position. It was trotted out by the inventor of GM 'golden' vitamin-A rich rice who is having endless difficulties getting his 'world-saving' GM crop onto the market but has managed to get himself elected to the Vatican's science-advisory body. He said There has not been a single documented case of harm to consumers or the environment.In a situation where there has been no testing on humans, there has been minimal or no testing on laboratory rodent models, no testing on livestock beyond the routine commercially-required checks on product quality (such as the weight gain achieved), no labelling and no post-market monitoring, these statements are impossible to either prove or disprove. Without relevant records, measurements and controls, the length of time which has elapsed, the number of people involved and the area of GM crops grown constitute no evidence whatsoever.Jeffrey Smith, educator and founder of The Institute for Responsible Technology, can't fill in the scientific gaps either, but he does talk to a lot of people, especially professionals in a position to spot 'cases of harm' from eating GM. He's aware of doctors whose patients have been cured of conditions as diverse as skin reactions, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, weight problems and fatigue, after being prescribed a non-GM diet. The problem with this kind of evidence, in the absence of a scientifically controlled study, is that to avoid GM food, the people also stopped eating processed junk and started eating organic. It's impossible to tell if it's the absence of junk, the absence of GM, the introduction of organic, or all three together which brought about the cure.However, Smith has also talked to veterinarians and farmers. Animals on farms don't have the complex and varied diet typical of humans, nor do they have much choice about what they eat: as a rule they're given a very restricted diet of maize- and soya- based animal feed. Farmers have observed that when their pigs and cows were taken off GM feed, death rates and still-born rates dropped, litter size went up, and overall health improved. One farmers was ecstatic about the huge increase in milk production in his GM-free herd. Both vets and farmers also saw differences inside GM-fed animals during autopsies or after butchering, including liver damage (a classic symptom of toxicity), stomach ulcers, discoloration, and a stench which shouldn't have been there. Again, this evidence doesn't definitively point the finger at GM feed, but because there are far fewer interfering parameters, it is at the very least worthy of further investigation.US citizens, don't generally restrict their staple diet to a single crop plant. However, there is one instance where this was done. Since January 2003, inmates of the Illinois prison system have been fed a diet comprised largely of soy and soya protein isolate. The reason was to cut costs by replacing meat and cheese with cheap processed soya imitations. Prisoners were therefore consuming upwards of 100 grams of soya a day (this is 3-10 times what is normally consumed in Asian countries where soya is part of the traditional diet). The high-soya diet soon started to have deleterious effects on the men, including chronic and painful constipation alternating with debilitating diarrhea, vomiting after eating, sharp abdominal pains, fainting, palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression and symptoms of hypothyroidism (feeling cold, brain fog, fatigue, weight gain, infections, enlarged thyroid gland); many of the men have had part of their digestive tract removed. After four years of this and no action from the prison staff, the inmates began contacting the  (see below) to take legal action on their behalf. The FDA lists 300 studies indicating negative health effects from soya. Most soya available in the US since 2003 has been GM and has never undergone clinical testing for safety. The prisoners were certainly eating large quantities of GM on a daily basis, and they definitely became sick. Again, without controlled scientific studies it's impossible to tell if it's the soya, the GM nature of the soya, the absence of vital animal-based nutrients, or a combination of all three which is causing the problems. However, the incident makes the view that no one has been made ill from eating genetically modified foods incorrect.Comment on the implications of the evidence presented:The most worrying aspect of the Smith conversations was that newer vets, who started practicing after GM entered the feed supply, consider the above-described problems in livestock as 'normal'. Newer doctors will fail to spot human health problems for the same reason. In a GM-fed world, animal and human health professionals could rapidly become unable to identify what constitutes 'health'.
A non-profit organisation founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer, Dr. Weston Price. Dr. Price studied isolated non-industrialized peoples to establish the parameters of human health and to determine the optimum characteristics of human diets. His research demonstrated that humans achieve perfect physical form and perfect health generation after generation only when they consume nutrient-dense whole foods and the vital fat-soluble activators found exclusively in animal fats.
The Board Members of the Foundation stand united in the belief that modern technology should be harnessed as a servant to the wise and nurturing traditions of our ancestors rather than used as a force destructive to the environment and human health, and that science and knowledge can validate those traditions.for news about the Illinois prisoners' court case, and actions which US citizens can take to help the 'Soy Alert' campaign.(This article has been adapted from an article which appearedon GM-free Scotland in January 2011. View an archived copy of that article The Real Problem with Genetically Modified Foods, Natural Solutions, http://www.naturalsolutionsmag.com/, 1.12.03Alan McHughen, Biotechnology and Food, Second Edition, September 2000Jeffery Smith, Celebrating our National Non-GMO Movement, Institute for Responsible Technology, www.responsibletechnology.org 26.11.10Food Wars: Governmental Programs & Industrial Food, Nourished Kitchen, http://nourishedkitchen.com/illinois-prisoners-soy-diet/, 14.07.09Suffering of inmates and Update on soy lawsuit, http://www.westonaprice.org/, December 2010Alan McHughen, www.powerbase.info, December 2010Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops, New Scientists Magazine, 30.11.10John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, 1995, ISBN 1-56751-060-4Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4842 


A review of the science of Roundup Ready soya safety in 2008
More than 10 years after RR soya was put into our food chain, the question was being asked where's the scientific evidence that it's safe?'Roundup Ready' crops have been one of the biggest success stories in the short history of GM agriculture. Any crop all, it seems, can be given the gene to make it resistant to Monsanto's Roundup weedkiller, with the added attraction that the seed can be lucratively linked to the marketing of the herbicide. The sales-pitch for Roundup Ready (RR) seed is simple. The active ingredient is the least unfriendly to the environment of all the weedkillers, it degrades to harmless end-products, and it rapidly becomes inactivated in the soil. Roundup technology benefits the farmer and his yields through cheap and easy weed control. It allows no-till agriculture to the benefit of the soil, and the transgenic protein produced by the GM plant is non-toxic and non-allergenic.The prototype herbicide-tolerant crop was GM soya. Any initial questions about safety were easily dismissed by three published studies, commissioned by Monsanto. These demonstrated that the compositional and feeding value are equivalent to conventional soya and that the novel protein was easily digested.In summary, Roundup ready crops hit the market with all benefit to the farmer, no problem for environment, and human health problems just weren't in the picture at all.The reality, twelve years down the line, is beginning to look a little different.Five years after Roundup Ready soya entered our food chain, Arpad Pusztai asked: How can the public make informed decisions about GM food when there's so little evidence about its safety?An attempt to review the citations in the scientific literature on human and animal toxicological risks from GM food six years later drew the comment that ... it is quite amazing to note ... the number (of articles) was particularly small ... and) surprisingly limited. This review concluded with the question where is the scientific evidence showing that GM foods are toxicologically safe? How and where? Indeed. Let's look at the evidence.The study commissioned by Monsanto for publication way back in 1996 focused on feeding value for commercial livestock, but also included a very short (28 day) trial on young rats. This assessed gross symptoms of disease on the basis of organ weights and general appearance. Beyond this, only the pancreas received some extra attention because soya produces a number of known anti-nutrients which can adversely affect this organ. Observed organ differences were declared not meaningful.In 1999, a short (140 day) Russian study was published which looked at liver function in rats fed Roundup Ready soya protein concentrate. Since this organ deals with toxins entering, or produced by, the body, it is an obvious place to look for signs of unusual activity. The authors noted modifications to the liver cell membrane function and enzyme activity, but these were considered to be within physiological standards. This paper was a translation from the Russian, and slightly difficult to follow, but it sounds like another version of Monsanto's not meaningful. In 2000, a short (105 day) study on rats and mice fed Roundup Ready soya looked at the immune-system because harmful qualities in the food will tend to provoke protective mechanisms in the physiology. No adverse effects on immune-related organs were found.In summary, by 2001, when people had already been eating Roundup Ready soya for 5 years, the 'proof' of safety seems to have amounted to three brief feeding studies. A single belated experiment had been performed on each of three key areas of the physiology which might reasonably be affected by untoward qualities in the food: pancreatic-based digestion, the liver-based detoxification, and the immune system.Since then, two other approaches using more detailed research have been pursued.On the basis that the high rate of proliferation and unique cell differentiation in a normal testis make this organ very sensitive to toxins, two experiments were published in 2004 which looked at mice whose mothers were fed Roundup Ready soya chow during gestations and lactation, and who were then fed the GM chow after weaning. Using testicular cell development as a bioindicator of exposure to toxins, an American team measured the proportions of different cell types present in the testis as the testis matured. Their measurements were repeated on the fourth generation of mice fed GM chow. No differences were detected in cell growth or differentiation in any of the animals.The second study, by an Italian team, used immuno-electron microscopy to identify subtle alterations in the ultrastructure of the different cell types found in the testes. Signs of reduced nuclear activity similar to those caused by stress factors or drugs were evident, some of which normalised with age.The second line of research has emerged from various Italian teams who took a much closer look at organ changes at the sub-cellular level in response to Roundup Ready soya. In the pancreas of mice up to 8 months old, paradoxical reductions were seen in the enzyme-production mechanism a of a kind previously associated with starvation, diabetes, or dietary anti-nutrients (none of which were present). A follow-up study on pancreatic-cell nuclear activity gave supporting evidence of reduced protein-synthesis.Two studies revealed signs of increased metabolic activity in the livers of young male mice fed Roundup Ready soya. In one long-term study this early increase was ominously followed by a slowing of metabolic activity indicative of premature aging in old mice. A supporting study which had appeared in 2006 also reported increased cell metabolism in the kidneys and hearts of rabbits fed RR soya.soya levels as high as 90% of the diet. This was surprising because previous work had indicated that maximum levels of soya compatible with health in the rodent diet were much lower: Monsanto's study in 1996 used 24% processed soya, the American mouse testis study used 21%, the Italian mouse testis and rat studies used 14%. One possible explanation for this contradiction tends to jump uncomfortably out of the literature. The experiments which failed to identify any problems, including the one which tried 90% soya chow, were short-term and used young animals. The experiments which suggested problems involved longer-term feeding. For example, the American four-generation mouse-testis study used young animals of 63-87 days-old, while in the Italian experiments which revealed evidence of harm, extended to 140 and 224 days.You might be getting the impression by now that half the published toxicological studies on RR soya have been designed to be too short, too superficial in the parameters measured, and have used too healthy animals to pick up on problems.To go back to the original questions of 'how to make an informed decision' and 'where's the evidence' of toxicological safety to base any decision on, the sum total of evidence seems to be: eleven published studies. Two concluded no adverse findings, three concluded no meaningful differences and six concluded something odd, inexplicable and potentially harmful to health was apparent. This looks like six-to-five against (or, six against, two for, and three inconclusive maybe/ maybe-nots). Is this sufficient evidence for you to make an informed decision on whether RR soya is safe to eat? Or, is it a reason to urgently require more detailed, systematic and comprehensive study?The question, of course, doesn't stop there because there are other confounding implications of RR soya which are just beginning to see the light of day. For example, RR soya is, not surprisingly, sprayed with Roundup. Is Roundup really as benign as Monsanto has repeatedly suggested?(This article is adapted from an archived article, which originally appeared on GM-free Scotland in February 2009. Access the archived article Related video: the poison of the pampas
This report from Argentina shows some of the shocking and tragic consequences of glyphosate spraying of GM soy, including babies with birth defects. NOTE: These videos are in Spanish, but have English subtitles. Start the video first, then click the arrow on the bottom right and select "Turn on captions."Padgette et al., The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean seeds Is Equivalent to That ofConventional Soybeans, Journal of Nutrition, 1996, 126Hammond et al., The Feeding Value of Soybeans Fed to rats, Chickens, Catfish and Dairy Cattle Is Not Altered by Genetic Incorporation of Glyphosate Tolerance, Journal of Nutrition, 1996 126Harrison et al. The Expressed Protein in Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean, 5-Enolypyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4, Is Rapidly Digested In Vitro and Is Not Toxic to Acutely Gavaged Mice, Journal of Nutrition, 1996, 126Pryme and Lembcke, In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed  with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials, Nutrition and Health, 2003, 17Tutel'ian et al. Medical and biological evaluation of safety of protein concentrate from genetically-modified soybeans, www.ncbi.nlm.gov, Vopr Pitan 68, 1999Teshima et al. Effect of GM and Non-GM Soybeans on the Immune System of BN Rats and B10A Mice, Journal of Food Hygiene Society Japan, 41:3, 2000Malatesta et al. Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean, Cell Structure and Function 27, 2002Malatesta et al. Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy, 201(5), November 2002Malatesta et al. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on gentically modified soybean, Letter to the Editor, European Journal of Histochemistry, 47:4 2003Brake and Evenson, A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development, Food and Chemical Toxicology 42, 2004Zhu et al. Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats, Archives of Animal Nutrition, 58:4, August 2004Vecchio et al. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, European Journal of Histochemistry, 48:4, 2004Tudisco et al., Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis, Animal Science, 82, 2006Malatesta et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing, Histochemical Cell Biology, 130, 2008Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7872 


A thought on keeping food pure
Every once in a while, you read one thing and it shines a light on something else altogether.
While researching material for  (February 2011), the instructions given by Monsanto to farmers on how to grow its Vistive Soybeans came to light. Vistive, 'added value', low linolenic fatty acid (and therefore low trans-fat) soya wouldn't be much use to processors if it got mixed up with commodity, high-lenolinic acid, soya. In order to grow the beans easily and conveniently, Farmers are therefore given a Soft Identity Preserved Program (IDP) to follow.
The IDP must have been in place since 2005 when Vistive soya came on-stream in America, and is instructed thus:Store seed separately from other varietiesInspect planters or drill boxes, making sure they are free of contaminantsUse border rows, flags or markets to grow separately.Retain spray logs to verify herbicide type and treatment.Inspect harvesting equipment, making sure they are free of contaminantsLabel and keep samples from each field.Clean and inspect all bins to be sure they are free of contaminantsLabel all bins to ensure clear identification.Clean and inspect all trucks to be sure Vistive low-lin soybeans are delivered free of contamination.It seems that farmers wanting to grow Vistive are given a whole lot of extra work to keep their seed pure. 
Looking to the future, a raft of next-generation value-added GM crops is planned for the market. Farmers' work in keeping their crops separate from very similar, but different in terms of added value, crops around them can only increase in amount and complexity.
Here's the thought on keeping food pure:
Co-existence, without co-mingling, of GM crops is going to become a very real issue which America has so far avoided dealing with.
It's very obvious that the IDP procedures needed to keep GM No.1 and GM No.2 soya out of each other's hair could be carried out just as well to keep GM and non-GM apart. 
Any previous suggestion that separation of GM and non-GM is impossible would seem to be a downright lie.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5977 


A true scientist's look at the evidence

Fran Murrell, co-founder of Australia's Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (MADGE), describes how she became an anti-GM campaigner: I was curious about genetic modification of plants  it struck me as a promising idea  so I went to talks given by various GM proponents.  It worried me that they were just talking in generalities, saying it was 'highly unlikely' there was any health risk from GM.  That struck me as unscientific; it was like they were presenting the truth from on high to the lesser mortals.Like many other campaigners, Murrell noticed that as  soon as she scratched the surface of the pro-GM hype, there were plenty of unsupported assumptions underneath, but little scientific substance.  
After she'd done her homework, she realised how easy it is to know more than the 'scientists' who rush to defend GM.  She said: We've rung up scientists who support GM and ask them whether they've read the safety data and many of them haven't.The reality, as Murrell has now realised, is that her 'GM demystifiers' have the strength of knowledge on their side: Our opponents can't defeat us in the world of evidence, science or argument  we've done the research  so they just ignore us.Murrell notes that scientists seem to have felt a need to tag themselves as 'pro-GM' or anti-GM' whereas If scientists are worth their salt, they are looking at the evidence.
One scientists who is worth his salt and is looking at the evidence, is Andres Carrasco, head of Embryology at the University of Buenos Aires.  Carrasco confirmed the findings of other scientists that Roundup herbicide, which is liberally sprayed on GM Roundup-tolerant crops in his country, causes birth defects.  Despite the strength of the evidence from both laboratory and population studies, Carrasco has faced a concerted attempt to run down his 30 years of reputation as a scientist.  He describes, very eloquently, the level of desperation in the measures taken to silence him: They know they can't cover up the sun with one hand.The most striking of Fran Murrell's discoveries is that it is the concerned campaigners who have studied the evidence, while many (or indeed most) scientists haven't actually done their homework at all.Even if you don't feel up to ploughing through scientific papers, there are lots of layman's descriptions, outlines and summaries available to you.  For example: The Institute of Science in Society, and, of course, GM-free Scotland.The biotech industry can walk rough-shod through ignorance, but can't get past a wall of knowledge.  Inform yourself.Necia Wilden, Against the grain: IS GM food safe? The Australian, 30.04.11Joan Melcher Miller-McCune, More Evidnece Linking Pesticides and Malformations, www.miller-mccune.com, 24.04.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7993 

In April, GM-free Scotland warned that pesticides linked to GM food have been found to end up circulating in the body of the consumer, and can pass into the unborn child. (See  are particularly concerned about the finding that Bt protein is clearly not digested as previously assumed.Warnings have been given repeatedly over some years that other assumptions about the Cry1Ab-toxin are unwarranted, for example:the evidence for the survival of the Bt toxins in the digestive tract and internal organs is clear-cut (Pusztai, 2007)antibodies (immune responses) to Cry1Ab were found circulating in the blood of Philippine farm workers exposed to GM maize; this coincided with an unexplained outbreak of respiratory and intestinal disease (Traavik, 2004)the Cry1Ab protein has a greater than 90% homology with the Cry1Ac toxin which is known to be a potent immunogen and can act as a powerful adjuvant to increase immune responses to other toxins (Vzquez-Padron, 1999, 2000)the Bacillus thuringiensis microbes from which Bt-toxins are derived have known homologies with the pathogenic microbe, Bacillus cereus (Vzquez-Padron, 1999)evidence for Bt-toxin 'safety' comes from testing bacterial Bt proteins, not from the Bt-variant protein designed by man and made by plant cells inserted with artificial DNA.GM Freeze is calling for an immediate halt to Bt cultivation and importation until the safety of Bt crops as food and feed has been properly established.
Please write to your MP and MEP to:alert them to this new peer-reviewed research showing whole, toxic, Bt proteins from GM crops have been found to have passed from food into humans and into human foetuses.point out to them that the research has been peer-reviewed and published, and that GM industry statements rejecting the new research are therefore invalid.point out to them that, in light of this new research, EFSA and FSA advice on Bt safety is inaccurate, and previous safety analyses of Bt crops must now be questionedpress for an immediate halt to the use of Bt crops in both food and feed until the health-effects of the toxin have been properly established.You can find contact details for your MP and MPs at www.gmfreeze.org, Action Alert 20.05.11Vzquez-Padron et al., 1999, Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice, Life Sciences 64(21Vzquez et al., 1999, Bacillus thruingiensis Cry1Ac Protoxin is a Potent Systemic and Mucosal Adjuvant, Scandinavian Journal of Immunology, 49Vzquez-Padron et al., 2000, Characterization of the mucosal and systemic immune response induced by Cry1Ac protein from Bacillus thuringiensis HD 73 in mice, Brazilian Journal of Medical Biology Research, 33(2)Terje Traavid, The Cartagena protocol, the Precautionary principle, sound science and early warnings, Third World Network, www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service108.htmArpad Puaztai, Affadavit from Dr. Arpad Pusztai for the Indian supreme court, 20.08.07, www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal-papers/btcropsaffadavit.htmThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3998 


What do Agrobacterium and human beings have in common? One's a soil bacterium and the other's a primate with a very large brain: the scope for sharing anything seems limited. However, both carry out genetic transformations of other life-forms to provide food for themselves.
Put more accurately, the genetic engineers with the big brains have hijacked the gene transfer mechanism of their microscopic counterparts to provide human food.But, our cleverness begs a serious question: can Agrobacterium turn the tables, and hijack human cells, transforming them to provide novel food for itself?
The question of horizontal gene transfer from GM food into other life-forms has been considered by regulators, albeit half-heartedly. Attention has always focused on antibiotic resistance genes which are created and inserted as a technical trick to identify which cells have been successfully transformed. This problem can be solved by avoiding use of such genes in the first place, or, by removing them post-transformation (both perfectly possible, just less convenient). Early on, the UK Food Standards Agency commissioned a study on the possibility of gene transfer from two common gut microbes into human gut cells, but found no cause for concern. The view of regulators is that we are exposed to DNA from plants, bacteria and viruses all the time in our food, and so GM DNA isn't going to cause any additional problem.
However, no one's been factoring in Agrobacterium.
Agrobacterium is a specialised plant pathogen. It has the ability to genetically transform many hundreds of plant species to form galls (plant 'tumours') which provide a unique chemical and environmental habitat for the bug. Infection is triggered by wounded plant tissue: the wound exudes plant hormones which attract Agrobacterium and primes it to take control of the plant cells by switching on the genes it needs to insert its tumourigenic DNA.
The regulators' view is that a plant pathogen can't present a problem to animals (including livestock and humans).
To transform plants, genetic engineers replace the gall-causing DNA in Agrobacterium with engineered DNA of their choosing. When plant cells are exposed to the re-jigged and primed Agrobacterium, the bugs obligingly ferry the novel DNA into the cells and insert it into the the plants own DNA. The plant cells are then treated with antibiotics to kill off the bugs before being propagated into whole crops for eventual commercial release. All this is, of course, carried out in laboratories and greenhouses.
Problem number one is that not all Agrobacterium are successfully removed: some will remain on the GM plant and be passed on to future generations. One study, on GM poplars, suggested that 80% of the trees were still harbouring the Agrobacterium used to transform them.
This means that GM crops transfected using Agrobacterium can form a reservoir in the field, not only of artificial DNA, but of artificial DNA plus the vector needed to efficiently insert novel genes into many other plants.
Problem number two is that Agrobacterium-mediated gene insertion is not limited to higher plant cells, but can extend to animal cells. A study using cultured human cervical cancer, kidney and nerve cells demonstrated that Agrobacterium, could insert genes into all of them. Transformation was observed whether or not the bacteria had been primed, and the process of insertion was unexpectedly found to be identical to that for transforming plants cells.
Problem number three is that Agrobacterium-mediated gene insertion can extend to fungi. Since fungi form a large and vital part of the soil ecosystem, and can spread with the greatest of ease, horizontal gene transfer into them is not good news. A study just published has shown that the conditions prevailing at a plant wound-site were sufficient for Agrobacterium to genetically transform a fungus.
Agrobacterium is also known to be able to genetically transform yeast. Like fungi, yeast has an unsurpassed ability to spread, and is a well-known opportunistic pathogen.
What could all these unnatural and unprecedented horizontal gene transfers lead to? The most likely scenario is that a previously unknown, highly atypical, disease emerges which invites in a range of opportunistic pathogens and is ignored for decades because there's no test available for a definitive diagnosis. At worst, we would have little or no immunity to the novel organism, and this would be exacerbated by genetic instability caused by to the presence of the engineered DNA which would make the pathogen fast-changing.
Suspicion has already fallen on an unknown skin disease (also referred to as the 'silent' or 'hidden' US epidemic, or inaccurately as 'Morgellons Syndrome'). This disease presents with skin lesions, joint pain and neurological difficulties and is thought to affect over 10,000 individuals in America. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has now recognised the epidemic and has initiated investigations into it, but Europe's medical community has not reacted.
Theories about the aetiology of the disease include nano-particles, UFOs, delusional parasitosis, and self-harm. However, there is some evidence of a common history in affected individuals, both of contact with soil and of the presence of Agrobacterium in skin lesions, which has raised interesting possibilities of a GM connection.The jury's still out regarding the 'unknown skin disease', but it provides a perfect lesson. Have a look at the horrific pictures posted on www.morgellons-research.org. Huge suffering will arise from any new disease before the medical profession begins to recognise it for what it is, and before any research into a cure or symptomatic relief can even begin.If the 'unknown skin disease' is an evolving Agrobacterium-induced GMO, a cure might be impossible. If the 'unknown skin disease' isn't a GMO, the next 'unknown disease' might well be.(This article is adapted from an article which originally appeared on GM-free Scotland in December 2010. View the archived article Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection? Institute of Science in Society Report, 28.04.08Possible new twist in GM safety debate, University of Bristol Press Release, October 2010Tzvi Tzfira and Vitaly Citovsky, 2003, The Agrobacterium-Plant Cell Interaction. Taking Biology Lessons from a Bug, Plant Physiology, November, 133Knight C. J., et al., 2010, Investigation Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Verticillium albo-atrum on Plant Surfaces, PLoS ONE 5:10Kunic T., et al., 2001, Genetic transformation of HeLa cells by Agrobacterium, PNAS 13.02.01, 98:4Minsheng Y., et al., 2006, Survival and escape of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in triploid hybrid lines of Chinese white poplar transformed with two insect-resistant genes, Ecological Society of China, November, 26:11ion to the Morgellons Syndrome (2007  Revised 2010), www.morgellons-research.orgNetherwood, Technical report on the FSA project Evaluating the risks associated with using GMOs in human foods, FSA project GO 10008.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9695 

Photo: Crop circle protest in Mexican maize field. Image by Greenpeace. They convinced themselves that oscientists know exactly what they're doinggenetic transformation is a precise processGM food undergoes more testing and therefore is safer than any other food ...However, the more education people got about GM food, the more their concern, unaccountably, grew.The emphasis then shifted from educating people about the people in the developing world are dyingGM could be saving lives in the developing worldonly the spoiled and rich are GM refuseniks ...But, people didn't buy that line either, nor GM food. So now education about GM has taken a more practical turn. Once the public their food prices will escalatetheir farmers will struggle to compete in an inevitable GM markettheir economy will be overwhelmed by global competition ...In January 2011, the Oxford Farming Conference (see below) provided a perfect platform for the latest educational drive.The Director of Broom's Barn Research Centre, heavily involved in GM research, told the Conference: We need to educate the public, and we need to start by changing the language.The change in language suggested is the use of the term vaccinated or immunised instead of GM for some applications of the technology.Clearly finding this suggestion interesting, the National Farmers' Union (NFU) ran an on-line poll with the question: Could public perception of the technology be improved simply by changing theThe astute reader might comment that while a vaccine is an artificial infection designed to stimulate the plant's  immune system, inserting artificial DNA to create an artificial aspect to the plant's immune system is not comparable: it has a different name because it's a different thing.Was the NFU trying to gauge if the public is now 'educated' enough to realise there's a little more to the GM problem than either 'perception' or 'terminology'. As GM Freeze said, our major farmers' representative needs to be told that its pro-GM position is out of step with what consumers (the people who are going to buy the products farmers produce) TV chef, Jamie Oliver, has been trying to educate us in a more practical way. He's been pointing out that we're eating a very small variety of species to extinction, while ignoring or even destroying many others in the process without considering them as 'food'. He's been demonstrating how to prepare food that's already available in abundance but which we know nothing about because it's never offered for sale. If Jamie's unusual food isn't available in your store, he says just keep asking for it: When you ask for something, the world starts to change. Take the hint, keep asking for GM-free food as well.Of course, if you feel like stirring it, you could start asking for vaccine-free food or immunisation-free food too. The confusion  would cause might indeed make the world start to change: it might start to educate biotech scientists that the problem with GM is  a simple matter of negative public perception nor of terminology.
The Oxford Farming Conference is Britain's leading farming conference, now in its 65th year.
The patrons of the Oxford Farming Conference include lots of respectable names such as the Co-op and the RSPB, but also includes Bayer CropScience, and its sponsors include Syngenta.OFC 2011: scientists calls for new language on GMThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6361 

Guerrilla theatre, aimed at educating shoppers about the GM nature of what's being sold to them, is in progress in major cities across the USA.  Activists, covered head-to-toe in white HAZMAT suits, have been dramatically busy: they buy well-known health-food brand items with GM-suspect ingredients, put a GM-warning label on them, and ceremoniously dump them in a biohazard bin where people can see them.
The 'GMO Food Dump' campaign has started by targeting one of the main sources of consumer confusion: the  large whole-food retailers.  Its aim is to stop the shops from misleading their customers by selling GM foods without any label.
Americans are showing increasing interest in their food: where it is grown, how it is produced and what it contains.  Whole-food shops are capitalising on this.  However, campaigners point out that, while their first target, 'Whole Foods Market' in Chicago, claims that most of its suppliers are organic, this translates into only one-third of the products on sale.  Also, the non-GMO Product Verified programme which the Company founded, covers only own-brand foods.  By selling unlabelled GM food, Whole Food Market is tacitly endorsing biotech products and the notion that coexistence is possible, besides failing to respect its customers' right to know.
Customers interviewed expressed surprise when they found that Whole Food Market was selling GM foods: It's disappointing and disheartening.  I feel like Whole Foods has established itself as a community for people who believe in healthy food and I feel like they embody that. So I would think that they would uphold standards and prevent foods like (GM) from being sold here.The guerrilla theatre is rolling out in Chicago, Seattle, Boulder, New York and anywhere else people want to have a go.
Besides the scale and organisation of the campaign, the GMO Food Dump indicates a very significant shift is underway in America.
If you were campaigning against the GM threat in Europe 10 years ago, you may have been involved in some very similar theatre scenes.  The outcome has been that we got GM regulations, GM labelling, and companies rushed to ditch GM ingredients to avoid loosing their customers.
This GM awareness spread across the Atlantic in some measure, leading to a flurry of GM-labelling bills across the USA which were largely defeated at the time.  A decade later and coinciding with the GMO Food Dumps, there's a new rash of legislature: 14 States are debating whether to mandate labelling for GM foods.  Four of these States are considering only the labelling of GM salmon, but one of these is California, a well-known trend-setter.  And once the first GMO has been labelled, there will be no grounds to argue against the labelling of all the rest.
One Democratic law-maker is openly engaged in a strategy to force the government's hand.  She is encouraging colleagues to propose slightly different GM-labelling bills across the country.  Her idea is that the resulting patchwork of state rules will frustrate the food industry to the point it will gladly support a federal labelling law.  She said: If each state makes it different, then the big corporations will be begging the federal government to step in and do regulation.Also noticeable is the press-coverage generated by the GMO Food Dump.  For example, the Chicago Tribune carried a full report on the event: the article was  well-informed with regard to recent science on GM dangers and to the lack of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight (see below), and didn't have a single biotech PR sound-byte in it.US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulationsWhile the FDA has allowed the sale and planting of genetically modified foods for 15 years, it has never required pre-market safety evaluations of the foods.In 1992 the FDA made a statement that it had no reason to believe GMOs differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.  No mainstream regulatory organisation in the US has ever opposed the introduction of GMOs, and the food safety issue has never been seriously revisited.  Industry uses this to claim that its GMOs are safe and that labelling them is unnecessary.The FDA position is that Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety, and that its obligations are fulfilled by encouraging manufacturers to consult with it about their products.Note that, as far as the FDA is concerned, the biotech industry seems not to have any role in the safety of GM foods produced from its seed.
Whole Food Market's reaction to the GMO Food Dump on its doorstep seems to have tarnished its 'healthy' image even more.
During the setting up of the event, police arrested two of the campaign organisers on the public sidewalk for disorderly conduct.  Whole Food Market first claimed the two hadn't been arrested at all (leading to reports hinting the campaigners were story-telling), then it claimed that it hadn't called the cops (who nevertheless were already in attendance when the campaigners arrived), then it claimed it wasn't seeking prosecution (but strangely citations were issued).  Whole Foods Market is clearly very aware that associating itself with action against healthy-food campaigners is just not good PR.  Its position however seems to mirror the attitude of the FDA: its quality standards co-ordinator said: Our approach is to work in the spirit of partnership with our suppliers .. to encourage them to take active steps to avoid GMO ingredients.  Is this spirit of partnership working in reverse, to encourage the Whole Foods Market to accept GM foods?The most interesting response to the GMO Food Dump was from Monsanto, who as the biggest producer of GMO seeds, was the end target.  Up until now, the Company has not publicly acknowledged this American  grass-roots campaign against it.  As the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) said: From (Monsanto's) perspective, it probably makes more sense to ignore our criticisms and hope we'll go away while they publicly position genetic engineering as the norm in agriculture.  However, our whole movement is getting too big to ignore.  The growth of organics, the increasing public concern about health, food safety, the ongoing work by OCA and many other organizations to educate about the benefits of an organic, localized food system and the failures and dangers of GE crops; all are approaching critical mass.Monsanto seems to agree, because within 48 hours the PR machine had sprung into action.  An article appeared in the farmers' media (Brownfield Ag News) claiming the Dumpers were working hard to confuse and misinform consumers that there's something wrong with these (GM) products.
The GMO Food Dumpers certainly agree with Monsanto on one point.  They are working DAMN HARD to educate the public on GM, because Americans aren't informed about GM.  A 2006 study for the Pew Initiative for Food and Biotechnology found that only 26 percent of American consumers believed they'd ever eaten genetically modified food, while a 2010 survey by the International Food Information Council reported that only 28 percent of respondents knew such foods were sold in stores.
But, now the American public is being awakened.This whole sorry tale gives a damning impression of democracy 'American-style': there is, it seems, no right to peaceful demonstration in a public place, and no right to know what nor choose what you're eating because regulators and big business can conspire to keep the people in ignorance.On a brighter note, GM-labelling and the right to know are being tackled simultaneously at all levels and across the nation: in the streets by grassroots campaigners, in the shops, in the media, and in legal circles.  When the US public lion wakes up, it will roar.If you have friends or relatives in America, suggest they check out the Organic Food Association's 'Millions Against Monsanto' campaign at www.MillionsAgainstMonsanto.org.  Monica Eng's article in The Chicago Tribune (details below) also give advice to Americans who want to avoid GMOs.Monica Eng, With no labeling, few realize they are eating genetically modified foods, Chicago Tribune, 24.05.11Lyndsey Layton, States lead debate over modified food labeling, Washington Post, 20.05.11Honor Shauland, Monsanto Attacks OCA;s Millions Against Monsanto Campaign, OCA Organic Bytes, 24.05.11Alexis Baden-Mayer, Millions Against Monsanto: Chicago to Seattle, on to Boulder, New York & Your Town, OCA, 18.05.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6292 

(ARCHIVE NEWS - MAY 2007. Please note links may not be working)
Anyone who has opened a newspaper or magazine this year will have read a great deal of hype about biofuels. America is determined to reduce its petrol consumption by 20 percent within a decade by producing 35 billion gallons of biofuel a year. the EU Biofuels Directive requires that all member states have a blend of 5.7 percent biofuel in their road transport fuels by 2010. Biofuels are the clean, green, sustainable, oil-saving, pollution-free, climate-friendly saviours of mankind especially in the Developing Worlds. 
The immediate response to these decisions has been a massive 60 percent rise in the global price of biofuel crops. The media quotes excited Mexican farmers who are able to generate real cash from their land for the first time in living memory as their government finds the will to hand out contracts which guarantee prices and markets, discounts on fertiliser and seed, and use of farm machinery. If you are puzzled about the term 'biofuel' this could be because it refers to several technologies which produce alternative fuels from a variety of sources.First generation biofuels are available now:BIOETHANOL is an alcohol-based fuel produced from fermented sugar or starch. Sugar-cane and maize are the most prominent crops used, but sugar beet, wheat and barley are current options. Bioethanol can be blended with petrol.BIODIESEL is manufactured from vegetable, animal, or waste oil. The most prominent source is palm oil. Biodiesel is usually blended with conventional diesel.BIOGAS is derived from bacterial digestion of waste or other organic material. Second generation biofuels are under development:LIGNO-CELLULOSIC ETHANOL is produced by digestion and fermentation of grass-crops or wood pulp.Our current dilemma, which has suddenly put biofuels in the spotlight, is that we have developed a global infrastructure based on oil, which has allowed us to live in the most luxurious civilisation ever known. Virtually everything we do needs oil : 95 percent of transportation; 95 percent of goods in our shops; 95 percent of our food products. Oil allows us to maintain an available food supply of barely more than two days by just-in-time deliveries from all over the world. To farm a single cow and deliver it to market requires six barrels of oil. Our oil consumption has been rising steadily for decades. The International Energy Agency forecasts that our oil use will rise from its present 84 million barrels a day to 116 million barrels by 2030. Oil companies and governments are happy to believe we have enough untapped reserves of oil to continue in this way. Geologists, mainly working in the heart of the oil industry, tell us our oil is running out. The latter camp sees oil supplies diminishing at 3 percent every year, with a cumulative impact adding up to a 50 percent reduction by 2030 (the same year as our consumption is forecast to have risen by 38 percent). The apparent incentive to start paying heed to the geologists, seems to be industry's realisation that there is a multi-billion dollar a year biofuel industry out there in the fields which could allow it to provide as much as 25 percent of the world's energy within 20 years. And of course, if the fuel-crops are genetically modified, they can be patented. America has been quick to work out that it isn't big enough (!) to grow all the GM crops it needs to fuel its life-style. Projects are already underway to persuade the whole of Latin America to embrace GM maize monoculture to keep its northern neighbour in the style to which it has become accustomed and similar moves are afoot in Africa. There are dire warnings already of the inefficiency of biofuels for energy (see BIOFUELS: THE SUMS DON'T ADD UP). As these article were being written, even the UN has acknowledged the impossibility of using agricultural land and water for fuel without risking mass starvation. Add to this the inevitable genetic pollution of whole continents and global food supplies with genes, gene-products and unknown by-products never designed by nature nor man to be part of us. The National Farmers Union of Canada sums up biofuel production as publicly subsidized vaporization of food stocks which are (temporarily) good for farmers, but bad physics, bad biology and bad policy. Our oil-based infrastructure and dependency on global commodities have to be rationalised. Let your representatives in government and the media know what you think of using GM crops as an unworkable excuse to avoid putting our oil-hungry house in order. http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/ for lots of information and suggested actions, such as a helpful standard letter for you to participate in the UK's own biofuel directive consultation. Union farmer Monthly January 2007UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Press Release 16.11.06Friends of the Earth New Zealand 28.03.07Metro 9.05.07; Scientists for Global Responsibility Newsletter 33 Winter 2006Soil Association One Planet Agriculture 2007Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6220 


Biofuels: simple, neat and wrong
ARCHIVE NEWS - JULY 2008. Please note - links may not be working)Why are we finding ourselves short of oil, short of affordable food and pulled every-which-way by a shifting debate on biofuels and GM food? We have, after all, had plenty of time to prepare. Our dependence on oil for food must have been self-evident to all the agricultural supplies industries and governments for generations. The time-scale on which easily-accessed oil would dwindle was worked out years ago. The short history of biofuels is tightly bound to that of GM crops, and both seem to consist of warning after warning.
In 2004 and 2005, two American universities published reports on the proposed introduction of biofuels to replace oil. Even without factoring in environmental damage, they concluded that such a course of action would put a serious strain on food supplies and prices, and that the inherent costs of agriculture, processing and transport would yield a net energy deficit.Starting in 2005 with grains, internationally traded food prices have been increasing year on year, and especially sharply since late 2006. This has focused attention on the number of highly vulnerable people on all continents living below the poverty line.
By, 2006, the chemical industries were beginning to concentrate on using petroleum ingredients more efficiently. The more alert companies were moving into plant-based, 'infinitely' replaceable source materials. DuPont was already selling corn-based carpets and pouring R&D resources into 'bio-based' materials to manufacture hair-dyes, nail polishes and textile fibers, it's aim being to achieve 25% of its products from such sources by 2010.A year later saw the biofuel industry aiming to provide as much as 25% of the world's energy within 20 years. America, the world's largest polluter was planning a seven-fold increase in biofuel production by 2022. The EU set itself a target of 10% of vehicles to run on biofuels. And then, the first doubts about the biofuel bubble hit the headlines. A UN report questioned the global effects of large-scale biofuel crop production: it highlighted the inevitable forest clearance and ensuing climate, environmental and social damage, plus the loss of precious farm-land and implications for water supplies. Friends of the Earth pointed out that there are 'good' and 'bad' biofuels, and the need to block the latter before any targets were set. (The story of 'bad' biofuels is that of GM crops, see BIOFUELS: THE SUMS DON'T ADD UPThe new drive to pour our staple food and feed crops into cars became revealed as a recipe for disaster. Finally, the UN recommended a five-year moratorium on biofuel production, to allow time for appropriate technologies to be devised and protective regulatory structures to be put in place. It was pointed out that the 232 kilograms of corn needed to make 50 litres of bio-ethanol would feed a child for a year (if our calculations are correct, this equates to feeding three children a year for every person who shares transport or walks or cycles instead of driving their own car, one Stock and Options Analyst calculated that every time you fill up your SUV, you starve a poor person for six months.).Rocketing food-prices in 2008, and mounting evidence that the drive for biofuels will only push food prices higher, are opening our eyes to the true implications of this 'infinitely' replaceable source of energy. Although America continues, predictably, to claim that the contribution of biofuels to food price inflation has been a minimal 3%, this has been widely derided: the International Monetary Fund estimates their impact as 20-30%, while a leading World Bank economist tried to conceal his estimate of a whopping 75% in a bid to avoid confrontation with the US. In the UK, a panel of government experts, chaired by the head of the Renewable Fuels Agency, Ed Gallagher, has said that far more research is needed into the indirect impact of biofuels on land use and food production before the government sets targets for their use in transport. Both the Gallagher report and the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation now agree that neither a moratorium nor 'business as usual' are advisable policies, but are calling for a set of international standards to ensure plant-derived biofuels do not harm the food supply.MEP, Caroline Lucas, recently commented on the G8 deal on climate change: Unless governments close the gap between their overblown rhetoric on the importance of tackling climate change and the pathetic degree of political will they are willing to muster when it comes to serious action, any kind of deal on climate change will be meaningless.The history of biofuels is a lesson to remind us to beware of the quick fix. As the oft-quoted political commentator, H. L. Mencken, observed for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat and wrong.Faced with the corner we've got ourselves into, there are three possible courses of action:Cross our fingers and pretend that technical quick fixes such as genetically engineered, high-yielding miracle crops can sustainably deliver us both energy and food.Eat less, or, if you're already on the bread-line, starvePour money, expertise and political will into developing a meaningful infrastructure of diverse, sustainable alternatives for our food and energy needs.So far, we seem to be blindly engaged in option 1, and if we continue to use our food to paint our nails, colour our hair and cover our floors (besides running our cars), option 2 will soon be forced upon us. Option 3 is still in its infancy. As the Center for Food Safety tells us:Through the lens of this crisis, we also see the sense in buying abundant, locally grown foods. Since they travel less and now cost less than processed food or produce flown from across the globe, local crops are looking more and more attractive. They're also fresher, more healthful and more beneficial to consumers. And, in buying them, we support local farmers.It is within your power to promote the necessary political will and to support the local agricultural resources to get us out of this corner.Susan S. Lang, Cornell ecologist's study finds that producing ethanol and biodies3el from corn and other crops is not worth the energy, Cornell University News Service, 5.07.05Claudia H. Deutsch, DuPont bets big on biotechnology, International Herald Tribune, 28.02.06Ian MacKinnon, Palm oil: the biofuel of the future driving an ecological disaster now, Guardian 4.04.07John Vidal, Global rush to energy crops threatens to bring food shortages and increase poverty, says UN, Guardian 9.05.07Oliver Stallwood, Biofuels 'a threat not our saviour', Metro, 9.05.07John Vidal, The looming food crisis, Guardian g2, 29.08.07Mae-Wan Ho, UN 'Right to Food' Rapporteur Urges 7 Year Moratorium on Biofuel, Institute of Science in Society Press Release, 8.11.07, www.i-sis.org.uk/Moratorium_on_Biofuels.phpJulian Borger and John Vidal, New study to force ministers to review climate change plan, Guardian 19.06.08Andy Kimbrell, Corn as fuel has hurt world food supply, www.newsday.com, 20.06.08Torcuil Crichton, Biofuels 'have pushed food prices up 75%, Glasgow Herald 5.07.08Biofuels and hunger: the report they didn't want you to see, Guardian, 11.07.08, www.guardian.co.uk/environmentCaroline Lucas, Climate policy on a wing and a prayer, Guardian Letters 11.07.08Leaked Report, A Note on Rising Food Prices, prepared by a senior economist at the World Bank, April 2008, Aditya Chakrabortty, Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis, Guardian 4.07.08H. L. Mencken (1880-1950), newspaperman, book reviewer and political commentatorKevin Kersten, World food shortage and the ethanol bubble, Obsever.com, 7.07.08Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9280 


Biofuels: the Sums Don't Add up
(ARCHIVE NEWS - MAY 2007. Please note links may not be working)
Biofuels are shaping up to become a 'GM success story' of the sustainable, economical, clean, safe, environmentally friendly, solution to our energy problems and global warming (see 
But, what does the bottom line actually look like? A study by the University of Minnesota published in 2006 concluded that bioethanol from maize offered a modest net energy gain of 25% over oil, suggesting a release of 12% less greenhouse gases, while biodiesel from soya offered a more promising 93% net energy gain with 41% reduction in greenhouse gases. The study took into account the direct agricultural, processing and transport expenses and useful by-products, but not environmental damage nor increased demand on land and water. Therefore, when viewing the bigger picture, it concluded that, if America's entire maize and entire soya crops were used to make biofuel, they would contribute less than 3% of current gasoline and diesel usage. This would put a serious strain on food supplies and prices. A second study by Cornell University published in 2005 came to very uncomfortable conclusions. Regarding bioethanol from the various sources:maize requires an input of 29% more fossil-fuel energy than the net energy it can produceswitchgrass fermentation requires an input of 45% more fossil-fuel energy than the net energy it can producewood fermentation requires 57% more fossil fuel energy than the net energy it can produce.Regarding biodiesel from various sources:soya requires 27% more fossil fuel energy than the net energy it can producesunflower requires 118% more fossil fuel energy than the net energy it can produce.Again, all direct costs were factored in, but environmental damage was not. The global reality of biofuel arithmetic was spelled out by the National Farmers Union of Canada at the beginning of the year:if the world's entire supply of oilseeds were turned to biodiesel production, it would provide one sixth of the diesel fuel we currently consumeif the world's entire supply of corn and wheat were turned to bioethanol production it would supply less than one third of our gasoline needsif a more realistic 10% of land was turned to fuel production, it would yield, at best, 2-3% of our liquid fuel needsin our current situation where in six of the last seven years we have consumed more grains and oil seeds than we produced and during the last decade the world's crop land area has been static or declining while our population grows, using land and water to feed cars will starve people.The World Wildlife Fund has pointed out a fundamental flaw in the use of biofuels to tackle global warming: land use. Brazil is the world's model for successful conversion to bioethanol. Using sugarcane, it is possible to produce eight times as much fuel energy as it costs to grow and process. However, the major source (80%) of greenhouse gases comes not from petrol but from the carbon released by deforestation. Destroying a hectare of forest which can absorb 20 tons of CO2 and replanting it will sugar-cane to save 13 tons of CO2 does not add up helpfully. Ecologist reporter, Mark Anslow, has pointed out the many flaws in industry's optimistic calculations of biofuel energy advantages. For example:because oil is a super-concentrated form of energy, adding ethanol dilutes it. This means a larger volume of fuel is needed for the same energy outputhot weather will reduce bioethanol efficiency because the fuel will evaporate; cold weather will reduce biodiesel efficiency because it will have to be pre-heated before usebioethanol and biodiesel are solvents and will result in faster wear and tear of equipment useful by-products like glycerin which is used by the cosmetic industry and CO2 which is used by the soft drinks industry will easily saturate the market and become an expensive waste problemthe animal feed generated as a by-product is not good qualityit will take 14 years (the life-expectancy of a car) for our present petrol-fueled cars to be replaced by ethanol-fueled models; this is far too longthere are multiple sources of pollution inherent in biofuel production: pesticides and fertilisers from intensive crop monoculture; the refinement of ethanol produces nitrous oxides (a greenhouse gas three hundred time more potent than CO2 ), carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds (VOCs, these are ozone precursors and damage human health) and methane.Friends of the Earth point out the danger that marginal land, which is susceptible to erosion, will be put back into intensive crop production, and washed away. It also has concerns over the increased cultivation of maize which uses more fertiliser than soya, and over the increasing use of pesticides necessary after continuous maize crop cultivation. An endless succession of GM crop varieties containing increasingly stacked genes for toxins, and genetic pollution of our food is inevitable. The only winners in the biofuel game were described by the author of the Cornell University study: The (US) government spends more than $3 billion a year to subsidize ethanol production ... the vast majority of the subsidies do not go to farmers but to large ethanol-producing corporations. The goal of biofuel production seems to be to allow Americans to continue to live their petrol-dependent lifestyle and to drive their SUVs, but since the amount of grain required to fill a 25-gallon SUV gas tank with ethanol could feed one person for a year, this is clearly unnecessary, wasteful and unethical. As Friends of the Earth said what is being lost amid the ethanol hype is a real debate about how to use energy more efficiently. Biofuel extracted from native perennial plants could be an efficient source, but the technology is still in its infancy. Many other sources of renewable energy, such as photovoltaic cells, wind-power, wave-power, or hydrogen conversion, remain to be explored thoroughly, and if sunlight, wind, water or hydrogen were patentable, this would probably have been done by now (see BIOFUELS: A SUSTAINABLE SHAM  News, May 2007). The development of a hopelessly inefficient system of energy production based on GM crops is a distraction from tackling the real issue and will lead us down a road to global starvation.For further reading, and action, the Soil Association has two excellent booklets: 'One Planet Agriculture: The case for action' which can be downloaded from: www.soilassociation/oneplanetactionand, coming soon 'One Planet Agriculture: Handbook for practical action'Don't wait, and don't biofuels distract you from the real sustainable food and energy issues. Cornell University News Service 5.07.05Union Farmer Monthly4 January 2007Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4314 

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has received its first request for approval of a GM apple.  
Currently, sliced apples to be sold fresh are rinsed in acids to prevent browning of the flesh and maintain freshness (you can do much the same at home with a little fruit juice).
Gene-silencing technology developed in Australia to prevent potatoes browning when cut has been licensed by a Canadian biotech company and applied to apples, for sale in America.  The aim of the ever-white apple is to reduce processing costs and make apples more amenable to producers of ready-meals and children's lunch-boxes.
As ever with GM, the biggest issue is safety.  As the Center for Food Safety said: Scientists have been saying they're only turning one thing off (the enzyme responsible for browning), but that switch is connected to another switch and another switch.  You can't just do one thing to nature. It's nice to think so, but it just doesn't work that way.And besides any side-effects the silencing of a natural gene might produce, a botox apple is one whose age you'll never be sure of: would you feed it to your child?
Fortunately, the approval process for the stay-fresh apple is likely to take years, and it's uncertain consumers anywhere will accept them (see 
Another GM apple in the pipeline is a red-fleshed, 'healthy' fruit with increased anti-oxidants.  This has been under development by New Zealand scientists over the last 10 years, and at a cost of millions of tax-payers dollars.  However, it will not be appearing in your green-grocers, because there's already a natural alternative.
A non-GM red-fleshed apple developed by Swiss researchers is on the market for gardeners to buy today.  The 'RedLove' apple is sweet, tangy and delicious, attractive to look at, and versatile in the kitchen.  Being the outcome of careful pollination and selection of existing apple strains, RedLove need not undergo any expensive and time-consuming safety or regulatory process.  Nor will it need a hugely expensive PR campaign to market: consumers and their wallets will be in the driving seat.  
The New Zealand biotech scientists were well aware of the rival RedLove apple's development, but elected to pursue the GM path to nowhere nevertheless.It might be more valuable to your child to learn how to prepare and eat fresh-fruit and how to recognise when it is, or isn't, wholesome than how to open a packet of uniform white, brown, or red lumps.GM's aim is to boost the profits of food processors, and, it seems, to satisfy scientists with one-track, GM-fixated, minds.Jon Muller, GE Red Apple Scientists Pipped at the Post, GE Free NZ Press Release, 3.05.11Shannon Kininny, USDA asked to approve GMO apple that won't brown, Associated Press, 29.11.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2353 


Many of these are our pollinatorsRecent years have seen waves of massive bee decline around the globe. Some of these can be traced to infection or infestation, but others are a complete mystery. However, the finger is being increasingly pointed at agri-pesticides in and on the flowering crops from which the bees gather their food.Two forms of colony collapse are being seen. One involves piles of dead bees at the entrance of hives, the other involves the sudden disappearance of adult bees from the hive, leaving behind intact food stores and broods, and is referred to as 'Colony Collapse Disorder'. The first problem suggests the bees are being directly exposed to a lethal toxin. The second problem suggests foraging bees have become disoriented by damage to their nervous system and have been unable to find their way back to the hive.Bayer CropScience, which is a major global supplier of suspect, 'neonicotinoid', insecticides insists that: Extensive internal and international scientific studies have confirmed that (the insecticide) does not present a hazard to bees.The Company may well be telling the truth.The scientific studies cited as safety assessments of the toxins look only at the lethal dose of an isolated substance given to healthy bees. Neonicotinoids and Bt-toxins tested this way show no adverse effect. Unable to identify any single causative agent for CCD, the US Department of Agriculture, has finally begun long-overdue studies of the interactions between pesticides and bee pathogens. This is a good start, but also needs to be extended beyond the recording of 'death' to the study of behavioural disruption.The successful life-cycle of bees is highly dependent on behaviour, such as food gathering followed by returning to the hive, to support the whole colony. Moreover, it's beginning to emerge that bees have very little physiological immunity: their avoidance of disease, again, depends on behaviour, such as hive cleaning. Neurotoxic effects of insecticides may not be lethal but will disrupt normal behaviour, leading to the collapse of the hive. Insecticides, especially Bt-toxins which react with insect gut cells, can also suppress the bees' limited immune system still further, making it supremely vulnerable to pathogens. which first appeared onGM-free Scotland in September 2008Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof Joe Cummins, Emergency Pesticide Ban for Saving the Honeybee, Institute of Science in Society, 39 Autumn 2008German Coalition Sues Bayer Over Pesticide Honey Bee Deaths, Environment News Service, http://www.ens-newswire.com//, 25.08.08Cabbages genetically transformed to produce Bt toxin worked as intended for a while: the novel insecticide killed the targeted moth larvae. However, when the insects started to become resistant to the toxin, the increased protein in the GM plants became a food supplement and made the pests thrive. Resistant larvae of the diamondback moth (a major problem in the USA) grew twice as fast after eating the GM cabbage leaves. (Cabbage is a traditional staple green vegetable in many countries.) which first appeared onGM-free Scotland inJuly 2009Bugs can feed on 'pest-proof' genetic crops, The Sunday Sun, 13.04.03Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6849 

Dr. Arpad Pusztai (who was instantly vilified when his research provided evidence of immune-system responses in the gut of rats) focused his science on the gastro-intestinal tract of his experimental animals. Since the gut is the feed-animal interface and the largest lymphoid (immune-system) tissue of the body, it will be the first organ likely to react to any dietary allergens or other toxins, or a novel microbial flora induced by the diet. Previously, Pusztai cited four published studies firmly establishing the ability of the Bt toxin generated by MON810 maize to stimulate and modulate the systemic and mucosal immune systems in mammals. He also points out that the evidence for the survival of Bt toxins in the mammalian digestive tract and internal organs is clear-cut. This picture was enlarged by published evidence from other laboratories which show that the Bt toxin in MON810 binds to the intestinal wall of mice, and that MON810 has increased levels of a known allergenic protein. All these pieces of evidence are pointing to a risk of adverse reactions from consuming this GM maize.  first published onGM-free Scotland in December 2008Arpad Pusztai Affidavit 30.08.07 in Toxicity of Bt crops  summary of research worldwide, GM Watch, 10.01.08Aubergine is a widely-eaten traditional food in India.A Bt-containing aubergine created for the Indian market has been found to have many unexpected and inexplicable qualities. For example, it has 15% fewer calories and a different alkaloid content.Laboratory rats fed the Bt aubergine had diarrhoea, and reduced liver size. which first appeared onGM-free Scotland in July 2009Sam Burcher, Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption, Science in Society 41 Spring 2009Dairy cows fed the Bt aubergines described above were observed to have increased weight, eat more dry roughage matter and increased milk production, as if they were being treated with hormones.  which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in July 2009Sam Burcher, Bt Brinjal Unfit for Human Consumption, Science in Society 41 Spring 2009An Italian study examined the immune-system of very young and very old mice fed 50% MON810 maize. The 'young' mice were given the test diet at weaning (three-weeks of age) for 30 or 90 days. The 'old' mice were fed the test diet for 90 days at the age of 18-19 months (this is about three-quarters through their expected life-span).There were no differences noted in any of the usual parameters used to assess safety, such as body weight, food consumed and total white blood cell count. However, significant increases were seen in certain white blood cell-types indicative of an immune response, and biochemicals involved in allergic and inflammatory responses were also significantly higher. The biggest differences were seen in the youngest mice (those fed GM 30 days from weaning) in which there were significant differences in 13 out of 18 groups, and in the oldest mice in which there were significant differences in 6 out of 18 groups. The young mice fed GM for 90 days had a less pronounced reaction (significant differences in 2 out of the 18 groups). The latter may be attributable to a build up of tolerance on repeated exposure, or due to an age-related stronger physiology.The Italian authors concluded that the results obtained indicate that the consumption of MON810 maize used in the present study induced alterations in intestinal and peripheral immune response of weaning and old mice.Adapted from an articleon GM-free Scotland, December 2008A. Finamore, intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, November 2008GM Maize Disturbs Immune System of Young and Old Mice, Institute of Science in Society Press Release, 19.11.08An Austrian study to evaluate three different experimental protocols for studying important aspects of a long-term GM diet on mice was commissioned by the Austrian government. The study was never published, apparently, due to incomplete data. It may, however, be a smoking gun, so it's worth knowing what was tried and what was found:A multi-generational study over four generations continuously fed GM. During this experiment, cumulative effects on reproductive success, the health of key organs, and gene expression were monitored.A continuous breeding study of the reproductive ability of individual breeding pairs fed GM. During this experiment, the health effects on four successive litters were monitored as the mothers aged.A life term study on how long mice lived when being fed a continuous GM diet.The diet of the test mice contained 33% of a commercial GM hybrid maize derived from crossing Bt-toxin-containing 'MON810' maize with 'NK603' maize which has two genes conferring herbicide tolerance. Both GM parental lines have cauliflower mosaic viral promoters within the DNA construct, so the stacked hybrid has a double dose. The maize fed to these mice was not formulated into the commonly used pellets because this process involves heat and pressure which can degrade the proteins present.The life-term model was considered less useful than the other two protocols since there were no physiological challenges involved, and no differences were revealed in any group.In the multi-generational study, there were no statistical differences between the litter sizes and pup survival in successive generations. However, evidence of significantly reduced kidney size was found in four out of six experimental groups, and signs of a significantly reduced core metabolism were seen in the liver cells of the GM-fed mice.Even more ominous results were found in the continuous breeding trial, where significantly fewer and smaller, litters, and reduced early survival were seen in the GM-fed mice by the third and fourth litters. Whereas smaller litters are usually heavier, the GM fed ones were lighter.Measurements of changes in gene expression in the guts of mice in response to GM chow indicated significant differences in several physiological processes, but the Austrian scientists pointed out that current understanding of the implications of these for health and disease is too limited for conclusions to be drawn.which first appeared onGM-free Scotland inDecember 2008GM Maize Reduces Fertility and Deregulates Genes in Mice, Institute of Science in Society Press Release 19.11.08Study shows that genetically engineered maize affects reproductive health in mice, Greenpeace International Press Release 11.11.08Does eating food lower your fertility?, Daily Mail, 12.11.08Austrian Government Study Confirms Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Threaten Human Fertility and Health Safety, Institute for Responsible Technology Press Release 13.11.08Austria withdraws study on the long-term consequences of GM maize, www.gmo-compass.org, 26.03.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6679 

Bt insecticidal toxins generated by GM plants will enter the soil as root exudates, as decomposing litter and as ploughed-in stubble. The toxins are known to be able to accumulate in soil where they can remain active for several months. In 2008, an Italian study looked at the effects of Bt-toxin on soil health, with particular reference to the soil fungi which play a vital role in soil fertility and plant nutrition. The research identified two strains of Bt crop which had the ability to reduce fungal colonisation of root systems. The finding was supported by a previous study demonstrating that litter decomposition, which is dependent on fungal colonisation, was slower in Bt crop material.A reduced activity of essential fungi in the soil has many ominous implications. The biotech industry has been able to make much of the fact that Bt maize is consistently found to have significantly reduced levels of mycotoxins. Mycotoxins are produced by the fungus, Fusarium. There is routine assessment of the presence of mycotoxins in maize because some of them can pose real health problems for humans and livestock: they can be lethal, especially to horses and swine, they have been linked to birth defects and cancer, and some forms have even been considered for use in chemical warfare. The lower levels of mycotoxins in Bt maize is a plus for the GM crops in terms of consumer safety. However, the bigger picture may not be so rosy.The lower mycotoxin levels in Bt maize have generally been attributed to reduced insect damage as a result of its systemic insecticide (a damaged plant will be particularly susceptible to fungal attack). However, the main aggravating factors for Fusarium colonisation do not seem to be insect damage, but rather the prevailing humidity and temperature due to weather and storage conditions. This fact, combined with the fungal inhibition noted in the Italian study, suggests that it is the Bt-toxin itself, or some GM-linked by-product, which is acting as a fungal inhibitor. Any reduction in mycotoxins as a result of reduced insect damage appears to be secondary. This is worrying because of its implications for the health of the soil in the long-term.Like all organisms living in their own natural, varied ecosystem, Fusarium is held in check by other micro-organisms in its environment. If these controlling organisms are also being inhibited to differing extents by the presence of the novel Bt-toxin, several unwelcome events could unfold: the levels of Fusarium may explode due to lack of competition whenever the inhibiting Bt is reduced, resulting in higher mycotoxin levels in subsequent cropsthe levels of other harmful microbes may explode in the face of reduced competitionmutant Fusarium or other pathogenic species resistant to Bt may evolve and boost mycotoxin levels many fold. All of these could happen together.Note that the pressure to evolve resistance is significant in Bt monocultures where Bt-toxin is pervasive in the crop and the soil. Microbial and fungal resistance also have every chance of being enhanced by horizontal gene transfer from Bt maize debris into soil microbes. Compare this scenario to conventional farming in which pesticides are applied as a one-off event after which the ecosystem can start to recover, or organic farming in which pests are controlled by encouraging a diversity of co-existing micro-organisms to keep each other in check.The next generation of GM maize is emerging with stacked genes. These have several different kinds of Bt toxin, each with its own influence on soil fungi. The new crops are also stacked with genes for resistance to the herbicide, glyphosate. It's already been noted that crops grown in fields subsequent to glyphosate-resistant ones seem to experience higher than average levels of Fusarium, infestation. The soil ecology resulting from such crops is likely to be a very distorted one indeed, and by no means healthy nor able to support healthy food crops.which first appeared onGM-free Scotland in September 2008Turrini et al., Experimental Systems to Monitor the Impact of Transgenic Corn on Keystone Soil Micro-organisms, IFOAM Organic World Congress, Modena, Itlad 16-20 June, 2008, http://orgprints.org/In August 2005, a study was published which examined the effects of Bt corn residues and living Bt corn plants on a species of earthworm common in agricultural soils. The Bt protein present in both crops was Cry1Ab. No deleterious effects on the worms' survival, growth, development or reproduction were found. However, cocoon hatching success was reduced from 95% to 75% at one of the highest concentrations of Bt litter. This was described as a 'slight' negative effect. The reason for it could not be explained.Earth worms such as the one studied feed by ingesting large amounts of soil, and play an important role in recycling soil nutrients and in increasing drainage and aeration of the soil,especially where reduced tillage practices are used.The authors also reviewed previous published studies dealing with the effects of a Bt-protein on earthworms. It didn't take long: there were only two. Both measured only acute toxicity (14-days and 45-days). Neither found any effect on survival or body weight. However, one of these studies was based on a species of earthworm not relevant for agricultural soils, while the other looked at a species not abundant, and therefore probably of minimal importance, in such soils. A longer-term examination of the latter worm species detected a lower weight in Bt-litter-fed adult worms.M. L. Vercesi et al. August 2005, Can Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) corn residues and Bt-corn plants affect life-history traits in the earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa?Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4769 

A recently published paper demonstrates the breathtaking assumptions on which commercial GM crops are based.
When genetic transformation of plants was first attempted, it was soon discovered that, while all DNA has a simple four-fold chemical structure which can easily be translated by man into a specific protein, DNA is not just DNA.  
Most artificial DNA constructs to date have been copied from bacterial genomes, and multiplied up in a second species of bacterium before being inserted into plant cells.  However, plants won't willingly generate a bacterial protein.  Genetic engineers found they had to alter their artificial DNA considerably.  For example, they have to make the 'copied', DNA chemically plant-like, and often have to trim it down to bare essentials to reduce its interference with the plant's physiology.  The novel gene will not do anything unless it is switched on, and so a viral DNA 'promoter', powerful enough to force gene expression in any genomic environment, is routinely added on.
Finally, the engineered construct has to be attached to a 'transfer' DNA sequence at one end to stick it into place.  To identify whether or not a cell has been successfully transformed, a 'marker' gene (often an antibiotic-resistance gene) is attached to the other end.
Once these tricks of the genetic engineering trade had been developed, industry homed in on two, single-gene, traits for commercial use: crops which shrug off herbicides, and crops which destroy their own insect pests.
The assumption that herbicide-tolerant plants remain unharmed by the herbicide they're designed to 'tolerate' was recently exploded (see   GMFS News archive, December 2010).  Similar assumptions of no harm in the 'Bt insecticide-generating plants are, only now, being proven wrong too.
Moreover, the effectiveness of all the smart GM tricks employed for decades are being questioned.
A belated study has revealed that Bt 'Cry1Ac' insecticidal protein expressed in GM maize and cotton commercialised in over 50 countries, is toxic to the plants as well as to insects.
It seems that, finding themselves generating a toxin, the GM plants naturally protect themselves by suppressing its production.  The result is that despite the viral promoters, levels of Cry1Ac can be successfully reduced in specific plant tissues, and at certain times during the plants' life.
In practical terms this means that, not only is the plant weakened by the inbuilt toxin, but it is vulnerable to insect attack because the GM insecticide may not be present where the pest is.(COMMENT  Compare this with natural plant defenses which are switched on in response to insect attack so that they're there when and where they're needed: a plant with a single hole in a leaf is a very healthy one which has sent the potential diner packing).
For farmers, the implications are serious.  The GM crop is haphazardly protected, and chronic low-level Cry1Ac production provides and ideal situation for the generation of insects resistant to the toxin.  The biotech industry's answer to these failings of its Bt crop has been to recommend farmers apply prophylactic insecticidal sprays to avoid resistance developing (i.e. routine extra work and expense which GM growers expected to avoid in the first place).
The study also found that attaching the Bt-gene directly to transfer DNA doesn't necessarily make it end up in the cell: it's just as possible for the desired gene to be lost while the transfer and marker DNA flanking it end up as planned in the plant.(COMMENT  This suggests the interesting possibility of non-random alterations to the invading DNA, which just happen to exclude the genes which produce toxins the plant doesn't want)
What the authors realised was that between the newly discovered toxicity of Cry1Ac and the false-positive transformations arising from the marker genes which have detached from the DNA they were supposed to be marking, GM crops developers have been actively selecting against plants with high, stable Cry1Ac gene expression.  The surviving, naturally fittest, plants are the ones which eliminate or control the Bt gene.
The editor of the publishing Journal commented: This is a completely unexpected finding.  Until this point, if you asked someone in the plant biotechnology community what the Cry1Ac toxin does in plants, they would say it kills insects.  No one has yet demonstrated harm to plants as this study has done.The researchers point out that their observations may have been overlooked in the past as most previous studies were aimed at finding plant varieties that can be genetically altered just enough so that they are suitable for cultivation.  Indeed, a few minutes with a search engine will tell you that the research on Cry1Ac has focused on which pests it kills, how it kills them, and the pest-resistance management needed.  Effects on the plant itself (the thing we are going to eat and farmers are going to sell) have been side-stepped.
Industry has quite evidently biased the research agenda on these crops by its entirely commercial focus.  Despite the warnings from the minuscule success rate of transformations with Cry1Ac (all such GM maize, world-wide, is derived from only 6-7 original transformation events), the crops were rushed to market.  
It has been established that the negative effects of Cry1Ac on the plant can be reduced and consistency of pesticide generation can be improved to a certain extent by gene insertion into the chloroplasts (the green part of the plant cells).(COMMENT  Such GM plants would still, presumably, be vulnerable to insect attack on the non-green roots and seeds.)
Interestingly, in the current Bt cotton and maize plants, which have undergone nuclear transformation, Cry1Ac levels are linked to the chlorophyll (green) content of the tissues.  The reasons for this and the mechanism of the toxic effect are unknown.Besides side-stepping the effects of this BtBt-toxins along with many other transgenic proteins should be suspected allergens until proven otherwise:Bt-toxins are actual and potential allergens for human beings.  Field workers exposed to Bt spray experienced allergic skin sensitization and induction of IgE and IgG antibodies to the spray.  Recombinant Cry1Ac protoxin was found to be a potent mucosal immunogen, as potent as cholera toxin.  A Bt strain that caused severe human necrosis (tissue death) killed mice infected through the nose within 8 hours, from clinical toxic-shock syndrome.Scientists confirm failures of Bt Crops - on the Institute of Science in Society website)  The case for this recommendation to be implemented is now reinforced.The recent discovery of Bt protein circulating in the tissues of humans exposed to GM food and GM-fed animal products reinforces the need for precautionary action.  If you haven't already done so, think about responding to the The safety studies for these GM crops grown in more than 50 countries haven't reached the starting post, and things aren't much different for the GM in the pipeline.  As this one insightful, independent, study has shown, the simplest and cheapest course to a safe and secure food supply is one undistorted by 'clever' GM tricks.Preeti Rawat it al., 2011, Detrimental effect of expression of Bt endotoxin Cry1Ac on in vitro regeneration, in vivo growth and development of tobacco and cotton transgenics, Indian Academy of Sciences, Journal of Bioscience, JuneGene alarm on GM crops, Telegraph, 2.06.11Scientists Confirm Failures of Bt-Crops, Institute of Science in Society Report 26.09.05Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3236 

Photo: pink bollworm emerging from damaged cotton ball. Image Wiki CommonsApparently, the pink bollworm resistance problem is due to farmer ignorance: failure to plant non-Bt crop refuges, failure to procure non-Bt seed for the refuges, failure to scout the crop for pest emergence, failure to switch to Monsanto's Bollguard II which has had two Bt genes inserted, over-use of pesticides, failure to manage the infected crop residues and unopened bolls after harvest, poor tillage and inadequate grazing of cattle on the GM stubble, and previous illegal planting of unsuitable Bt cotton crops. (Up until that point, Bt cotton had been a runaway success story in India. Before GM, widespread and regular outbreaks of bollworm infestation had led to a steady increase in pesticide applications along with increasing cost of production. Between 2002 when commercial Bt cotton cultivation started in India and 2008, pesticide applications dropped by almost 50% principally due to the reduction in bollworm, and productivity jumped from 302 to 567 kg/ha. For this triumph to continue, it's important that the grubs remain susceptible to the Bt toxin. Recent research has suggested that the emergence of new Bt-resistant insects could just be a matter of time.
One prime reason for the evolution of Bt-munching insects was not mentioned by Monsanto. It's now established that there's a considerable variation in the quantity of Bt produced in different parts of the plant and at different times during the growing season: exposure to low levels of any toxin is a guaranteed way to generate resistance.
When Indian agricultural scientists studied the bollworm they found on their experimental plots of cotton, they made a number of disturbing observations:the grubs not only weren't dying or even failing to thrive, but were quite able to develop into adults and produce healthy offspringcontrary to the biotech theory that pests would have trouble evolving resistance to two different pesticides at the same time, the presence of both Cry1Ac and Cry2Ab Bt genes in one experimental crop posed no obstacle.If the Bt resistant pests come to form a majority on Bt crops, there's no reason why they shouldn't breed together and build a resistant population. The specified 'refuges' of non-GM crops would then have limited impact.
The authors did not establish to what extent the resistance found was already present in the background pest population. However, their test plots did not suffer from any of the effects of farmer ignorance invoked by Monsanto as the cause of Bt-resistance elsewhere.
Entomologists commented that eight years is a very short space of time for Bt resistance to develop and puts a question mark on the wisdom of relying so heavily on GM pesticidal plants. They stress that multiple strategies are needed to combat pests sustainably. GM crops should, they argue, be used in tandem with Integrated Pest Management (IPM).
Unfortunately, IPM is another highly technical modern approach to cultivation. It requires regular, at times even daily, monitoring of pests in the field, and a calibrated response to the pest populations found. This may be beyond the resources and expertise of smaller farmers just as much as the miracle GM cotton is turning out to be.Sounds like a good case for organic cotton growing in India. All it needs is for you to create the demand (see Ranjith et al., 2010, Survival and reproduciton of natural populations of Helicoverpa armigera on Bt-cotton hybrids in Raichur, India, Current Science 99:11, December 2010Worms eat into GM crop myth  Insects expected to drop dead thrive on cotton plants, Telegraph (India), 11.12.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4686 


In a statement issued on 6 March this year, Monsanto said: Testing was conducted to assess for resistance to Cry1Ac, the Bt protein in Bollgard cotton, and pink bollworm resistance to Cry1Ac was confirmed in four districts in Gujarat  Amreli, Bhavnagar, Junagarh and Rajkot. Gujarat is one of nine (Indian) states where cotton is grown. To date, no insect resistance to Cry1Ac has been confirmed outside the four districts in Gujarat.'Bollguard' cotton is a GM variety developed by Monsanto. 'Bollguard' has been transfected with a variant of a gene copied from the soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringienses or 'Bt'. The toxic protein generated by the transgene kills a specific insect pest, pink bollworm.
The Company was quick to lay the blame for the emergence of resistance on Indian farmers and regulators. Apparently, the pink bollworm resistance problem is due to farmer ignorance: failure to plant non-Bt crop refuges, failure to procure non-Bt seed for the refuges, failure to scout the crop for pest emergence, failure to switch to Monsanto's Bollguard II which has had two Bt genes inserted, over-use of pesticides, failure to manage the infected crop residues and unopened bolls after harvest, poor tillage and inadequate grazing of cattle on the GM stubble, and previous illegal planting of unsuitable Bt cotton crops.
Monsanto's answer seems to be to advise farmers to buy its Bollguard II cotton seed, and learn how to farm biotech-style.
Anti-GM voices in India are pointing out a number of more fundamental issues. The shortcoming of any pest management technology that tries to kill an insect rather than control or manage it is apparent, as has been predicted. This is true with Bt technology as well as with chemical pesticides. Monsanto's advice is described as ridiculous and short-sighted. The first, because Bollguard II has no additional toxin to combat pink bollworm, the second because the Bt toxin is only active for 90 days in the plant, while pink bollworm is a late season pest. Also, Indian farmers with small holdings cannot be expected to give up large parts of their land for non-productive 'refuges'.
It has also been pointed out that the Cry1Ac toxin is the same one as that generated by the recently banned GM aubergine.Put simply, GM high-tech crops are not suitable for small farmers working highly variable land in highly variable ecosystems. Working with these smallholders to develop appropriate, modern, low-input methods to optimise the productivity of their individual farms would be a more real benefit than trying to bend their skills around a fancy foreign crop containing a toxin with limited targets.Monsanto insists such resistance is natural and expected, which hasn't stopped the Company keeping such events under its hat in the past. Here's proof if you ever needed it that the biotech industry's intention is to create new problems so that it can sell new GM crops with an ever-expanding stack of artificial genes in them. At the moment Bt toxins are only tested individually when they are first commercialised: there are no signs of any will to test the cocktail of toxins from stacked genes now entering the food chain. If you value your health, demand testing of all crops as eaten.Dinesh C. Sharma, Bt cotton has failed admits Monsanto, India Today, 6.03.10Setback for Bt cotton: main pest develops resistance, Business Standard, 6.03.10Zia Haq, Bt cotton flunks pest resistance test in Gujarat, Hindustan Times, 5.03.10Priscilla Jebaraj, Bt cotton ineffective against pest in parts of Gujarat, admits Monsanto, The Hindu, 6.03.10Cotton in India, Monsanto, 5.03.10, www.monsanto.comThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2243 

Policy-makers and corporate executives have been scrambling to find a way to ditch our current dependency on fossil-fuels. Not only is oil becoming increasingly scarce and costly, but we're releasing so much carbon dioxide gas that we're cooking ourselves.The fashionable answer to the problem is a transition to a 'bioeconomy'. This 'clean', 'green', 'renewable', 'sustainable' economy of the future will be based on biomass from agricultural crops, forests and algae.
Even to those unversed in science, this alternative to fossil fuels is quite clearly no more sustainable than our current energy source. It's simply dependent on other finite natural resources which are already limiting: suitable land area, soil nutrients, and fresh water. 
The United Nations has so far failed to act on the question of long-term sustainability. It has put in place a fancy global scheme which amounts to business-as-usual under a regulatory umbrella of 'controlled' greenhouse gas emissions.The scheme is based on a novel global currency called 'carbon credits' which are traded within approved Clean Development Mechanisms (CDM). Effectively, any industry can carry on polluting the world as much as it wants, providing it has 'carbon credits' derived from reducing, avoiding or sequestering carbon produced elsewhere. This heads-I-win-tails-you-loose strategy is being abused to the point of farce.Big business, which is never short of cash, need do nothing beyond paying out for carbon credits which leaves less for everyone else, or paying to fund CDM projects in the developing world. That way, the have-nots of the South are forced to tighten their belts to reduce, avoid or sequester carbon, so that the wealthy of the North can carry on living the same self-indulgent and wasteful life-style they're accustomed to.Just how little effort is required to evade the need to care for their carbon was revealed recently when it was reported that 5.9 million worth of carbon credits had been stolen from the Czech Republic by a computer hacker.CDM projects have been extended to include all sorts of unlikely initiatives.a piece of land which is classed a 'degraded' counts as a CDM, the scheme has lead to the biggest land-grab of all time, so bad that it's been referred to as the new colonialism. Degraded land includes not only forests but any spent agricultural land, so that land ruined in causing the problem can now be used to avoid the solution.Biotech industries, of course, have been quick to create GMOs for the lucrative purpose of feeding into CDM projects. Monsanto has been lobbying since 1998 for 'no-till' agriculture , based of course on its own Roundup herbicide and Roundup Ready crops, to be an approved CDM methodology. The paradox here is obvious: the agricultural model which uses a chemical plough, chemical fertilizers and the machinery to apply the chemicals and to plant the seed is fossil-fuel dependent from head to tail.One US farmer blogger has pointed out another flaw in the current practice of 'no-till': it's a big fat fib. He describes how The original idea was to plant seeds using a special no-till planter, in undisturbed sod killed with a herbicide, or into last year's undisturbed plant residue, particularly cornstalks, thereby reducing () herbicides to make it work, but that's another story.Instead of the plow, farmers work up the soil with a variety of disks, chisel plows, field cultivators and turbo tillage tools. they are tilling the soil as much as they ever did, in fact more in some cases, with just about as much subsequent soil erosion. The only thing no-till farmers are not doing is using a mold board plough. The farmer admits that In truth, these alternatives to the plow sometimes do control erosion a little better, but not much. GM crops are very much part of the problem this farmer describes. The Roundup Ready trait causes metabolic disturbances which increase lignin (woody fibres) in the GM plant. The result is that the stalks of the crop plants which are mostly from new genetically engineered varieties, are thick and stout and resistant to rotting. So although they help control erosion if left undisturbed, they are too much of a good thing in this regard. They gum up the planter and hold moisture so well that planting can become impossible.The Union of Concerned Scientists has pointed to scientific evidence showing that The most promising systems for carbon sequestration in soil combine crop rotation and low or no inputs of pesticides, herbicides, and industrial fertilizers. Long-term studies done by the Rodale Institute and others suggest that such systems build (not simply conserve) significant quantities of soil organic carbon through a variety of mechanisms such as enhanced abundance of mycorrhizal fungi.In a head-to-head comparison between conventional no-till and organic plowed systems, organic plowed systems sequestered more carbon even though the sampling was restricted to shallow soil, where no-till tends to show carbon accumulation.
It seems the use of GM crops and no-till methods as a way of generating 'carbon credits' is as big a myth as the carbon credits themselves.We've put an awful lot of carbon in the wrong place in our world, so much so we're killing ourselves and our planet.A global food and energy market predicated on big business myths such as the rich-man's carbon currency, kid-on sustainability and GM solutions which cause more problems than they solve, won't get rid of all that carbon.There's no escaping reality. We need to promote agro-ecology, especially in the developing world. We need to use less of anything which needs fossil fuel to produce or transport. We need to scale down our agriculture possibly, as the farmer blogger suggested, to the level of our own backyard garden.Maybe it's time we all started learning to grow some food.Agricultural Practices and Carbon Sequestration, Union of Concerned Scientists Factsheet, 1.10.09Gene Logsdon, No Till is a Big White Lie, The Contrary Farmer blog, 16.06.10The false solutions to save the climate: Agribusiness Transnational Corporations and UNFCCCC process, La Via Campesina, 29.11.10Hackers breach carbon scheme, Metro, 21.01.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4991 


Changing models of the genome
Twenty years ago, when genetic engineering was in its infancy, and commercialisation of a genetically tranformed plants no more than a dream, genes were viewed as fixed units of DNA embedded in swathes of 'junk' DNA. The genes in this out-dated model could be relied upon to reel off messenger molecules of RNA which trotted out into the cell, where they ordered the production of specific proteins. In this scheme, each gene was an active stretch of DNA coding for its own protein, while the rest was inert padding. In food, the model predicted that all DNA was quickly broken down by the digestive processes, while RNA was so unstable it would disappear long before it got that far.This model was, and remains, that on which GM crops are based and on which their safety-testing has been formatted ever since.Unfortunately, the model is becoming increasingly shaky: genes are now appreciated as variable parts of a fluid system of DNA which can adjust its final expression minutely; 'junk' DNA is highly active and sends out RNA messengers of its own which exert a finely-tuned control over what happens in the cell; in food, DNA can survive intact through a large part of the gastrointestinal tract; and in the organism, RNA it seems can sally forth in stabilised forms. Both RNA and DNA are now suspected to have a function outside of the cell: a function which may be vital to both cellular communication and the coherent functioning of the whole organism.The implications of this much more complex and interactive picture are extensive.For the GM plant, the three or four artificial genes inserted amongst thousands of natural genes and affecting a negligibly small part of the cell's protein-production mechanism, are now seen to be a bulldozer. The artificial insert cuts through the life processes at all levels. Not only are the interactions of plant's natural genes disturbed, but also those of its 'junk' DNA, its RNA, its cellular proteins, and even the cells of the entire organism.Because the DNA construct and the genome around it seem inevitably to become scrambled during insertion, extra sections of DNA are found scattered around the host nucleus. These may be bits of artificial DNA, bits of the host plant's DNA, bits of bacterial DNA acquired during propagation of the construct in E. coli bacteria prior to insertion, or completely unidentifiable DNA sequences from who knows what source. Such rogue DNA nevertheless can produce rogue RNA whose action can't be determined, but whose ability to interfere with the other regulatory RNA leading to disruption of the cell is certainly possible.For the consumer of GM food, the presence of DNA or RNA fragments in partially-digested food may be far from benign. Bacterial and viral DNA are known to be a major factor in stimulating the immune (inflammatory) response to infections, and at least one example of RNA allergenicity is recognised. All GM crops so far commercialised have had bacterial DNA inserted, and most include viral DNA as well. Although these have been engineered to make them plant-like (or they wouldn't be expressed by the GM plant), the possibility of them retaining properties which induce inflammatory reactions in our gut has never been investigated. Add to that, bacterial DNA can become complexed to other materials enhancing its immuno-stimulatory ability.Some forms of natural bacterial DNA (much beloved by yoghurt manufacturers) have a probiotic effect which protects the digestive tract against inflammation, but there's no reason to assume novel bacterial-plant DNA can't do the opposite and induce inflammation or, indeed, disrupt the protective effects of the probiotic material present.There has been some debate over whether transgenic DNA can end up in milk: studies have failed to find novel DNA in milk from cows fed GM feed. However, one Italian survey identified GM maize DNA in 25% of samples of milk on sale and GM soya DNA in 11.7% of the samples. This novel DNA seems to have derived from environmental debris.For the microbial life exposed to GM DNA in our mouth and gut, there are fine opportunities to acquire and swap interestingly useful bits of novel DNA, such as antibiotic resistance and toxin genes. The presence of bacterial DNA, even if its thinly disguised as a plant, can carry other DNA, piggyback-fashion, into the microbe. This is not just a theoretical possibility, science has demonstrated such transfers of DNA into microbial flora in both livestock and humans.Up until now, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has confined its risk assessments to the artificial gene in isolation, the artificial protein it generates in isolation, and the undefined quality of 'substantial equivalence' between the GM crop and an undefined comparator crop. This regulatory tunnel-vision is further narrowed by the assumption that the novel DNA could only cause a problem if it remains in the form of a whole gene and has the opportunity to express its novel protein: the potential for roving small fragments of DNA in the GM plant, in the consumer or in microbes associated with either of these, to cause genomic disturbances or produce RNA which interferes with cellular function is not considered. A particularly large regulatory blind spot seems to exist regarding the powerful viral DNA promoters which don't code for proteins but can induce many types of DNA to 'switch on'. As has been demonstrated by the disappearance during insertion of a very long section of the enhancer-duplicated cauliflower mosaic virus promoter from the Roundup Ready soya herbicide-tolerance gene, the viral promoter certainly needn't be complete to function The interactions between the novel and the natural genome, between the novel and natural RNA, and between the novel protein and the cell around it, are smoothed out by the iron of 'substantial equivalence'. The use of 'equivalence' instead of accepted statistics which would indicated significant, or no significant, differences in the GM material is an admission that differences are inevitable in GM plants, but can't be regulated without applying an arbitrary decision that significant differences don't impinge on safety.(This article is adapted from an article which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in March 2010. View an archived copy of that article Intercommunication via Circulating Nucleic Acids, Institute of Science in Society Report, 20.04.09Netherwood et al., 2004, Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract, Nature Biotechnology 22:2Yew and Cheng, 2004, Reducing the immunostimulatory activity of CpG-containing plasmid DNA vectors for non-viral gene therapy, Expert Opinion on Drug Delivery 1(1)Obermeier et al., 2003, Contrasting activity of cytosin-guanosin dinucleotide oligonucleotides in mice with experimental colitis, Clinical and Experimental Immunology, 134u`Agodi, et al., 2006, Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk form The Italian market, International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health 209Phipps, et al., 2003, Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Rumen Fluid, Duodenal Digesta, Milk, Blood, and Feces of Lactating Dairy Cows, Journal of Dairy Science, 86Einspanier et al, 2001, The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals: a collaborative case-study investigation cattle and chicken fed recombinant plant material, European Food Research Tchology, 212Professor Jack Heinemann, Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed, prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24.07.09Professor G. Wenzel, 2008, The experience of the ZKBS for risk assessment of soybean, Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, 3 Supplement 2Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3192 

There is only one predictable thing about transgenic organisms: they will change with time. However, the way in which they will change is entirely unpredictable.All GMOs are subject to inescapable destabilising influences. These come from intrinsic structural qualities of their artificial DNA, and, from the natural life-processes within which the artificial DNA must operate. Both act to alter the carefully manufactured DNA cassette, and once destabilised, anything can happen.
The DNA prepared for insertion into cells typically consists of a gene designed to generate the required protein with a 'promoter' at the front end and a 'terminator' at the rear end. The 'promoter' is vital because the artificial gene, outside any natural context to trigger its activity, simply won't do anything: the promoter functions as an independent 'ON' plus 'full-throttle ahead' switch, to make the transgene generate maximum amounts of the required protein. The 'terminator' is vital because it tells the gene where it ends: without it, the DNA downstream from the gene will become part of it and alter the protein produced, for example, to add bits on, remove or rearrange sections, or to change its three-dimensional structure (on which protein function depends).This functional DNA unit is commonly sandwiched between two 'sticky ends' of DNA designed to enable the whole construct to invade and attach itself to the host genome.Basic problem number one: DNA sequences constructed very easily in a test-tube will tend to carry on, just as easily, re-constructing themselves. This tendency is exacerbated by many factors. For example, there are known weak points within the DNA construct which are prone to breaking and re-joining in novel ways (one such weak point lies in the most commonly used promoter, the 'Cauliflower Mosaic' viral promoter). Add to this, the lack of any natural connection to the cell's repair mechanisms. The latter are very efficient. They constantly stabilise the organism's own DNA, but may deal differently with artificial DNA. Basic problem number two: DNA designed to move and invade will tend to carry on moving and invading. Artificial DNA is known to preferentially attach to sequences of DNA in the host genome which have some similarity in structure to its own. In the fluid state of a living cell, all parts of the genome are in intimate contact with all other parts: there may be no shortage of triggers for unstable parts to rearrange themselves or to move en masse elsewhere. They may even move out of the host organism altogether.The 'sticky ends' of the DNA construct are routinely copied from pathogenic micro-organisms or viruses (the most commonly used one comes from a bacterium which invades plant cells and causes tumours to form). The artificial invader lodges in the host genome because it has found a site there which it can easily invade. By the same token, it will just as easily move off and invade another site.The scenario indicated by these two problems alone is of ever-mutating fragments of artificial DNA moving around in the living world, and causing havoc. There are many more layers of complexity which can be added in. For instance, the presence of multiple stacked transgenes, tissue-specific sections, completely artificial DNA 'glue', left-over bacterial bits from earlier stages in transgene production, marker genes etc.Every transgenic organism investigated so far has been found to have scrambled DNA both in the artificial construct itself and in the adjacent host DNA, or even, in distant areas of the genome, plus altered gene expression. The vast majority of GMOs have not been investigated at all, even the ones already in our food chain.The implications of all this for the safety and reliability of our food supply are huge:if the transgene changes, the protein it generates will changeif the 'terminator' DNA is lost, a completely new protein will formif the 'promoter' DNA goes A.W.O.L., it will act on any DNA it lands beside to produce an abundance of an unwanted protein or even some very unusual novel material.a GMO under stress will be more susceptible to DNA changes: since levels of environmental stress vary from year to year, last years 'safe' GM crop may become this year's health hazard.The implications for agriculture are equally huge:GMOs which breed true are unlikely to be the norm: the sole source of pure, albeit very expensive, GM seed can only ever be the biotech industrywhile regulators focus only on the effects of genetic contamination from the flow of whole, functional artificial genes, the bigger danger is ignored: fragmented artificial DNA constructs will contaminate non-GM crops and disrupt them in unknown wayssince the identification of genetic pollution requires the DNA sequence to be known before an appropriate chemical 'probe' can be constructed, fragments of artificial DNA constructs will be difficult, or impossible, to trace.The implications for the wider environment are unthinkable. Man-made DNA shuffling around inside crops and inside the occasional weed will also be shuffling around inside this soil, inside bacteria and inside viruses. Since horizontal gene transfer and recombination is the main route for generating new pathogens, the man-made bits of DNA (promoter, terminators, sticky bits etc.) shuffling around the environment could become the main route for who knows what disease.And then there's the added scary possibility of horizontal DNA transfers into you.The biotech industry insists that its products are safe and predictable because genetic modification of crops has become a precise science in recent years and GM plant technology is now about doing something well-defined. However, given the extent of instability intrinsic to any artificial DNA construct and its transgenic host, you can make up your own mind whether it is reasonable to believe this.Is GM safety just a matter of waiting until the technology is perfected to produce precise, well-defined crops for our food?Or, is the very concept of GM fundamentally flawed?(This article is adapted from an article which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in March 2008. View an archived copy of the article Colin Barras, The GM potato war, Daily Telegraph, 23.11.07Transgenic Lines Unstable hence Illegal and ineligible for Protection, Institute of Science in Society Press Release 17.03.08 www.i-sis.org.uk/transgenicLinesUnstable2.phpAK Wilson et al., Transformation-induced Mutations in transgenic Plants: Analysis and Biosafety Implication, Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews, 23 December 2006, pp209-37, www.bioscienceresource.org.docs/BSR-2-BGERvol23.pdfHorizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, Institute of Science in Society Press Release 10.03.08 www.i-sis.org.uk/horizontalGeneTransfer.phpThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6443 


Dropping zero tolerance to GM
The European Commission (EC) had a bad case of indecision about its GM regulations in February.
What the Commission was wrestling with was a proposal to drop its blanket zero tolerance policy on the presence of low levels (up to 0.1%) of unapproved GM material in imported animal feed.
To soften the blow, the suggested new level of tolerance will be limited to GM feed material already authorised for commercialisation in a third country and for which an authorisation procedure is pending in the EU, or, for which a previous EU authorisation has expired.
It's easy to understand why the Commission was wavering. The change ignores majority public opinion (currently standing at 61% against encouraging GM), and risks undermining public trust in the system which previously provided clear protection for consumers and the food industry.
What's not immediately clear is why the EC felt it necessary to propose the change in the first place.
Realistic estimates of the potential problem from gene contamination had never been bloody enough to persuade politicians to back such a fundamental change in EU law. Not bloody enough that is, until the figures were replaced by another report based on an extreme, worst-case, scenario. This new report looked at what the short-term financial impact would be if all soya feed and food products were found to be contaminated with unapproved GM so that all imports from the US had to be rejected. It arrived the frightening figure of 1.7 billion Euros. If the (un-)likelihood of such an even on such a scale isn't factored in, 1.7 billion gives plenty of justification for changing the law.
The next question is why did the Commission need to manufacture this justification in the first place?
Seemingly, it all came down to the combined pressure from the biotech and animal feed industries.
Lobbyists regaled politicians and bureaucrats with intimidating predictions of doom if GM contamination remained outlawed: feed consignments would be sent back to their country of origin, prices would soar, animals would starve, Europe's meat industry would be unable to compete, would collapse and would relocate overseas, jobs would be lost ... and it would all their fault for not allowing the teeniest little bit of GM into the food chain. One Scottish MEP learned his lines well and declared that zero tolerance for GM foods makes zero sense, thus adding a degree of personal insult to the economic and humanitarian threats.
The truth beyond all this scare-mongering is a rather different story.
Only 0.2% of feed shipments have ever been rejected on grounds of contamination (and none at all since June 2009). Major feed suppliers, Argentina and Brazil, won't grow a GM crops unless it is approved in Europe. Contamination isn't a problem and there's no reason for that to change.
At the beginning of February, the press was ablaze with record world food price rises which had hit shoppers. Did this justify the proposal to drop the precautionary principle on unapproved GM food and feed?
The price problem didn't stem from any lack of food production: there were bumper harvests the previous year.
However, there was one very telling statistic slipped into the press reports: only meat prices remained stable. This happened because much of the bumper harvests were fed to animals in preference to humans. Eating livestock on food humans could have eaten is a singularly inefficient way to provide our nutrition.
Add to this the on-going, massive, diversion of corn into the America's misguided biofuels agenda and you have food shortages amid fields of plenty which make prices rise. The diversionary feed-stocks now heading for animals and cars are largely GM.
GeneWatch is very clear about why the EC has taken this seemingly unnecessary step: The GM industry is pushing this proposal so it can wedge its foot firmly in the door and open up the British and European markets to food no one wants to eat. Its long-term aim is to contaminate the food chain to such an extent that GM-free food will disappear.The EC proposal will become law in three months if the European Parliament and Council do not find grounds to oppose it.The proposed adjustment of the law doesn't seem too momentous. But the suspicion is that the tiny, 0.1%, of contamination under restricted conditions will evolve into acceptance of any GM which will evolve into a little bit more GM ... until the whole food chain is so heavily contaminated we accept it or starve.There's still time to lobby your MEPs and agricultural ministers to preserve the EU's precautionary principle on GM in food and feed.EU postpones decision on controversial GMO contamination rules, Friends of the Earth Europe, 9.02.11Spelman Urged to Reject EC Plans to Drop GM Zero Tolerance Policy - Legal doubts about Commission proposals, GM Freeze press release, 7.02.11Animal Feed Industry attempts to break down EU zero tolerance GM policy, Corporate Europe Observatory, JanuaryTariq Tahir, Record food price rise its shoppers, Metro, 4.02.11EU allows untested GM crops into the food chain, Greenpeace 22.02.11James Doward, GM crops to be allowed into Britain under controversial EU plans, Observer, 6.02.11GMOs: Harmonisation of controls for GM material in feed endorsed by Member States, Europa Midday Express, 23.02.11World's First Genetically Engineered Biofuels Corn Threatens Contamination of Food-Grade Corn, True Food Now, 11.02.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5593 

GM-free Scotlandcould facethe same genre of accusations as those aimed at Eric Schlosser (1), Robby Kenner (3) and Michael Pollan (2). All three have been described as 'self-appointed food elitists' (a.k.a. 'food fascists'), and 'hell-bent on misleading consumers'.
We plead guilty to the first charge. Scottish food is among the best, purest and most natural in the world. That's because Scotland has resisted pressure from international forces to join America on the slippery slope its leaders have chosen. America's model food system is not one to be emulated: it is over-centralized, over-industrialised, over-controlled by a handful of companies, over-reliant on monocultures, on pesticides, on chemicals fertilizers, on chemical additives, on factory farms, on government subsidies, on machines and on fossil fuels, with GMOs shoring up all of it. If avoiding standardised, nutrient-depleted, aged, GM food is 'elitist' then we should all be proud to be called so.
But, misleading consumers? Definitely not.
Consumers are paying for non-elite food with their health. The survival of the current global food system depends upon consumer ignorance. Once people know what they're actually eating, and know what non-elite food is doing to their bodies, and realise there are alternatives, they will no longer buy it. As Schlosser says:The cheapness of today's industrial food is an illusion, and the real cost is too high to pay.The links between the agricultural system, freshly prepared food, and health are too intimate to ignore.
However, there's another factor in this equation which shouldn't be left out.
Housing policy in developed countries has been based around the non-elite food supply system too. The 'economic' way to house people is to cram as many dwellings into as little land as is practically possible, and in the blink of an eye one of the big supermarkets will appear somewhere near. Since there's no where else to shop and no green space to call your own, the people become cogs in the wheels of the global food supply system.
To paraphrase one broad-sighted American architect, housing development, agriculture and health are broken, and the answer to each lies in the other. He is referring to recent proposals for the development of 'agriburbia' communities in America which will combine dwellings with land for farming so that everyone can contribute, in their own way, to their own food production.In Britain, we have allotments, gardens, window-boxes, patio-gardens, garden-sharing schemes and city gardens, farm co-operatives, farmers' markets, box-schemes and many more ways in which you can contribute to local food production in your own way. These are sources of very earthy elite, GM-free food. Look out for what's available in your areaAlso, if you haven't done so yet, get hold of(1) Eric Schlosser's book 'Fast Food Nation'(2) Michael Pollan's book 'In Defense of Food'(3) Robby Kenner's film 'Food, Inc.'Eric Schlosser, Why being a foodie isn't 'elitist', Washington Post, 29.04.11Keith Goetzman, Some Developers are Starting to Incorporate a New feature into Neighborhoods A Food Supply, www.utne.com, 25.04.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8766 

Green alternative? Or expensive mistake? Biofuels are not, it seems, going to carry on where fossil fuels left off.Biofuels are one of the fastest growing industries. The biofuels sector is attracting high levels of investment from venture capitalists. Its massive growth is being stimulated by funding from such agencies as the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and carbon emissions trading markets. Add to this that billions of dollars are being poured into biofuel research by industry, in particular Big Oil, Big Biotech and their associates in the car and energy business. The first generation biofuel is ethanol produced from corn. US subsidies amounting to 7.7 billion in 2009 have driven 41 percent of the American corn crop and 15 percent of the global corn crop into combustion engines. Ethanol sales continue to climb in the US and are expected to reach nearly 4 billion gallons (53 billion litres) in 2011, about 8 per cent of the country's total fuel consumption. Federal law requires that ethanol production in the USA shall climb to 35 billion gallons per year by 2022.In the early days, even environmentalists welcomed the advent of biofuels as an alternative to oil. However, the shiny image of biofuels as a 'green' answer to peak oil and our energy needs of the future, is fast becoming tarnished. And the problems are inherent and insurmountable.At the end of 2010, the US politician most influential in promoting the ethanolic corn initiative, Al Gore, dropped a bombshell. He said First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. It seem the realities of ethanolic corn finally dawned on him: the net energy gain is dismal, and there is no doubt that the diversion of food into cars contributed significantly to the recent world food price crisis.Gore in remarkably candid about why he pushed through such a bad policy in the first place: One of the reasons I made that mistake is that I paid particular attention to the (interests of) farmers in my home state of Tennessee, and I had a certain fondness for the farmers in the State of Iowa because I was about to run for president. After that first mistake, he admits to losing control because It's hard once such a programme is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going. The combination of narrow-vision and political ambition put in motion a juggernaut which couldn't be stopped once the vested interests of Big Business muscled in on the act.The people best placed to rationalise the whole biofuel escapade are the university academics. Unfortunately their reality is a research agenda shaped by the biofuels industry. Like the weapons-, tobacco-, pharmaceutical-, and biotech-industries before it, the biofuels industry is quietly funding the research projects it wants funded, discouraging criticism of its pet, and wangling its way onto key university decision-making bodies.The result is a diversion of scientific resources away from the more important subject areas affected by peak oil, such as research into food crops, energy conservation, improved transportation and urban planning.The bigger reality is that biofuels have a large indirect carbon footprint, and have dire implications for water quality and availability, while feeding food to cars while millions of poor children are dying of hunger-related causes is even less ethical than feeding food to animals to feed the wealthy.There are also some sinister aspects to the development of biofuels. Our failing fossil fuel economy is transforming into a bio-economy in which Plants, trees and forests are the new oil fields. They're above the ground and they're easy to grab. (ETC Group) But to get them, as small farmers in developing countries are finding to their cost, you have to get the ground. In some areas land expropriation has been violent and has been achieved by false promises and trickery: in Honduras, six farmers were massacred in their fields by armed security forces employed by the biofuel company, Dinant; in Indonesia, villagers describe how they arrived at their land one morning to find all their crop trees and plants had been destroyed.Ethanolic corn has always been based on GM pest- and herbicide-resistant varieties, both of which have a dubious safety profile. But corn grown specially for ethanol production is about to kick off another entirely new GM era.The US has just approved a transgenic corn designed to digest itself and make the whole ethanol production process quicker and cheaper. 'Energen' GM corn contains a gene copied from a marine microbe. The novel gene generates amylase enzyme which breaks starch down into sugar. At present this enzyme must be added into the mix by ethanol manufacturers as the first stage in the process, but the transgenic corn will do this for itself to, hopefully, making the wh9le process somewhat less inefficient.As the GM StarLink and Bt maize contaminations of 200-2004 have warned us, Enogen will end up in your food. Even the North American Millers' Association, a food industry trade body, is warning against the introduction of this GM corn. It's prediction of crumbly corn chips, soggy cereal, loaves of bred with soggy centers and corn dogs with inadequate coating may only be the beginning of the problems.The amylase enzyme produced by Energen is heat-resistant and acid-tolerant making it very stable and a prime allergen suspect. But, because Energen is not a food, safety testing will be minimal. Some level of the enzyme will end up in our gut where it could negatively impact our digestion and nutrition, and large quantities will reach the soil and wider ecosystem where it will wreak havoc with carbon cycling. Farmers prospecting for ethanolic gold stand to lose both their soil and their market.For more in depth information, read up on how 'Biofuels Waste Energy to Produce'Biofuels Waste Energy to Produce, Institute of Science in Society Report, 6.12.10Biofuels and World Hunger, Institute of Science in Society Report, 3.11.19Annie Bird, World Bank-Funded Biofuel Crop Massacres Six Hondurans, Rights Action, New Zealand, 22.11.10Earth grab: The rush to make agriculture fuel the global economy, Food Secure Canada, 22.11.10Suzanne Bohan, Big Oil funds biofuels R&D / US corn ethanol was not a good policy - Gore, Contra Costa Times, 21/22.11.10Jess Leber, Al Gore: I Used To Be A Cornaholic, http://environment.change.org/blog, 23.11.10Gerard Wynn, U.S. Corn ethanol was not a good policy - Gore, Reuters, 22.11.10Andrew Pollack. U.S. Approves Corn Modified for Ethanol, New York Times, 11.02.11Sean Poulter, GM in your cornflakes: Food fears as U.S. approve new genetically engineered maize, Daily Mail, 21.02.11World's First Genetically Engineered Biofuels Corn threatens Contamination of Food-Grade Corn, True Food Now, 11.02.11John Collins Rudolf, Corn Belt Senators Defend Ethanol Subsidies, New York Times, 2.12.10Jeff Tollefson, Biofuel subsidy sees limited extension in the S tax bill as opposition grows, Nature, 20.12.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 1165 


Example of an artificial DNA construct used during the Scottish Farm Scale Evaluations

Since the dawn of GM foods, much of the argument about their acceptability has revolved around the question of whether genetic transformation of an organism is playing with nature or, indeed, whether this even matters since human beings seem to be playing with nature all the time. One way to judge these questions, is to have look at what genetic engineers actually put into your food.
The GM oilseed rape which was trialled during the Farm Scale Evaluations in Scotland had been transformed with a DNA construct made up from something like this (if your brain starts going into overload reading this, just skip to THE END):a piece of bacterial DNA for sticking one end of the construct into the host genome, joined toa piece of man-made DNA for nothing, joined toa piece of bacterial DNA for telling an anti-weedkiller gene (see two below) where it stops, joined toa piece of man-made DNA for nothing, joined toa piece of bacterial DNA which is an anti-weedkiller gene, joined toa piece of plant DNA for telling the anti-weedkiller DNA to switch itself on only in green tissues, joined toa piece of man-made DNA for nothing, joined toa piece of bacterial DNA for telling a tissue-dissolving gene (see two below) where it stops, joined toanother piece of bacterial DNA (from a different bacterium) for telling a tissue-dissolving (see one below) where it stops, joined toa piece of bacterial DNA which is a tissue-dissolving gene, joined toa piece of plant DNA for telling the tissue-dissolving DNA to switch itself on only in the bits of the flower which bear the anthers (these produce pollen), joined toa piece of man-made DNA for nothing, joined toa piece of bacterial DNA for sticking the other end of the construct into the host genomeThe plant containing this construct is mated with a second GM oilseed rape plant which contains another DNA construct very similar to the first, except that the tissue-dissolving DNA has been replaced by a piece of anti-tissue-dissolving DNA to prevent the pollen-producing parts from being destroyed in the offspring (or they wouldn't produce any seed in the final crop). References to 'plant' and 'bacterial' DNA in the above don't mean that they were extracted from these organisms, nor that they are replicas of such DNA. They mean that the idea for that piece of DNA came originally from the study of such an organism. The artificial DNA constructed is an analogue which may have many alterations to make it suitable for use outside its source organism. Out of twenty-six pieces of DNA, fourteen pieces are modelled on bacterial DNA and eight are man-made inventions. Only four are modelled on plant DNA: two of these are for destroying a man-made chemical weedkiller (which doesn't need to be used in the first place) one destroys healthy plant reproductive tissue and one prevents the latter destruction but is only needed because the destruction gene is present. Besides the mish-mash of assorted bits of DNA strung together by the genetic engineer, the large proportion of bacterial DNA analogues in the constructs, such as those described above, has some uncomfortable implications. Many bacteria have a habit of swapping DNA between themselves and of absorbing and using the DNA they find lying around them in living or dead matter: this can result in genes moving 'horizontally' between unrelated individuals. The process of horizontal gene transfer is speeded up if the DNA in question has similarities to the bacterium's own DNA. Moreover, the similar DNA is known to be able to ferry unrelated DNA into the bacterium, so that the large proportion of bacterial DNA in artificial constructs might well deliver plants genes into microbes. The Institute of Science in Society has described genetic engineering as nothing if not greatly enhanced horizontal gene transfer and recombination.The constructs described above, which appeared on the Public Register prior to the release of the oilseed rape crop into the environment, are models of what the manufacturer intended to put inside the plants. But it is becoming increasingly clear that some, if not all, man-made DNA becomes scrambled during the transformation procedure and can even acquire new bits of DNA or lose bits. So, what was really there?Healthy, living organisms normally have ways of preventing foreign DNA getting into their genomes, and ways of correcting altered or damaged DNA should it arise. This is how they are able to stay healthy. GM plants are unable to do either, or they would reject the novel DNA, and wouldn't remain GM.Now ask yourself, are we playing with nature, or trying to re-invent it?We can certainly play with nature, but be assured nature won't play by our rules. (Adapted from an article which appearedon GM-free Scotland in September 2005)Aventis CropScience Application for consent to release genetically modified rape, Refs 00/R33/7 and 00/R33/7S, July 2000Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4346 


Feeding the world: non-GM success stories
There are over 100 reasons to think GM crops are nothing more than a charade struggling to be real.Claims on the wonders of GM have been aired regularly for years. 
British radio listeners will have heard that:Using GM technology, there are now varieties of major crops, rice,  wheat and maize being produced that are drought resistant, flood  resistant, saline resistant and disease resistant, which could transform  Africa's ability to feed its people ... Some products have emerged, for  example, from South Africa.  They are now planting drought resistant  crops that have increased the yield by 30% ... so you can actually save  millions of people from starvation by these techniques ...... I could give you one example and this is the use of inter-crop planting in Africa which has increased grain yields already around Lake Victoria very substantially.  And this is done by discovering what the pheromone is in the root of the grain plant that attracts root borers and destroys them.  And if you snip that gene into the grass so that the grass attracts root borers, the root borer does  not feed well on the grass and dies.  You interplant the grass with the grain and it turns out the crops yield goes up 40-50%.  Very big advantage.
Not only can food be made safer by snipping out  allergenic proteins, but GM will be able to produce more crop per drop of water to allow them to thrive in drier conditions.
These quotes may sound like the usual biotech industry spin, but they came from quite another source.  They were in fact the words of the UK government's Chief Scientist (now retired), and stand out for three reasons.  They come from someone who ought to know what he's talking about, who ought to know the difference between technical aspirations and fact, and who ought not to be  misleading anyone about science.
The problem is that the examples given by him are not true:drought-resistant GM crops are being grown in South Africa (nor flood-resistant GM crops, nor salt-resistant GM crops, the suggested 'GM' grass to divert pests away from the crops around Lake Victoria the removal of allergenic proteins by GM techniques was recognised during the 2003 GM Science Review (chaired by the same Chief Scientist) as ', with particular reference to the life-threatening properties of peanuts because more than 20 different proteins are involvedThe current Chief Scientist seems to be carrying on the tradition.  Sound-bytes attributed to him in the press continue to tout GM as a solution to world hunger: It is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM.  Just look at the problems that the world faces: water shortages and salination of existing water supplies, for example.  GM crops should be able to deal with that.The tone is more measured than his predecessor, but the misinformation being spun on what genetic engineering can achieve is identical.
The government seems to be getting an earful of carefully crafted advice designed to keep its attention on GM as the only solution to global food supplies.  This view is reinforced by the media which is ever keen to devote vast amounts of column inches to the 'news' of potential GM miracles, while non-GM actual success stories get minimal coverage.  As Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and claimed silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no storyThe biotechnology industry and its PR people are keen to keep it that way, particularly because the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM.  They also bring none of the uncertainties that surround GM.This statement of non-GM crop solutions being way ahead of GM is backed up by examples of over 100 reports of successful, newly developed, non-GM crops of 23 plant varieties with all the pest-resistance, environmental tolerances, yield and nutritional traits coveted by genetic engineers.  
A major fly in the whole GM ointment is becoming increasing obvious: any crop is only as good as conventional breeding has made it.  The artificial DNA inserted in GM crops is not so much a silver bullet as a marketing play to add  artificial value and a patent.
GM Watch suggests some important questions we should all be asking:which natural parent variety or varieties did the biotech company pirate for its GM variety?how much improvement was made in the parent variety by conventional breeding and marker assisted selection, aside from the GM tweak?how do the natural parent variety, the non-GM improved variety, and the final GM variety compare with each other with regard to the desired trait in side-by-side field trials?The answers would be educational.  But we won't usually get to hear them because the information is commercially confidential.  So much so that even UK Chief Scientists don't know.  And so the biotech companies are able to maintain their seductive pretense that GM is necessary for the future of plant breeding.  All this pro-GM propaganda in the media may be leaving a sour taste in your mouth.  We seem to be seeing a repeat performance of the time when George and Tony decided it might be fun to attack Iraq with a drumbeat for war ... based not on intelligence, but lies.  As one CIA officer described it, It was 95 percent charade made possible because The press allowed the crazies (the Bush government) to get away with it.  The crazies will continue to get away with it unless people (like you) demand the truth.Watch's compilation of reports of Besides countering lies propagated by the press, the thing to watch out for is biotech industry moves to take possession of these real crop breakthroughs by inserting their own genetic brand into them.Chief Scientist's misleading GM claims: GM Freeze calls for a public apology, GM Freeze Press Release 17.12.07GM Freeze letter to Professor David King, 17.12.07, Peter Melchett, Who can we trust on GM food? Guardian 9.12.08Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, GMO apologists ignore science - again. La Vida Locavore, 28.01.11John Pilger, Behind the Arab Revolt Is a Word We Dare Not Speak, Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2069 

The latest UK research on GM is the creation of flu-free chickens. In these novel birds, the dreaded H5N1 virus can't replicate as normal, doesn't infect the rest of the flock, and therefore, presumably, won't transfer to humans.
Avian flu continues to be a global health concern. Although primarily a disease of wild birds, it occasionally infects poultry flocks in which it can spread like wildfire. Controls, such as vaccination and bio-security measures, are complicated by the nature of the virus which is not a single type of virus, but exists in many subtypes and, like all flu, is an ever-evolving master of mutability.
Fears of a major outbreak of the virus in the UK in 2006 came after a swan, found dead off the coast of Fife, was discovered to be infected with H5N1. The virus did not cross any species barriers in Scotland and the feared pandemic did not happen.
According to World Health Organisation data, there have been a total of 306 deaths world-wide from H5N1 since 2003.
Clearly, there have not so far been a great number of fatalities, but scientists still fear that H5N1 in domestic fowl will create a bridge to the emergence of a human strain of the virus which could kill millions of people.
The new genetic trick to beat bird-flu doesn't use a gene as such, but uses DNA which generates a small 'RNA' mirror of itself. The novel RNA interferes with the viral enzyme which the pathogen uses to replicate itself. Infected birds still die, but the pathogen is unable to spread to others.
In a bid to thwart the viral evolution which would soon side-step a single blockage, a genetic eight-fold 'belts and braces' strategy has been employed: the novel RNA has been designed to target eight sites on the viral genome where the enzyme would normally bind and become active. This multiple interference makes it necessary for the virus to change both its enzyme and all eight binding sites at the same time to evolve resistance to the anti-flu fowl.
Future plans include the insertion of more DNA belts and braces to achieve absolute control of the H5N1 plus two other viral threats (Newcastle and Marek's disease).
The time-scale for successful completion of this research is not clear, but one US commentator pointed out that the trade in both broiler and egg-laying chickens has become consolidated in a handful of companies which essentially determine what stocks are used by chicken farmers globally. This means that transgenic chickens could theoretically replace non-transgenic breeds worldwide in a few years. (GM Freeze' comment on this was that we need genetic diversity in our chickens, not genetic modification of a single breed.)
Announcing the initial success of the flu-free chicken project at the Oxford Farming Conference (see note below), one of the team acknowledged the obstacle of consumer acceptance. His views on overcoming this hurdle were that policy makers would have to defeat the negative connotations associated with GM, and that
We need a more radical regulation system which is not obsessed with the technology but with the outcomes of the technology.   
The Oxford Farming Conference is Britain's leading farming conference, now in its 65th year.
The patrons of the Oxford Farming Conference include lots of respectable names such as the Co-op and the RSPB, but also includes Bayer CropScience, and its sponsors include Syngenta.
The scientist's views, suggesting inappropriate regulation of GMOs, were quoted in Farmers Guardian. In the midst of a large farming conference at which plenty of interesting initiatives must have been presented, it's interesting to speculate why this particular point got into print. The statement is suspiciously similar to what seems to have been a PR stunt only two months earlier which erroneously announced to the world that the Vatican supported the advance of GM crops through reduced regulation (see VATICAN TAKE-OVER BID, ROUND II  January 2011). Statements like this slipping out all over the place look like an organised attempt to make policy makers feel insecure about their handling of GMOs. Look out for more PR efforts in the same vein: you may need to reassure your regulators that they are, by no means, over-regulating GM.
There are signs the theory behind the flu-free fowl and observed outcome are not quite as they should be. The 'blocked' enzyme isn't preventing the virus growing enough to kill the birds, but something inexplicable is preventing H5N1 transmission onwards to cage-mates. An individual within a flock artificially harbouring a non-contagious but very pathogenic virus could be even more sinister than the disease as it is at present: are we simply creating a chicken soup of viral particles from which a human super-pathogen could most easily emerge.
To expand on this: so long as the virus can enter chicken cells, there is a risk of recombination with other viral particles. A virus finding itself unable to replicate easily might be even more encouraged to hijack another virus, use it to bypass all the man-made blocks genetic engineers have installed, and produce something very nasty and uncontrollable indeed.
The tactic of generating RNA blockages in chickens is even more problematic than the insertion of protein-generating genes. Consider that DNA interacts with itself and with its living milieu: the complexity of these is way beyond our ability to comprehend or predict. The much smaller and infinitely more varied RNA molecules generated by DNA interact directly with each other, with DNA, with proteins and who knows what else. This is a level of complexity of life which we destabilise at our peril.
The use of RNA interference, as opposed to an engineered protein makes it particularly important that regulators remain 'obsessed with the technology' because the outcome may be something they didn't bargain for, and YOU will be eating it.Jon Lyall, et al., 2011, Suppression of Avian Influenza Transmission in Genetically Modified Chickens, Science 331 No.6014, 14.01.11Martin Enserink, Transgenic Chickens Could Thwart Bird Flu, Curb Pandemic Risk, Oxford Farming Conference, www.ofc.org.ukCumulative Number of Confirmed Human Cases of Avian Influenza A (H5N1) reported to WHO, www.who.int, 13.01.11Swan tests confirm deadly virus, BBC News, 6.04.06G birds 'don't spread the flu', Metro 14.01.11William Surman, OFC: Poultry genetically modified to resist avian flu, Farmers Guardian, 6.01.11GM Freeze press release, 13.01.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6126 

To scale up or scale down? That's the big question facing global agriculture. The US and UK Governments and the biotech industry say up, the United Nations and Development Agencies say down.At the start of 2011, the UK Government produced a report on 'Global Food and Farming Futures' (referred to as 'Foresight' in reference to the thinktank which produced it).This mammoth Report was the culmination of two years of study involving 400 scientists from 34 countries.While recognising that no single solution exists, the Report stresses that it is critical to achieve increased yields by sustainable intensification in the developing world. To achieve this, it says, will require the spread of existing knowledge and technology.The title of 'Global Food and Farming Futures', coupled to 400 scientists and 34 countries all suggest a very serious international search for the best way forward to provide a sustainable food supply for everyone in the world.Indeed, those involved in the report say all the right things on the subject: the authors call for food and agriculture to move up the political agenda and be coordinated with efforts to tackle the impact of climate change, the supply of water and energy and the loss of farm land, and the bottom line is that transformation on the scale of the industrial revolution is neededScratch the surface, however, and a different picture begins to emerge.The 'Global Food and Farming Futures' Report came from the Department for Business Innovation (BIS), and was co-commissioned by the Department of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The focus of the report is clearly on UK business interests, and how global food and farming futures can be shaped to benefit these. UK business has a habit of reflecting whatever America happens to want, and America has a habit of wanting whatever the biotech industry wants.If this seems far-fetched, DEFRA Secretary of State, Caroline Spelman, was quick to use Foresight as a vehicle to promote the free-market which the US is so keen to inflict all over the world.The global problems found in the Report have been repeatedly aired in the past: one billion people are going hungry, one billion people suffer from nutrient deficiencies, and another one billion people are so substantially over-consuming that they suffer from obesity; 30 percent of all food produced is never consumed; our current agri-system is directly responsible for 14 percent of man-made greenhouse gases (or up to one third if we factor in deforestation for the expansion of farmland, and close to half if we factor in food processing and long-haul transport). Nothing new there. And nothing new in Foresight's 'solutions' either: these have already been very actively pursued for some time ... by big agri-business.UK Chief Scientist and overseer of the Report, John Beddington, was quick to use Foresight as a plug for his support of GM: It is very hard to see how it would be remotely sensible to justify not using new technologies such as GM. In the report itself, however, GM is barely mentioned. It rather slips in as just part of the knowledge and technology it is critical to spread, and only in light of the magnitude of the challenges. Agricultural scientist and high-profile activist, Devinder Sharma, is in no doubt that Foresight is just a clever camouflage whose main purpose is to kick-start GM research in the UK: the report simply conceals that intention by burying it amongst a lot of other issues. As he points out:The report does say 'that the food production system will need to be radically changed not just to produce more food but to produce it sustainably' but when it comes to spelling out the radical changes required, it not only fails but fails miserably to come up with any proposal/recommendation that is not an extension of the industrial farming model that has created the crisis in the first place.Another agricultural scientist and high-profile activist, Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, also found a reason for distrusting the true nature of Foresight. She reports:I asked a few of my colleagues who are listed as among the report's 400 authors and contributors what happened. They all indicated that they had had no say in the actual writing of this report. As one scientist, whose name is listed in the report, put it: 'I was invited by email to write a review to be published elsewhere. I didn't participate in any meetings, discussions, findings, or report writing. I hadn't even been alerted to the fact that a report had been issued. It isn't at all clear to me how the listed stakeholders actually participated in the process. The issue of GM crops never came up in anything I saw, and it doesn't even seem to feature strongly in the report. (The) conclusion that the (UK Chief Scientist) is just using the report to promote GM crops seems about right.'Adding to the impression of a hidden GM, pro-biotech, agenda are the notable aspects of both GM and our food supply which have been ignored, glossed over or trivialised in the Report. For example:The views of farmers, indigenous people and workersThe loss of control over, and right to, land in developing countries, promoted by powers such as the World BankThe over-riding political aspects of hungerThe role of global commodity speculation as the root cause of food price volatility.Concerns about gene technology (apparently these are based only on untenable ethical and moral grounds)
The huge cost of GM crop development, plus the training needed to use them efficiently, the legal oversight needed, and the on-going supply system required etc.
Anything which might annoy the biotech industry, the US administration ...Organic and near-organic agricultural methods and technologies are ideally suited for many poor, marginalized small-holder farmers in Africa, as they require minimal or no external inputs, use locally and naturally available materials to produce high-quality products, and encourage a whole systemic approach to farming that is more diverse and resistant to stress. (UN Conference on Trade an development and UN Environment Program, 'Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa, 2008)In the Tigray area of Ethiopia previously known as one of the most degraded Regions of Ethiopia, more than 20,000 farming families saw yields of major cereals and pulses nearly double using ecological agricultural practices such as composting, water and soil conservation activities, agroforestry, and crop diversification (UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) 'Mitigating Climate Change, Providing Food Security and Self-Reliance for Rural Livelihoods', 2008)The huge 'International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development' clearly reflected a growing consensus among the global scientific community and most governments that the conventional paradigm of industrial, energy-intensive, chemical-based agriculture is not the way forward. The key message as stated by the UK DEFRA chief scientist at the time (also chief scientist for the World Bank and IAATSD director) was that continuing with current trends would leave us facing a world nobody would want to inhabit. On biotech agriculture, the report was definite: there is little role for GM as currently practiced, in feeding the poor. (see In the name of intensification in many places around the world, farmers over-ploughed, over-fertilized, over-irrigated, over-applied pesticides. (FAO conference, 2009)Conventional/industrial agriculture is energy- and input-intensive. Its high productivity relies on the extensive use of petrochemical fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, fuel, water, and continuous new investment (in advanced seed varieties, machinery etc.). Green agriculture, low-tech, high-skilled methods like restoring and enhancing soil fertility through the increased use of naturally and sustainably produced nutrient inputs; diversified crop rotations; and livestock and crop integration are called for (UN Environment Program, 2011)One week after the above report, another UN conference reinforced the message. It called for a transformation from high-input monoculture to a diverse mosaic of 'regenerative' agricultural systems (UN Conference on Trade and development, 2011).We need, as a top priority, for the people of every country to invest in a sustainable way of life.The recurrent theme here is undoubtedly the need to scale down: all areas in the world must be helped to produce their own food sustainably. That means without dependence on foreign powers, international trade, multinational companies, dwindling global resources or expensive technologies. It means an exchange of knowledge and a gift of materials to set each area on the right track to food-independence. It means the world as a family of self-reliant areas which can then support each other in a time of need.If you need more convincing, read the latest Friends of the Earth International 'Who Benefits from GM crops: Food Sovereignty',If, or when, all our natural resources (including natural germplasm and knowledge) have run dry, we will all starve. Ask your MP to remind the DEFRA and BIS about the IAASTD and the multiple UN reports. Perhaps if they realise the Foresight sham isn't fooling anyone, the Government might start really looking for a solution before it's too late.Global food system must be transformed 'on industrial revolution scale', Guardian, 24.01.11Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, GMO apologists ignore science  again, La Vida Locavore, 28.01.11Devinder Sharma, Global Food and Farming Futures report creates panic to push GM crops, Ground Reality, 25.01.11UN 'Green Marshall Plan' condemns large scale, chemical approaches to boost food production, Soil Association 8.03.11Tom Philpott, Debunking the stubborn myth that only industrial ag can 'feed the world', GRIST, 10.03.11'Land Rush' as Threats to Food Security Intensify, Institute of Science in Society Report, 28.04.10Sustainable Agriculture Urgently Needed, UN Agencies Say, Institute of Science in Society Report, 4.04.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 1687 


What do Agrobacterium and human beings have in common? One's a soil bacterium and the other's a primate with a very large brain: the scope for sharing anything seems limited. However, both carry out genetic transformations of other life-forms to provide food for themselves.
Put more accurately, the genetic engineers with the big brains have hijacked the gene transfer mechanism of their microscopic counterparts to provide human food.
But, our cleverness begs a serious question: can Agrobacterium turn the tables, and hijack human cells, transforming them to provide novel food for itself?
The question of horizontal gene transfer (see SCIENCE - ) from GM food into other life-forms has been considered by regulators, albeit half-heartedly. Attention has always focused on antibiotic resistance genes which are created and inserted as a technical trick to identify which cells have been successfully transformed. This problem can be solved by avoiding use of such genes in the first place, or, by removing them post-transformation (both perfectly possible, just less convenient). Early on, the UK Food Standards Agency commissioned a study on the possibility of gene transfer from two common gut microbes into human gut cells, but found no cause for concern. The view of regulators is that we are exposed to DNA from plants, bacteria and viruses all the time in our food, and so GM DNA isn't going to cause any additional problem.
However, no one's been factoring in Agrobacterium.
Agrobacterium is a specialised plant pathogen. It has the ability to genetically transform many hundreds of plant species to form galls (plant 'tumours') which provide a unique chemical and environmental habitat for the bug. Infection is triggered by wounded plant tissue: the wound exudes plant hormones which attract Agrobacterium and primes it to take control of the plant cells by switching on the genes it needs to insert its tumourigenic DNA.
The regulators' view is that a plant pathogen can't present a problem to animals (including livestock and humans).
To transform plants, genetic engineers replace the gall-causing DNA in Agrobacterium with engineered DNA of their choosing. When plant cells are exposed to the re-jigged and primed Agrobacterium, the bugs obligingly ferry the novel DNA into the cells and insert it into the the plants own DNA. The plant cells are then treated with antibiotics to kill off the bugs before being propagated into whole crops for eventual commercial release. All this is, of course, carried out in laboratories and greenhouses.
Problem number one is that not all Agrobacterium are successfully removed: some will remain on the GM plant and be passed on to future generations. One study, on GM poplars, suggested that 80% of the trees were still harbouring the Agrobacterium used to transform them.
This means that GM crops transfected using Agrobacterium can form a reservoir in the field, not only of artificial DNA, but of artificial DNA plus the vector needed to efficiently insert novel genes into many other plants.
Problem number two is that Agrobacterium-mediated gene insertion is not limited to higher plant cells, but can extend to animal cells. A study using cultured human cervical cancer, kidney and nerve cells demonstrated that Agrobacterium, could insert genes into all of them. Transformation was observed whether or not the bacteria had been primed, and the process of insertion was unexpectedly found to be identical to that for transforming plants cells.
Problem number three is that Agrobacterium-mediated gene insertion can extend to fungi. Since fungi form a large and vital part of the soil ecosystem, and can spread with the greatest of ease, horizontal gene transfer into them is not good news. A study just published has shown that the conditions prevailing at a plant wound-site were sufficient for Agrobacterium to genetically transform a fungus.
Agrobacterium is also known to be able to genetically transform yeast. Like fungi, yeast has an unsurpassed ability to spread, and is a well-known opportunistic pathogen.
What could all these unnatural and unprecedented horizontal gene transfers lead to? The most likely scenario is that a previously unknown, highly atypical, disease emerges which invites in a range of opportunistic pathogens and is ignored for decades because there's no test available for a definitive diagnosis. At worst, we would have little or no immunity to the novel organism, and this would be exacerbated by genetic instability caused by to the presence of the engineered DNA which would make the pathogen fast-changing.
Suspicion has already fallen on an unknown skin disease (also referred to as the 'silent' or 'hidden' US epidemic, or inaccurately as 'Morgellons Syndrome'). This disease presents with skin lesions, joint pain and neurological difficulties and is thought to affect over 10,000 individuals in America. The US Center for Disease Control (CDC) has now recognised the epidemic and has initiated investigations into it, but Europe's medical community has not reacted.
Theories about the aetiology of the disease include nano-particles, UFOs, delusional parasitosis, and self-harm. However, there is some evidence of a common history in affected individuals, both of contact with soil and of the presence of Agrobacterium in skin lesions, which has raised interesting possibilities of a GM connection.The jury's still out regarding the 'unknown skin disease', but it provides a perfect lesson. Have a look at the horrific pictures posted on the Morgellons Research Organisation website. Huge suffering will arise from any new disease before the medical profession begins to recognise it for what it is, and before any research into a cure or symptomatic relief can even begin.If the 'unknown skin disease' is an evolving Agrobacterium-induced GMO, a cure might be impossible. If the 'unknown skin disease' isn't a GMO, the next 'unknown disease' might well be.Agrobacterium & Morgellons Disease, A GM Connection? Institute of Science in Society Report, 28.04.08Possible new twist in GM safety debate, University of Bristol Press Release, October 2010Tzvi Tzfira and Vitaly Citovsky, 2003, The Agrobacterium-Plant Cell Interaction. Taking Biology Lessons from a Bug, Plant Physiology, November, 133Knight C. J., et al., 2010, Investigation Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Verticillium albo-atrum on Plant Surfaces, PLoS ONE 5:10Kunic T., et al., 2001, Genetic transformation of HeLa cells by Agrobacterium, PNAS 13.02.01, 98:4Minsheng Y., et al., 2006, Survival and escape of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in triploid hybrid lines of Chinese white poplar transformed with two insect-resistant genes, Ecological Society of China, November, 26:11Marc Neumann, Introduction to the Morgellons Syndrome (2007  Revised 2010), Netherwood, Technical report on the FSA project Evaluating the risks associated with using GMOs in human foods, FSA project GO 10008.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8192 


GM crops could cause a pandemic of psychiatric disorders.  How far-fetched is that?
The scientific wisdom of yesteryear held that a blood-brain barrier exists which protects the brain from substances and cells in the blood which would otherwise upset brain function.  
There is, indeed a physical blood-brain barrier.  But it can be breached.  Stress and inflammation can make different areas of the barrier leaky.  This allows harmful materials to pass through and disturb the function of associated areas of the brain.
Experiments using laboratory mice are gradually revealing unexpected interactions between the immune system and the brain.  Although the exact mechanisms and responses will be somewhat different in humans, the principle is likely to be very much the same.
The picture emerging from the research is that stress, infections, toxins, allergens and obesity all trigger immune system responses.  Such responses include the production of antibodies which can bind to cells (including neurones), the activation of immune-system cells, and the release of cell signaling molecules for cell communication.  Obesity has a special role in these processes because fat-tissue forms the precursors of cell-signaling molecules.
Immune-system responses in turn trigger inflammation which makes the blood-brain barrier leaky, and potentially exposes the brain cells to all those same immune-system factors.  The resulting brain disturbances indicated by the experiments so far include: impaired learning and memory, obsessive-compulsive disorder, depression, anxiety and suspicion, impulsiveness, and development of nervous tics.
In a nutshell, things which make you physically ill can also make you mentally ill. 
On a happier note, the opposite is also true, even for infectious micro-organisms.  At least one kind of very small bacterium is able to stimulate feelings of well-being.  It has been postulated that this microbe is an old friend we have co-evolved with for a very long time. 
Interestingly, immune responses are not all negative either.  They seem to have a role in helping nervous tissue repair, and immune responses triggered by mild stress seem to enhance learning.  The concept of useful stress from old microbial friends also fits in with the hygiene hypothesis which blames the modern rise in asthma and allergies on lack of early exposure to local 'dirt' to help the immune system mature appropriately.
Where does GM food fit into all of this?
First, GM soya and GM maize form feedstock for the junk food industry.  They are a major fuel of the modern obesity epidemic.
Second, GM foods have an increased potential to generate allergens and novel toxins which may cause inflammation.  Besides this, all GM crops so far commercialised have inherent systemic pesticides (Bt insecticide and/or glyphosate weedkiller).  They may soon include inherent industrial, pharmaceutical and waste chemicals too.
Third, GM material plus novel DNA in the diet has the potential to alter the microbial mix in the gastro-intestinal tract, and to impair its health-promoting qualities, such as protection from inflammation (see GM time-bomb, Microbes in our guts ... a little something to worry about)
The fourth potentially adverse link between GM food and brain-function is the dreaded HGT (horizontal gene transfer) which, to many regulators and scientists, seems to be a taboo subject.  
It's now well-known that genes move around in the natural world, and that HGT is a main route for the generation of pathogenic bacteria and viruses.  However, natural HGT is an occasional and very restricted event.  GM techniques applied to crops are nothing less than a greatly facilitated horizontal gene transfer on a vast scale.  As the Institute of Science in Society has described it, genetic transformation has created highways for gene trafficking in place of narrow by-ways and occasional footpaths that previously existed.
As if man's gung-ho activity in spreading self-replicating novel DNA throughout his food crops isn't bad enough, we've actually gone one better.
Genetic engineers have been using a common soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, to insert their engineered DNA for them.  This bug is used because it's an ideal vector for HGT.  Unfortunately it's also persistent.  Also unfortunately, its gene transfer activities aren't likely to stop where the biotech engineers want them to.
As far back as 1997, UK government-sponsored research revealed that the novel Agrobacterium used to transform crops is extremely difficult to get rid of in the final product.  As a result, the GM plants created using this vector continue to harbour GM Agrobacterium, which continue to be able to genetically transform other plants.
More recent science is uncovering common hotspots were Agrobacterium can genetically transform other forms of life.  For example, plant-wound sites caused by pests or agricultural practices have proven a hot-spot for Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of a common fungus.  There's no reason to assume this is an unusual case restricted to this one organism.  Agrobacterium has even been shown to be able to transform mammalian cells.
The novel microbes and microbial toxins arising via HGT of artificial DNA  will not be old friends and will certainly tax our immune system and promote inflammation.  The potential for endemic mental health problems is inescapable.The Institute of Science in Society is calling for a global ban to be imposed on further environmental releases of GMOs, and for all those responsible for releasing them to be brought to book.Scientists Discover New Route for Gm-gene 'Escape', Institute of Science in Society Report 2.03.11Linda Geddes, Happiness is catching, New Scientist, 15.01.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6374 


GM crops are declining in Europe
Protest in Germany. Picture from FlickrIn February this year, Friends of the Earth Europe prepared a report on the extent of cultivation of GM crops in the EU over the last three years (2008  2010).
Spain, which is the only Member State to grow GM crops on any scale, has steadily reduced the area devoted to biotech crops.  The 2010 area was 15% smaller than in 2008.
The next biggest GM player, the Czech Republic, has also steadily reduced its GM acreage by 42% over two years.
Romania, which was once the biggest GM grower in Europe, has reduced its GM crop area by a whopping 87%.  This is highly significant because in 2005 when the country was trying to join the European Union, it was considered by the US ambassador as a unique ... pioneer of biotechnology, which could be helped to enter the EU with a well-developed biotechnology sector and an educated population which understands the merits of biotechnology.  In other words, Romania was being groomed to be a US Trojan horse to force GM crops into Europe.  
Wikileaks has revealed that pressure from America extended to manipulating Romania's National Consumer Protection Agency, its media, and even some NGOs into supporting a GMO trust-inducing programme with the aim of exposing the population to positive messages regarding GMOs.  US intervention included judicious use of GM-friendly parliamentarians, the establishment of a new biotech lobby group, a traveling senator making speeches on the need for GM to fight hunger especially in the African countries, and pro-GM seminars in important science centres.  Despite all this, Romanian GM agriculture has now all but collapsed.
Germany which is important because of its size and status has reduced GM cultivation by 99% (the 1% remaining is non-food GM potatoes)
Slovakia, already a small player in the GM field, has reduced its biotech crop area by 55%.
Finally, Sweden has a very small acreage of non-food GM potatoes, Portugal hasn't changed, and Poland doesn't seem to have changed over the three years but no official figures for GM acres grown there are actually available.There are distinct signs here that farmers in Europe have stopped listening to the biotech industry and are putting people first: see PROGRESS IN CYPRUS, MADIERA, SWEDEN, AND SCOTLAND, May 2011. Now that they're getting the message, make your voice heard and make sure the shift back to non-GM crops continues.GM crops continue to fail in Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe Fact Sheet 22.02.11Wikileaks  GM Food Romania, Trojan horse for USA in Europe, www.adevarul.ro, 31.03.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8942 

American rice growers will give you two practical reasons NOT to grow GM crops.
One, you might contaminate your neighbour's non-GM fields.  If you're lucky all you'll have to suffer is guilt and the loss of goodwill of someone it would be better to be friends with.  If you're unlucky you'll also have to pay him compensation for his loss of non-GM sales.
Two, the market doesn't want GM, even if it's legal, and the cost of finding yourself with a crop and no market is crippling.  US rice growers who suddenly discovered their non-GM seed had become contaminated by a (hastily legalised) GM strain suffered losses in excess of 762 million.  This figure isn't an off-the-cuff estimate.   It's what the courts have, so far, ordered to be paid by out the biotech company  in compensation after it failed to contain its GM rice trials.  The final figure may be higher, and there are certainly many more rice growers whose business was damaged but who were unable to bring or prove their case in court.
Scotland has another important reason to avoid GM.
In 2010, our food exports increased 14% to 1.06 billion.  The Chief Executive of Scottish Development International said: This fantastic result is testimony to the hard work of the indigenous food and drink industry and the growing international perception of Scotland as a world-leading producer of high quality food and drink.This is a market we can't afford to lose to biotech industry whims.The Scottish National Party now in power has taken a strong, precautionary, non-GM line.  Be aware that all members of the Party must be under intense pressure to change their minds.  Don't let it happen.Jen Lavery, Food exports break 1bn for first time, Metro, 13.07.11Robert Patrick, GM lawsuit in St. Louis settled for $750 million, ww.stltoday.com, 2.07.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5144 


What were the major GM events of 2010?
There were also plenty of waves of uncomfortable data about 'Roundup', the herbicide widely use with GM crops.  These included a  (News, September 2010) caused by super-weeds, the scientific proof that  (News, October 2010), and the unwelcome finding that Roundup give us crops of corn field. image on Flickr by Lars Ploughman
Lots of important things have been going on around Europe.
The Eurobarometer on Biotechnology showed that public opposition to GM has risen from 58% in 2007 to 61%.  Notably, in Spain which is known to be the most pro-GM country in Europe, and  which has been growing GM crops commercially for some years, support for GM food fell by 20%.
Planting of GM maize in Spain continued to decline, and according to seed producers, reached its smallest area since 2006.  In Portugal, GM maize cultivation was reported by the agriculture ministry to be down more than 6%.
The European Patent Office is still trying to find a common-sense path to patents on life.  However, it did issue an opinion that methods for conventional breeding of plants and animals cannot be considered as a technical process and cannot, therefore, be covered by patents.  This decision related to one aspect of a patent application for a conventionally-bred broccoli.  The broccoli may still be considered patentable on other grounds, but at least its a step in the right direction.
Germany's top court opened up an important fresh approach to liability when it confirmed the validity of new legislation.  The court rejected the suggestion that the use of a public register for crops was a breach of privacy, and ruled that farmers must publicly disclose what seed they use.  It also upheld the no-fault-liability rule which obliges GM farmers to compensate their neighbours for any loss in market value of their crops.  This rule applies if the natural and GM variants become mixed even when all legal controls have been in place.(COMMENT  To see how important this decision is, check out Monsanto's attitude to the Australian organic pollution incident in 
Another major GM event was the decision by the world's second biggest supermarket , Carrefour of France, to label foods derived from animals fed a non-GM diet with a logo which declares they have been reared without GM.  This label will apply to some 300 products, including pork, poultry, eggs and farmed fish, and will later extend to dairy items.  The importance of this can't be understated because, as Peter Melchett said:It is no longer credible to claim non-GM animal feed is not available, if the world's second largest multiple retailer is demonstrating that it is.  Clearly, claims that non-GM feed is fast disappearing are, as GM-concern groups suspected, simply a scaremongering tactic used to force us into acceptance.
Lots of important things have been going on in America too.
A poll by The Economist magazine showed that American public opinion is neck-and-neck with Europe, with GM-scepticism running at 62%.  In light of the US government suppression of awareness and labelling, and its minimal regulation of GM, this is a remarkably high level of doubt to be emerging.
US rejection of dairy products from cows injected with GM growth hormone (rBGH) continued its upward trend.  It is now estimated that 75% of all yogurt and fluid milk sold in the US is rBGH-free.  Fully two thirds of milk processors have rejected the use of the hormone, up 10% from last year.  Companies which have gone completely rBGH-free include Danone and Yoplait.  'Bon Appetit Management Company' which offers food services to numerous universities and corporate campuses has decided it is imperative that restaurant companies take an active role in promoting sustainable food systems.  To put its money where its mouth is it has started sourcing only rBGH-free yoghurt.
Monsanto was up to suspect 'good' deeds as usual. After getting a red face in 2009 when twenty-six US public-sector scientists lodged an official complaint that the industry was preventing them studying GM crops the Company came up with a 'solution'.  It has arranged to issue umbrella licenses giving scientists the freedom to research agronomic aspects of GM crops, such as how the crops interact with local environments and which varieties perform best.  This research will, presumably, lead to greater uptake of Monsanto's crops by farmers since agronomic performance will be independently evaluated.  However, the umbrella license does not include breeding, which might be of more value to local farmers than being forced to confine themselves to what Monsanto wants to offer, nor DNA characterisation which would be useful for studying more fundamental aspects crop quality and safety.  Not much change there, but at least it's a move in the direction of right-thinking.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), on the other hand, is considering changing its ways.  After getting its knuckles rapped in court for failing to carry out the necessary Environmental Impact Assessment on the GM alfalfa grass and GM sugar-beet it had approved,  the Agency has been forced to think about measures to limit contamination of non-GM fields.  For the first time, it's thinking about imposing rules, including geographical restrictions and buffer zones, on how and where a GM crop may be grown.  Up until now, the USDA has given only a blanket approval or rejection of any GM crop.  The change it envisages could affect a wide swath of the US farm industry.  What the Agency hasn't mentioned yet is the much trickier question of what remedy will apply if its containment rules fail to protect non-GM farmers.
Finally, the global plans for the future of GM in 2010 were spelled out by the Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food at a seminar organised by the Norwegian Biotech Advisory Board.  He said: I have just arrived back from the Hague-conference on agriculture, food security and climate change attended by more than 60 minister from different countries.  All agreed that we need increased food production in the years to come.  However, genetically modified food were barely mentioned in the conference.Take note. The above newly-focused attention on absurd patents, necessary liability laws, non-GM animal feed, adulterated dairy produce, industry control of science, genetic pollution and the minimal importance of GM crops in the world as a whole, have all come about because people became aware of the shortcomings of what was being foisted upon them, and complained.  Don't stop complaining about GM food.Europeans wary of GMO foods, Independent, 18.11.10Eurobarometer  More Europeans opposed to GM food, Greenpeace, 12.11.10Sean Poulter, Supermarkets urged to follow in the French footsteps and label food that isn't GM, Daily Mail. 12.11.10German court approves GM crop restrictions, Earth Times, 24.11.10Rick North, rBGH Trend Continues, The Milkweed, November 2101Bill Tomson, U.S. Weighs Curbs on Biocrops, Wall Street Journal online,17.12.10Winning the Battle on GMOs in the United States, Center For Food Safety 1.12.10Stop GMO Contamination of Organic, Organic Consumer Association, Organic Bytes #256, 22.12.10European Patent Office issues broccoli decision Europe rejects patents on breeding of plants and animals, No Patents on Seeds News, 10.12.10Lars Peder Brekk, Genetically modified food  securing the world food supply? Seminar speech, 22.11.10Emily Waltz, Monsanto relaxes restrictions on sharing seeds for research, Nature Biotechnology 28, 13.10.10Emily Waltz, Under Wraps, Nature Biotechnology, 27:10, October 2009GM corn crops declining Europe, ENDS Europe, 18.12.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3730 

Crop dusting in Mississippi by GM plants are designed to generate or sequester pesticides. Where do all these pesticides go when you eat the plants?Fifteen years after staple GM crops began to spread through our food chain, a scientific study has been completed into the question of whether the GM-linked pesticides (present in all these crops) actually end up inside the body of the consumer.The short answer to this question is yes: four out of the five commonest GM-linked pesticides tested were found to be circulating in the blood.Glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides, which are accumulated by crops genetically transformed to tolerate them, end up inside us. Glufosinate's major metabolite (3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid, '3-MPPA') ends up inside us. At least one common 'Bt' toxin generated by crops genetically transformed to generate their own insecticide ends up inside us. (Glyphosate's major metabolite, AMPA, was not detected in any subject).The glufosinate metabolite (3-MPPA) and Bt toxin were detected not only in healthy pregnant and non-pregnant women, but in the babies of the pregnant women just after birth.Dietary levels of GM were not ascertainable, but the subjects lived in Quebec where the food on sale comes from primarily from Quebec itself plus elsewhere in Canada and from America, all of which are areas of widespread GM crop production.Both glyphosate and glufosinate have been associated with foetal developmental abnormalities in experiments on rat- and non-mammalian models (see, for example, GM Time Bomb - Roundup causes birth defects in humansThe single Bt protein tested was 'Cry1Ab' which is a humanly-engineered variant of a natural bacterial toxin. Artificial Bt toxins can be chemically altered at will by genetic engineers and their genes can be stacked to produce an infinite variety of pesticidal crop plants. Bt proteins have a recognised allergenic potential and a known ability to react with mammalian cells.Pesticide levels circulating in the blood at a single time-point were measured: actual chronic exposure to pesticides during a lifetime of a normal, GM-laced, diet has very different implications for our health. Toxins in blood may or may not be cleared by the kidneys or liver, or by the placenta in pregnant women, or may end up anywhere else in the body. Herbicide-tolerant GM crops are delivering unprecedented levels of weed-killers in our food.The assumption that Bt toxin is a protein and that it will therefore be digested into harmless, nutritional, amino acids is clearly wrong. In other words, the common excuse for minimal safety testing of artificial Bt proteins has been well and truly blown apart.Artificial Bt toxins produced by human manipulation of DNA have never existed before and we have never been exposed to them before. Neither have we been exposed to significant levels of any Bt toxin, natural or artificial in our diet before. Any notion that Bt toxin can be 'generally recognised as safe' is absurd.This experiment leaves some very urgent and worrying questions to be answered.All the subjects were healthy: a comparison with pesticide levels in unhealthy individuals, especially foetuses and babies, is needed.Blood pesticide levels at birth need to be correlated with later health of the subjects, including signs of sensitisation induced by early exposure to Bt.Due to the potential variety of Bt toxins which will circulate inside us, measurements of the whole spectrum of GM-linked material flowing through our bodies needs to be assessed.Over three million Americans have been eating GM foods plus multiple GM-linked toxins for over a decade. Will anyone ever be brave enough to measure the levels of these toxins inside them? Or, correlate the levels of these toxins inside them with their health? Or, correlate the levels of these toxins with the health of their children?So far, Europeans have been had minimal exposure to GM-linked pesticides. Let's keep it that way.Aziz Aris and Samuel Leblanc, 2011, Maternal and fetzl exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada, Reproductive Toxicology onlineEliane Dallegrave et al., 2007, Pre- and post-natal toxicity of the commercial glyphosate formulation in Wistar rats, Archives of Toxicology, September 81(9)Eliane Dallegrave, et al., 2003, The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup in Wistar rats, Toxicology Letters 142Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3632 


After biotech industry pleas that Realistic thresholds must urgently be established at Community level for the unintended presence of GMOs in non-GM material (be it in seeds or in commodities) including in organic crops, the European Commission finally caved in. On 1 January 2009, EU regulation No. 023/2007 came into force, effectively setting the threshold in accordance with the wishes of industry. The regulation allows for the marketing of food as organic and unlabelled providing any GM contamination is below 0.9% and adventitious or technically unavoidable. By doing so, it rides roughshod over the wishes of consumers and the burgeoning organic food industry. (Collins)
The question of how liability for damages arising from gene contamination will be handled in Europe remains open. However, the precedents set by the cases of Schmeiser and of Hoffman in the Canadian system of justice do not bode well.
Percy Schmeiser was a successful farmer in Saskatchewan who grew a 1000 acre crop of canola (oilseed rape). He did not farm organically but kept his use of herbicides to a minimum. Over the years he had developed his own strain of canola by means of selecting seed from his harvest and he had no wish to plant the Monsanto Roundup Ready, GM, variety.
In 1997, Schmeiser's crop was contaminated by the growth of Roundup Ready canola. Initially, Monsanto claimed that he had illicitly procured and planted its product. This claim was subsequently dropped. The most likely source of the intrusion of these plants onto his land was the wind-borne seed carried from vehicles that were bound for neighbouring farms cultivating GM. Following his usual practice, Schmeiser saved seed from his 1997 harvest to plant in 1998. In that year, his crop was found to contain a high proportion of canola of the Roundup Ready strain and, accordingly, he was sued by Monsanto. The Company's claim was for the profits that he had earned from the crop, not from the company's loss of royalties or sales. In summary, Schmeiser was sued for the cultivation ofn his own seed because it had been contaminated by a pollutant which belonged to Monsanto.
When, after some complex legal squirming (seemingly aimed at avoiding rocking Monsanto's boat) the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the genes and the cells containing them belonged to Monsanto, but the plants didn't. The fact the Schmeiser had not introduced the crop onto his land nor had wished it to be there were deemed irrelevant. So too was the fact that the inserted trait, resistance to Roundup, was of no use to him: the Court likened the benefit of Roundup resistance to a fire extinguisher which can be said to be in use if it is only fixed to a wall in case of an emergency. According to this logic, the farmer had the trait available to him and could have used it had the need arisen.
Note that for a breach of patent to occur, the farmer needn't be aware of the gene pollution in his crop, he needn't have procured nor knowingly planted the GM seeds, and needn't have had any benefit from them.
Monsanto has been getting round the responsibility for its role in genetic pollution by volunteering to decontaminate affected fields. That way, no one can complain: especially since the clean-up is only be carried out if the farmer has agreed to a gagging order.
The case of Hoffman concerned a group of organic farmers who wanted to sue Monsanto and another producer of GM canola for the economic and physical effects of the gene contamination of their crops.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled there was no case to answer. The fact that the government had approved the GM crop for general release was considered to invalidate the farmers' claim. Significantly, the fact that the European market for canola was no longer accessible to the organic farmer was not of relevance. It was also held that, as the contamination of the non-GM crop was inevitable, the industry had no need to keep track of its product with any kind of 'identification preservation' system. Finally, it was considered that the gene contamination was similar to pesticide spray drift, and therefore it was neighbouring GM-growing farmers who might be liable.
This judgement offers a number of insights which might well be relevant in Europe where it has already been decided that gene contamination is inevitable. Any fault will attach to the regulators who approved the GM cultivation, the foreigners who refuse to buy the GM product, the GM-growing farmers who failed to control the wind, or the non-GM farmer who put his crop where the GM pollen could land on it. The manufacturer of the GM seed has no liability whatsoever.
Happily, the system is not, in practice, totally stacked in the biotech industry's favour.
Law suits against Bayer CropScience for its disruption to the American rice market when experimental GM strain LL601 was found contaminating the entire long-grain rice supply have just begun to move through the US courts.
The first and second cases were heard in the Federal Court in St. Louis. Bayer was forced to admit in court that it had been unable to control the spread of its GMOs despite the best practices to prevent contamination. Affected farmers were awarded $2 million in the first judgement and $1.5 million in the second.
The third case was heard in a State Court with farmers on the jury. The farmer's attorney said that Bayer was negligent or careless in following USDA testing guidelines and that, once the rice was contaminated, Bayer did not take appropriate steps to mitigate disruptions in the marketplace. The farmer alleged that Bayer did not use tarps nor safe zones to prevent contamination, did not take precautions with equipment, and allowed genetically modified rice to co-mingle with non-GM rice in drying facilities. He said Bayer simply sat back, did nothing, and hoped the (gene) contamination would not surface. The jury found that Bayer should have known that its actions would result in damage and that it continued with such conduct with malice or in reckless disregard of the consequences and intentionally pursued a course of conduct for the purpose of causing damage. Very significantly, the farmer was not only awarded half a million dollars in compensation, but another half a million dollars in exemplary, punitive damages.
Some seven thousand similar claims are pending. Europe should pay heed: Greenpeace International has estimated that the global costs incurred as a result of the rice contamination were between 741 million and $1.285 billion.
Note that all these suits are being brought privately. US regulators carried out an investigation, but decline to take legal steps.
In Scotland, we now have some laws in place to deal with gene contamination. Since June 2009 we have regulations on pollution specifying that remediation requirements for the most significant cases involving the threat or actual damage to water, biodiversity and land where public health is at risk in accordance with the 'polluter pays' principle. Environmental liability includes GM pollution and can be enforced up to 75 years after the event. The penalty on conviction has been set at up to 2 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine.Polluters in Scotland can count themselves lucky. The Chinese offenders who contaminated the milk supply (see FOOD ADULTERATION: LESSONS FROM CHINA  News, October 2008), didn't get off so lightly: one milk processor and one farmer have been executed, and others found guilty have received prison sentences of 8 years to life.Europeans should take note of the cases of Schmeiser and Hoffman. Regulators will evade responsibility by claiming the best science at the time was used, even if they have failed to require appropriate tests to be developed before deciding to approve a GM crop. Farmers, it seems, are the ones most likely to bear the consequences of gene pollution. Their recourse in law is to sue their neighbours on whose goodwill and friendship they often depend.There are reports that farmers are reluctant to plant GM because of the opacity of the legal situation with regard to other farmers who might be adversely affected by their crop. It is upon these uncertainties that future campaigns need to focus. (Collins)Robert Urquhart Collins, GM Crops: The European Context and Legal Precedents from Canada, Alliance for Natural Health. March 2009, Arnaud Apoteker,$2 million US dollar verdict against Bayer confirms company's liability for an uncontrollable technology, Greenpeace International, 7.12.09Bayer hit by $1.5 million penalty for their failure to control GM rice, GM Freeze Press Release 9.02.10GM contamination, Scottish Government News Release, 23.06.09, The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009, SS1 2009/266, Scottish Government Environmental Quality Directorate,12 May 2009Miles Erwin, Pair executed for roles in tainted milk scandal, Metro 25.11.09Alison Sider, Bayer ordered to pay farmer 1 million is tab for modified rice, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, 10.03.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5116 


GM soya: why look out for it?
GM soya is perfectly legal in Europe and could appear in your food at any time. Why look out for it? After all, the soya we eat is so heavily processed and artificial anyway, is it really any different in GM form?
Consider that soya beans themselves are rarely eaten as beans: they don't taste very nice and both animals and humans find them difficult to digest. They're routinely processed into a host of food-like substances (Pollan). Before they get anywhere near your plate, soya beans will have received some or all of the following treatments: multiple heat-treatments, pressure, cracking and crushing, chemical extractions, treatment with acids, alkalis and enzymes, bleaching, addition of preservatives, supplements, colouring and flavouring, and finally molding into some shape to make it seem to be something it's not. All this doesn't sound a very good way to produce wholesome food.As you might expect, soya indeed presents several health issues. However, add in GM soya and these health concerns are raised to a whole new level. 
In animal feeding experiments comparing GM-soya with non-GM-soya, seven out of twelve studies have so far indicated problems in the GM-fed group.Classic 90-day feeding trials, which are the standard safety test for foods, do not reveal any problems. However, the more sophisticated measurement techniques now available to scientists are increasingly demonstrating promisis of chronic toxicity.Vulnerable individuals such as the young, the elderly, or those whose diet or health is poor are especially at risk.
Heavy processing of conventional soya is necessary to remove the phytate and other anti-nutrients which interfere with our absorption of dietary iron. Soya also exerts a pronounced inhibitory effect on our calcium and zinc absorption. GM soya may have residues of Roundup weed-killer in it because the plants have been specially designed to absorb and accumulate this herbicide. This makes the problem worse: Roundup binds minerals such as magnesium and calcium; it makes them unavailable to the plant and unavailable to the consumer of the plant.Hormone disruption and cancer (the two are intimately connected)
Conventional soya contains a host of biologically active plant substances, including phyto-oestrogens (isoflavones) which can interfere with human hormone balance and the regulation of our physiology. This has special implications for embryonic and child development, and in the promotion of cancer.Soya intake has been linked with cognitive impairment and infant leukemia.Men given soya protein supplements exhibited significant increase in blood 'insulin-like growth factor-1' which is linked to cancer.Soya has been linked to bladder cancer. The bladder, being the main route of excretion, is exposed to high concentrations of the many biologically active substances found in less-processed forms of soya.The perception of soya as a healthy choice is not supported by the science. An American Heart Association review of 22 investigations into soya's ability improve blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and post-menopausal bone loss, and into the efficacy and safety of soya isoflavones in preventing or treating cancer concluded earlier research indicating that soy protein has clinically important favorable effects as compared with other proteins has not been confirmed. GM soya may have residues of Roundup weed-killer because the plants have been specially designed to absorb and accumulate this herbicide. This makes the problem worse: Roundup is being increasingly linked to cell toxicity, and to embryo and DNA damage.
Studies have found that conventional soya crops readily absorb common pollutants (such as triclosan disinfectant) from the human manure and recycled water used on fields. These chemicals make their way into the beans themselves and may well accumulate through our food chain. This will add to the glyphosate, surfactants and other commercially confidential adjuvants absorbed and accumulated in Roundup Ready GM soya.And if all that isn't bad enough:there's the safety question of high levels of glutamates in soya; glutamates have been linked to nerve-cell destruction and to obesity through stimulation of insulin cells.there's the (untested) safety question of the residues of petroleum-based solvent used to extract the protein in non-organic soya products.there's the (untested) safety question of how your fat digestion, your fat absorption and your liver are affected by the modern very extensive exposure to artificial fat emulsifiers (mainly soya lecithin) in just about every processed food you can imagine.Watch out! Sometimes the presence of soya in your food isn't at all obvious: it might look like bacon, mince, sausage, yoghurt, or cheese; and it might be called vegetable protein, TVP, hydrolysed protein, or vegetable oil on the label. which originally appearedon GM-free Scotland in February 2011.)Javiera Rulli, Editor, United Soy Republics: The Truth about Soya Production in Latin AmericaRachel A. Zurer, Crops Absorb Pharmaceuticals From Treated Sewage, Chemical & Engineering News, 2.08.10Can-Lan Sun et al., 2002, Dietary Soy and Increased Risk of Bladder Cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health Study, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11Sacks et al., 2006, Soy protein, isoflavones, and cardiovascular health: an American Heart Association Science Advisory for professionals from the Nutrition Committee, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/, 113(7), 21.02.06Cook, et al., 1981, The inhibitory effect of soy products on non-heme iron absorption in man, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34(12)Hurrell, et al., 1992, Soy protein, phytate, and iron absorption in humans, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56(3)Heaney, et al., 2000, Bioavailability of the calcium in fortified soy imitation milk, with some observations on method, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71(5)Zhao, et al., 2003, A study on absorption and utilization of calcium, iron and zinc in mineral-fortified and dephytinized soy milk powder consumed by boys aged 12 to 14 years, Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 37(1)Meyer, et al., 2003, Limited lipid-lowering effects of regular consumption of whole soybean foods, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 48(2)Michael Pollan, In Defence of Food, 2008, ISBN 978-1-846-14096-9Mike Adams, Soy Protein Used in Natural Foods Bathed in Toxic Solvent Hexane, NaturalNews.com, 20.05.09Behind the Bean  The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry, The Cornucopia Institute Report, June 2009Maurice Hanssen, E for Additives, 1987 Edition, ISBN 0-7225-1562-6Victoria Inness-Brown, May Aspartame Experiment, 2010, ISBN 9781439210468Jeffrey Smith, Monsanto's Roundup triggers over 40 plant diseases and endangers human and animal health, www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664Hammond et al. (1996) The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance, Journal of Nutrition 126Tutel'ian et al. (1999) Medical and biological evaluation of safety of protein concentrate from genetically-modified soybeans, www.ncbi.nlm.gov, Vopr Pitan 68Teshima et al. (2000) Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice, Journal of Food Hygiene Society Japan 41:3Malatesta et al. (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Cell Structure and Function 27Malatesta et al. (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy 201(5)Malatesta et al. (2003) Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on gentically modified soybean, Letter to the Editor, European Journal of Histochemistry 47:4Brake and Evenson (2004) A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development, Food and Chemical Toxicology 42Zhu et al. (2004) Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats, Archives of Animal Nutrition 58:4Vecchio et al. (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, European Journal of Histochemistry 48:4Malatesta et al. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing, Histochemical Cell Biology 130Ermakova (2009) Influence of soy with th4e gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive funtions of rats in the first two generations, Russian Academy of Natural SciencesRichard et al. (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives 113:6Peizoto (2005) Comparative effects of the Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, Chemosphere 61:8Benachour et al. (2007) Time- and Dose-Dependent effects of Roundup on human embryonic and placental cells, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53:1Malatesta et al. (2008) Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function, Toxicology in Vitro 22Sralini et al. (2009) How subchronic and chronic Health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals, International Journal of Biological Sciences 5(5)Benachour and Sralini (2009) Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology22(1)Gasnier et al. (2009) Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines, Toxicology.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8683 

Genetically transformed wheat of any kind has been decisively rejected throughout the world, including America.
Strangely however, the message never seems to have reached biotech scientists, nor their funders.  The development of GM wheat has continued behind lab doors regardless of public or commercial desires.  At least two strains of a novel wheat are now ready for field testing in the UK.
The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has received an application from Rothamsted Research to carry out a two-year field trial of aphid-resistant GM wheat, to run during 2012 and 2013.
Aphids are sap-sucking insects which weaken the plants they are feeding on, and can transmit disease.  They rapidly form dense colonies on their host plants due to their ability to produce large numbers of daughters without sexual reproduction.  In a natural ecosystem, aphid numbers are controlled by insect predators and parasites.
The mechanisms by which aphids find their host plants to start with, and by which plants defend themselves against aphids, and by which aphids defend themselves against their enemies, all seem to be based on volatile chemicals.  On release, these chemicals become gaseous and their presence in the air acts as a signal.  Both plants and aphids produce such signals.
Genetic engineers plan to use a GM version of this mechanism to protect wheat against aphids.
Because wheat has an existing metabolic pathway which can be tweaked to divert it into EBF production, a single gene has been concocted which produces a single extra enzyme to achieve this.  Levels of artificial EBF can also be boosted by a second gene whose enzyme feeds the EBF-producing pathway.
Rothamsted scientists have created two experimental GM wheat lines: one has four copies of the EBF gene; the other has one copy of the EBF gene plus one booster gene; the latter generates over sixty times the EBF of the other line.  The research has reached the stage when actual effects on real aphids and their enemies in the field require to be assessed.
Like all GM ideas, EBF-generating wheat is simplistic.  Real plants and aphids don't produce just one chemical in standard amounts.  They release varying profiles of a range of interactive volatile substances, some of which may not even be produced by them in the first place, but which may well be part of a sophisticated detection and communication system.  There are hundreds of aphid species (e.g. over 300 have been counted in Belgium alone).  Each aphid species will produce unique spectra of volatile chemicals.
In the short-term, the GM wheat may well have the desired, beneficial effect.  In the long-term, the large-scale, high-volume, continuous and unintelligent generation of a single, artificial form of EBF could cause very harmful ecological upsets; for example, a shift in the distribution of aphids or their enemies in neighbouring areas, evolving aphid species which switch hosts, or evolving predators which switch prey.
The cost and time required for a meaningful assessment of such ecological effects, which would necessarily be long-term, are prohibitive.
Rothamsted's consideration of humans health effects is dismissive due to the ubiquitous nature of EBF and its natural instability.  Side-effects arising from the metabolic alterations induced in the plant, or from the uncontrolled artificial generation of EBF or its booster precursor in the plant are not considered.  Wheat intolerance is a severely  debilitating condition which is on the increase.  The cost and time required for meaningful assessment of human health effects, which would necessarily include long-term clinical studies, are prohibitive.
The constructed genes, are both entirely artificial, while the enzymes they produce have some degree of superficial resemblance to enzymes found in peppermint plants and cows.  Any notion of 'substantial equivalence' to anything natural is untenable.
Rothamsted acknowledges the risk of horizontal gene transfer due to the inclusion of DNA from soil bacteria in their construct.  However, they limit the concern this might raise to the spread of antibiotic resistance from the marker gene.  Other, more sinister, DNA movements or pathogen stimulation facilitated by the inserted qualities from foreign plant DNA, animal DNA and/or human pathogen DNA are not considered.
The GM wheat was produced by micro-projectile bombardment of wheat embryo cells with DNA-coated pellets.  This technique is the original, and most primitive, one.  It is notorious for causing genome disruption.
Studies have shown that aphid-resistance was present in some older wheat-types, but has become entirely absent in the newer high-yielding ones.  Modern gene technology could, more profitably, be employed in the breeding of new aphid-resistant strains using native aphid-resistant wheat.  
The UK is pouring 1.28 million of public funds into GM wheat when  much faster, cheaper, more certain, non-GM techniques are available.  Add to this the probability that novel crop will never have a market.  
Needless to say, the GM wheat application was accompanied by a splurge of spin from the usual quarters.  The NFU
Send an e-mail to DEFRA objecting to Rothamsted Research's application to trial GM wheat.
The e-mail address to write to is: gm-regulation@defra.gsi.gov.uk
Quote application reference 11/R8/01
Grounds for your objection could include any or all of the points mentioned above e.g.lack of any market for GM wheatthe prohibitive cost and time needed to assess environmental harm prior to any approval for the use or marketing the GM wheatthe prohibitive cost and time to ensure no harm to human health prior to any approval for the use or marketing the GM wheatthe extent of the risk of horizontal gene transferIf you would like more guidance, GM Freeze has prepared a  for you to adapt and send directly to DEFRA.
DEFRA  assures objectors that their comments and concerns ... raised will be collated along with all representions received.  Every little bit helps.Application for Consent to Release a GMO  Higher Plants Part A1 Information required under Schedule 1 of the Genetically Modified Organisms Deliberate Release) Regulation 2002www.archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/regulation/registers/applications/11-r8-01.htmDefra Should Reject G Wheat, GM Freeze Press Release, 7.07.11Ruth Gordon-Weeks et al., Project Report No. PR473, The role of the benzoxazinone pathway in aphid resistance in wheat, HGCA, October 2010R. Almohamad et al., 2008, Emission of alarm pheromone by non-preyed aphid colonies, Journal of Applied Entomology 132J. A. Byers, 2005, A cost of alarm pheronome production in cotton aphids, Aphis gossypii, Naturewissenschaften 92Alistair Driver, Application submitted for UK GM wheat trial, Farmers Guardian, 23.06.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5634 


British researchers studying the legendary health-effects of green tea have concluded that the legends are true. The ancient Chinese prescription for a long and healthy life does, indeed, protect against the deterioration of brain cells and the growth of cancerous cells. 
This is a particularly exciting finding because green tea is popular, inexpensive and, unlike the current drugs on the market to combat age-related nerve degeneration and cancer, has no side-effects.Newcastle University's Medicinal Plant Research Centre has been investigating the properties of tea, both green (unfermented) and black (fermented), for several years. Previously, it had discovered that tea contains substances which protect against neurotransmitter break-down and protein deposition, both of which are characteristic of brain cells in sufferers of dementia. Some experiments suggested that green tea in particular could continue to exert its protective effect for as much as a week after treatment.
Scientists have long been aware that tea has high levels of very diverse 'polyphenol' phytonutrients, and anti-oxidants such as the amino-acid, theonine (which is also calming and enhances flavour). These have been shown to have health benefits. Tea, as we drink, it is an extraction of such phytonutrients plus a great many other interacting substances made by living plants. Once we have digested the tea, the phytonutrients are broken down into an even more diverse array of interacting substances.
Aware that some vital nutrients identifiable in a food or drink may no longer be available to the body after digestion, the Newcastle researchers designed experiments using tea which had undergone simulated human digestion.
They found that the digested phytonutrients from green tea were actually more effective in protecting against nerve-cell deterioration and cancer cell growth than the undigested substances.There are certain chemicals we know to be beneficial and we can identify foods which are rich in them but what happens during the digestion process is crucial to whether these foods are actually doing us any good.We mention this research as an example of the limitations of tests based primarily on the composition of a food.Compositional analysis remains the (absurdly simplistic) mainstay of GM food safety. The physical measurement of all the unconnected bits that come out of food after chemical breakdown in a test-tube (for example in strong hot mineral acid) will not tell you what your body actually gets from your food.This is why, as a minimum safety requirement, GM foods and other novel materials used in food, require animal feeding studies for starters, followed by clinical studies, and subsequent careful post-market monitoring.The danger is not just one of poor nutrition and lack of ability to promote health, but the danger that health-destroying qualities emerge from the digested products of novel foods.Interestingly, Green tea also illustrates how intelligent your digestive system is: it prepares the food to make your body healthy. If you want to expand on this theme, check out Ross McGuinness, Daily cup of green tea 'could ward off cancer', Metro, 6.01.11Green tea linked to Alzheimer's protection, Mental Health Foundation, 6.01.11Tea could improve memory study shows, www.eurekalert.org, 25.10.04Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2567 

The first nutritionally altered, gene-altered, food is poised to arrive on your plate.
Monsanto's next-generation, MON 87705, GM soya is high in oleic fatty acid like olive oil only even more so.  It's also low in saturated fatty acids like rapeseed oil only even more so.
The novel oil is well suited for use in bottled vegetable oil, salad dressings, margarine and other similar food products for which commodity soybean oil is used.  Clearly, it's intended for widespread use in most processed foods and by caterers.  It's also well suited for industrial applications, such as lubrication and biodiesel.
MON 87705 has been transformed with a DNA sequence to perform three novel functions.  One is the customary tolerance to Roundup herbicide which comes from a bacterial gene linked to DNA to activate it in the green parts of the plant.  The other two work together to cause oleic acid to accumulate.  These are re-jigged soya DNA sequences which generate factors to alter the plant's fat metabolism: one of these factors blocks the enzyme which would normally channel oleic acid away from its site of production to elsewhere in the cell for further processing; the other factor suppresses the normal onward conversion of oleic acid to other fatty acids.  These factors are linked to DNA which activates them in the seed.  Between them, the two blocking mechanisms cause the GM soyabeans accumulate a huge and unnatural amount of oleic acid.  The knock-on effect is that very little linoleic acid and very little of the saturated acids, palmitic and stearic acids, are produced.  MON 87705 has, however, the usual amount of linolenic acid for soya, which is more than that found in olive oil.  (Confused? See the info section below on Fatty-acids in edible oils).
In America, the introduction of MON 87705 soya is coming along nicely.
Back in May 2010, Monsanto gained a 'positive response' from the FDA indicating that, despite it's deliberately and grossly altered nutrient profile, the new soya could be considered 'generally recognised as safe' (GRAS).  This status allows the crop to receive minimal regulatory attention.  Eight months later, Monsanto announced the completion of  the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) consultation on 'MON 87705' (this 'consultation' is voluntary and is the extent of America's regulatory oversight of GM crops and food). 
At the same time, an application for authorisation to place MON 87705 soyabeans on the European market has already been lodged.  Although the European regulatory system is considerably more structured and thorough than the US one, industry can always be relied on to provide the minimum information it can get away with (especially when that information is inconvenient), and to use spin instead of science if it thinks no one will notice the difference.In case all these fatty-acids with similar-sounding names are getting confusing: is the main type of fatty acid found in olive oil (hence its name).  It's the most abundant fatty acid in many animal fats (including human), but doesn't need to feature especially in the diet.  Oleic acid is deemed 'healthy' only if it is eaten instead of saturated fats.  Note that, while the American Heart Association refers to diet as a cornerstone of heart health, it does not mention oleic acid anywhere in its Diet and Lifestyle Recommendations. is an essential fatty-acid in the human diet because we can't make it for ourselves.   Deficiency adversely effects healthy growth and healing.  It's considered 'healthy' because it lowers 'bad' (HDL) cholesterol in the blood.  In plants, it's a normal metabolic product of oleic acid.  Linoleic acid is the substrate for omega-6 fatty acids. is also an essential fatty-acid in the human diet.  It's been branded 'unhealthy' because it has a tendency to react with itself at high temperatures to form trans-fats.  Food manufacturers don't like linolenic acid (and to a lesser extent linoleic acid) because it's unstable and causes the oil to become rancid.  Also, now that US labelling requires trans-fats to be declared, food companies don't like linolenic acid because it makes their product look unfashionably unhealthy.  In plants, it's a metabolic product of linoleic acid.  Linolenic acid forms the substrate for omega-3 fatty acids.Foodies will be aware that omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids in the correct proportions are vital for growth, vitality, and good mental state, besides having favourable effects on heart and inflammatory diseases.  Wholesale removal of the precursors of these essential fatty acids from the diet may not be a healthy option
One team of scientists who certainly can tell the difference between smart words and data have submitted an assessment of the technical dossier relating to MON 87705 for the Norwegian government's evaluation of product safety and impact assessment.
Their overall conclusions highlighted a disturbing prevalence of 'evidence' based on improper assumptions, unsubstantiated claims and inappropriate extrapolations, besides gaps in important information relating to adverse effects, and inadequate study design.
Although aggressive marketing of MON 87705 oil as a substitute for established beneficial oils is certainly planned, no attempt has been made to confirm the ability of the novel oil to maintain health.
MON 87705 has a fatty-acid profile which is different from either olive oil or rapeseed oil, and  other small but important differences might well remain to be identified.   Also, the discrepancy between the composition of the GM oil compared with olive oil, rapeseed oil and conventional soya oil is too great and contains too many unknowns to lump it under a GRAS banner and forget about the safety testing.
If the above points seem a bit picky, consider the following science. Two separate feeding studies have been carried out using oil from a GM soya which had had its oleic acid content artificially raised by one of the same DNA tricks used in MON 87705.  As would be the case if the oil was used for cooking, the oil in these experiments had been heated.  One study involved pigs and the other involved chickens: in both cases the animals had reduced weight gain compared to controls.  No information is available as to whether the cause was anti-nutritive or toxic, or both.  Despite these findings, and despite the novel oil clearly being destined for use in cooking, no safety studies have been reported on MON 87705 oil after heating.
Warnings from science also suggest another very real danger from foods high in oleic acid.  This fatty acid is implicated in the pathology of acute respiratory distress (ARD).  ARD has an incidence of up to 75 per 100,000 individuals and exhibits a mortality rate of 30%.  It presents with fluid accumulation in the lungs due to disturbances in membrane permeability and fluid transport.  In affected individuals, oleic acid is found at abnormally high concentrations in the blood and inside the lung.  Scientists studying the syndrome have found they can use applications of oleic acid to induce a simulation of the disease in animal models.
The effects of inhalation into the lungs of sensitive individuals of material high in oleic acid are unknown, but clearly can't be dismissed.  Since olives and rapeseed are not processed in the same way as soya (they are not, for example, ground down into flour whose particles will hang in the air) they don't form appropriate evidence of the safety of soya.  There's no scientific support for the dossier's statement that No specific conditions or instructions are required when MON 87705 is stored, packaged, transported, used and handled in the same manner as for current commercial soybean varieties.
The presence of Roundup herbicide absorbed by the new GM soya has not been addressed despite the evidence of harm now emerging in the scientific literature (see   October 2010).  And there's worse.  One of the breakdown products of  glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is glyoxylate.  This substance enters the pathway for fat metabolism in the plant.  The artificially increased levels of glyoxylate due to glyphosate breakdown will certainly further disturb the plant's metabolism of fatty acids already disturbed by the inserted DNA.  Combining Roundup resistance and extreme fatty-acid changes together in a food plant is a cause for extra safety-testing.
As the dossier tells us, soya is known to elicit food allergic responses in humans which are considered clinically important and are more prevalent in children; it also mentions that  relatively few of the specific soybean proteins involved in allergenic reactions in soybean have been uniquely identified or characterised.  The possibility of increased allergenic potential arising in allergenic plants engineered with copies of their own DNA has not been explored.  Despite this recognition of the problem particularly in children and the lack of science regarding the cause(s) of the problem, studies have been limited to individuals sensitised by conventional soya, not by the nutritionally-altered GM version of soya proposed for market.
Oleic acid itself has antibacterial and anti-viral properties.  Such properties could result in changes to the microbial flora on and around the soyabean plants and in the gut flora of animals and humans consuming them.  Microbial alterations and imbalances at any level of the ecosphere can prove harmful (see YET MORE HEALTH RISKS FROM GM FOOD (ON TOP OF THOSE WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT
The new soya beans were transformed using Agrobacterium to insert the DNA construct, and viral promoters have been included in the construct to make the DNA work in its novel surroundings.  Both of these carry their own concerns (see 
Many other risks which might be present in MON 87705 have not been addressed in the dossier, largely because they have been argued away rather than tested and proven negative:The type of factors induced in MON 87705 beans are well-known for generating 'off-target' effects on other parts of the genome.  This means their influence is unpredictable, especially under different environmental conditions.The mutation rates of the type of factors induced in MON 87705 are higher than for protein-coding genes, also suggesting unpredictable consequences.The novel factors induced in MON 87705 may produce low-levels of small peptides (mini-proteins) which could be highly biologically activeA new variant of linoleic acid, found in other foods but apparently unknown in non-GM soya, has been found in all soya altered using one of the DNA tricks used in MON 87705.  The variant linoleic acid has not been well characterised.  Inexplicable substances like this make the GRAS designation untenable.Science has demonstrated that factors such as those produced by the engineered DNA in MON 87705  are able to enter insect cells and subsequently spread within the animal; experiments to examine whether this might also apply to human cells exposed to MON 87705 factors and their derivatives have not been consideredMON 87705 will be heavily used in animal feed.  This will change the fat composition of the resulting animal produce in our food chain, not necessarily for the better.There are all the signs that MON 87705 oil will be promoted as a 'healthy-heart' alternative not only to naturally healthy olive oil, but to a good, fresh, varied diet.
US Department of Agriculture scientists have meanwhile bred conventional soyabeans with an even higher oleic acid content than MON 87705 and with far fewer of the concerns raised by GM.  There seems no reason for the development of Monsanto's GM beans other than their patent-guaranteed profit and the political clout of their makers. There's every scientific reason to conclude that this so-called healthy GM soya oil is nothing of the sort.  Remember, MON 87705 and its offspring will only be in your food if you buy it.Monsanto Completes FDA Consultation Process for Low-Saturate, High-Oleic Soybeans, Paving the Way for Introduction of Vistive Gold Soybeans, Monsanto News Release, 26.01.11Istvn Vadsz et al., 2005, Oleic Acid Inhibits Alveolar Fluid Reabsorption, American Journal of Respiratory Critical Care Medicine, 171Application for authorization to place on the market MON 87705 soybean in the European Union, according to regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, Part II SummaryJack Heinemann, Brigitta Kurenbach, and David Quist, Assessment of the technical dossier related to EFSA/GMO/NL/2010/78, 27.09.10Joe Cummins, Beware Monsanto's Vistive Soybeans, Institute of Science in Society Report, 25.11.04Jan Suszkiw, New Soybeans Bred for Oil that's More Heart-Healthy, USDA Agricultural research Service, 16.09.10Omega 3 and Omega 6 Fatty Acids, Penny Kris-Etherton et al., 2001, Lyon Diet Heart Study, Circulation 103Bruce I. McDonald, 1991, Monounsaturated fatty acids and hearth health, Canadian Medical Association Journal, 145(5)Diet and Lifestyle recommendations Revision 2006, American Heart AssociationThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4134 


Gene flow is a headache. Engineered DNA in plants where it's not meant to be is a management headache for the biotech farmers and companies because the genes which have gone walkabout are patented. It's also a financial headache for non-GM farmers because the resulting pollution reduces the market value of their crops. At present it's a headache for regulators because pest-resistant GM plants popping up in conventional 'refuge' crops upset their their carefully dictated pest-resistance management strategies. The possibility that it could cause something more than just a headache if the roving man-made genes generate drugs, industrial chemicals, allergens or other toxins in unexpected places is being studiously ignored.
Regulatory consideration of gene flow has always focused on 'outcrossing', the movement of pollen out of the GM field and into conventional plants in other fields. Some of the seed from the conventional plants will then be GM and will give rise to 'adventitious' GM plants in the next generation from which more gene pollution will spread. Depending on the plant, outcrossing can be caused by vectors such as wind and insects, neither of which can be controlled. To reduce the likelihood of this gene pollution, regulators have specified separation distances between GM and conventional crops which measurements have shown should make the level of outcrossing negligible.
In crops which tend to be self-pollinating, such as cotton, these defined separation distances can be very small. Indeed, tests have shown that pollen-mediated transgene flow in from Bt cotton rarely exceeds 1% even at a distance of only 10 metres from the field.
However, other tests have unexpectedly told a different story. In one experimental non-Bt cotton plot in Arizona, an 8% presence of Bt cotton was discovered. This means the non-Bt seed planted was already badly contaminated. In subsequent testing of commercial non-Bt cotton seed bags, three out of eleven bags contained 1% Bt cotton seed.
These findings have led to a study in which more detailed measurements of GM contamination in cotton seed production fields were made. In this study the simplistic parameter of the distance travelled by pollen from GM fields was replaced by analyses based on the overall spacial relationships between the GM and non-GM fields. Sampling was comprehensive and designed to distinguish between adventitious plants and outcrossed seed.
There were a number of interesting findings.
Out of six non-Bt seeds lots used in the experiment, two were found to be contaminated with Bt genes: one at a level of 0.5% and the other at levels of up to 28%.
A planting error led to nearly 20 rows of Bt seed being planted along one edge of one of the non-Bt test plots; this mistake was only uncovered due to the comprehensive sampling regime used in the standing crop.
Pollen-mediated gene flow from Bt cotton was rare amounting to an average of 0.23% of seeds at field edges (where contamination is likely to be highest).
The authors' conclusions were that seed-mediated gene flow is by far the most prominent source of transgene contamination, and that adventitious presence in seed supplies plus planting error were major causes.Our regulators' obsession with pollen-mediated gene flow may be misplaced: human error or carelessness in handling GM seed is the biggest threat. Put another way, the seed producers and farmers are a much worse threat than the bees.While this experiment was on cotton which is a low-risk crop in terms of gene flow, the human role in gene-pollution revealed in it applies to all crops.The indication is that regulators should be testing imported seed from GM-growing areas much more thoroughly and systematically than the present random tests. It's also imperative that routine comprehensive testing of imports is extended to adventitious presence of experimental DNA constructs.
Heuberger S., et al., 2010, Pollne- and Seed-Mediated Transgene Flow in Commercial Cotton Seed Production Fields, PloS ONE, Volume 5, Issue 11, November
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9385 

How often have we heard that GM food is safe because scientists know exactly what they are doing? True, they know all about the gene they have constructed, all about the protein generated by their gene, and something about the bit of the plant's genome their engineered chunk of DNA has landed in. Safety regulations demand disclosure of this information, plus tests of the toxicity and allergenicity of some version similar to the novel protein, and assurances that the engineered DNA hasn't landed in one of the plant's own genes. Consider the nature of genes. Real genes. Not the neat constructs assembled by genetic engineers. Not a chunk of coding-DNA which reels off RNA-instructions for protein-manufacture in the cell, and has a start-signal at the beginning and a stop signal at the end. Real genes. The kind that keep living organisms alive and thriving and adaptable. Real coding-DNA, the gene which tells the cell how to make a protein, is more likely to exist in bits separated by non-coding-DNA, and the bits may even be in different parts of the genome. The coding sequences for different proteins can overlap. The start and stop signals can be anywhere: inside the gene or scattered elsewhere in the genome. The intelligence of life doesn't need genes in neat packages, it needs fluid genes which can be adapted for whatever purpose is required.The coding-DNA, so closely studied by genetic engineers, doesn't form a significant part of the genome: only a tiny percentage comprises coding sequences (1.5% in humans). The bulk of the remainder, once written off as 'junk' because it doesn't produce proteins, is highly active: it produces the essential RNA-instructions for the fine control of DNA function and cell regulation.Engineered genes are designed to work whether the cell wants them to or not, they are resistant to the cell's self-repairing and self-cleansing mechanisms which eliminate faulty or foreign DNA, and they operate outside the huge RNA control network. The host DNA disrupted by the insertion of the artificial piece may not be a gene, but it is a vital part of RNA-based cell regulation.Real genes can mix-and-match with total precision to produce a theoretical infinity of proteins. That total precision is emerging as the preserve of RNA-instructions coming from the non-coding DNA. This is what is disrupted when the engineered DNA lands in it. Now, look at the GMO 'safety regulations' described in the first paragraph in light of this. The chemical construction of the man-made DNA is of little relevance compared with the random damage inflicted on the non-coding DNA during insertion. A gene 'knocked out' by a chunk of novel DNA landing in it is simply, predictable, bad news, the regulatory disruption caused if the novel DNA lands anywhere else is bad news of a highly complex and completely unpredictable nature. The safety of the novel protein produced is not the biggest problem with GMOs: the unusual, unpredictable proteins, or other by-products, formed by disrupted RNA-instructions are a very big problems indeed.GM concern organisations have long stressed that the metabolic disruptions of gene insertion could produce unusual proteins with increased allergenic potential. The only routine assessment required of GM foods involves the novel protein itself, not the whole TM material actually consumed. Consider the following piece of research, carried out just before GM soya hit the food chain.
It was a study of severe food reactions and allergies over a three-year period in Sweden. The data collection started in 1993 in response to a fatal case of soy anaphylaxis (acute reaction to an allergen in soya resulting from hypersensitivity)Physicians were asked to report fatal and life-threatening reactions caused by food, and the data were combined with an on-going survey of deaths from asthma (another allergen-related reaction).The study revealed 45 reactions (74% of the total) which could be traced to peanuts, soya and tree nuts. Four youngsters died after exposure to soya: these four also had asthma and were known to be severely allergic to peanuts, but had no previous history of allergy to soya. In most cases, there was a rather symptom-free period for 30-90 minutes between the early mild symptoms, and then a severe and rapidly deteriorating asthma.Soy has probably been underestimated as a cause of food anaphylaxsis. Those at risk seem to be young people with asthma and peanut allergy so severe that they notice symptoms after indirect contact.Comment on what's NOT being looked for:There is clearly an existing measurable death rate from non-GM soya. Has anyone been measuring if this is changing in the countries since GM soya has been introduced for human consumption? The cross-linking of asthma and nut allergy is particularly relevant: it points to a group clearly 'at risk' from unusual soya. But is anyone monitoring them in countries where GM soya is wide-spread in the food chain?If these researchers are right in concluding that soya anaphylaxis, presenting as asthma, has been underestimated in the past, there is every reason for this to continue in the present, unless the authorities start actively looking for cases and start identifying vulnerable groups.(This article is adapted from an article which first appeared on GM-free Scotland in October 2008. The article is archived T. Foucard and I. Malmheden Yman, a study on severe food reactions in Sweden  is say protein an underestimated cause of food anaphylaxis? Allergy, 54:3, March 1999Mae-Wan Ho, GM is Dangerous and Futile, Institute of Science in Society Press Release 6.10.08, www.i-sis.org.uk/GMDangerousFutile.phpThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 63 


Ignoring the genomic mess we're creating with GM
In April 2005, an American opinion was published in the scientific literature stating that genomic characteristics need no longer be considered by regulators. A team from the biotech industry and US universities suggested that, to regulate GM crops sensibly, the present impediments posed by costly restrictions and requirements could now be safely modified. The team argued that we now have long-accepted breeding methods, two decades of experience, an expanding knowledge of the plant genome, and indications that the genetic engineering process itself presents little potential for (unidentified) unexpected consequences. Therefore, it was reasoned that regulatory oversight need only focus on standard agricultural practice in use plus the nature of the introduced genes.
No doubt stimulated by the above paper's claim that GM crops face a daunting array of regulatory requirements in a country (the USA) where the safety testing is, in fact, largely voluntary, David Schubert, a Professor of Cellular Neurobiology in the Salk Institute in California, was moved to submit a strong rebuke to it which was published in July 2005.Schubert pointed out that the use of chemicals and radiation to generate random mutations in crop plants, which is often cited as a reason why genetic transformation is just an extension of conventional breeding, has been outmoded for about half a century. Modern plant breeds are produced by merging whole chromosomes of diverse plants and, therefore, have sets of genes which are still maintained within their natural context. In other words, there are NO mutations induced in them. This is an important point. The added, man-made, DNA includes a whole concoction of out-of-context sections, including genes, on/off switches, stimulators, synthetic linkages and sometimes spurious DNA from no-one-knows-where, each of which represents a mutation whose effects may extend beyond the construct. And worse, the novel construct isn't the only mutation induced in a GM plant. The process of insertion is known to induce other mutations in the plants' own DNA. These can include, not only small alterations in the building blocks of the DNA, but also more major changes such as scrambling, deletions, additions, and activation of dormant 'mobile elements' which then, themselves, become mutagenic. Besides the possibility of conferring physiological weaknesses in the plant and anti-nutritional elements in our food, such random and extensive mutations might effects the plants' normal accumulation of thousands of phytonutrients. These small molecules form a vital part of the plants' immune system to deal with environmental stresses. They are highly biologically active, and could, therefore, become toxic if their structure and metabolism is inappropriately altered by mutated DNA. Rather than de-regulation of transgenic crops, the Professor suggests further important, up-to-date safety tests. These include metabolic profiling to detect unexpected changes in small molecules, a specific test for the presence of mutagens, multi-generation feeding studies, and rigorous allergenicity testing.In August 2005, a technical report was published in the scientific literature describing an investigation into an unexpected feature of GM maize. Two commercial Bt-toxin inserted varieties were compared with their closest non-Bt maize relatives. Measurements were made of the quantity and composition of the lignin (the fibrous woody material which gives plant tissue its strength) in the stems and leaves of the plants. Three important findings emerged:the stems of the GM maize had 18.2% more lignin;the molecular composition of the lignin was significantly different in GM varieties;the quantity and quality of lignin in the leaves, however, were not different.Clearly, these alterations in lignin did not impair the commercial value of the maize, but the study raises a number of questions:
- This report was in fact the second such finding of disturbed lignin formation in a GM plant, but the previous one was in a completely different type of plant (a soya bean) which had an entirely different type of gene inserted (one for herbicide tolerance). Coincidence? Or, is there some common disturbing factor, such as an immunological response, operating in transgenic plants?The observed differences only emerged after commercialisation because new and more sophisticated techniques were used in place of established methods. Is the current technology used to assess GM crops telling us what we need to know, or is its crudeness allowing the biotech industry and regulators to gloss over potential problems they'd rather not notice?The alterations in lignin molecular structure and the observed qualitative and quantitative links to specific plant tissues suggest that complex changes in the expression and interaction of a large number of genes are involved. What are the implications of these changes for food safety and the environment; for example, is the microbial life associated with such distorted GM material likely to be altered?
Professor Schubert's concerns seem to be backed up by such evidence, and the reasons given to support the opinion aimed at deregulation of GM crops ring a little hollow. At the end of 2005, an even more disturbing Review Article of the evidence for 'The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation' was accepted by the scientific press.A British team reviewed all the published work they could find documenting DNA changes in GM plants. They found seven in the run-up to GM commercialisation in 1996, and an average of five per year since. The most studied plant species are Arabdopsis (a simple plant, much studied by scientists for this reason, but not eaten) and rice (barely starting to be commercialised at the time of the writing). The Review examined the effects of the two major mechanisms for inserting DNA into crops. One such method uses an infectious microbial vector, Agrobacterium, to carry the DNA into plant cells growing in tissue culture. The authors note that: Agrobacterium infection itself is known to be mutagenic; cells forced to grow outside their natural context as in tissue culture are known to mutate easily; antibiotics (a necessary part of tissue culture) also are known to cause mutations. In other words, even without the addition of engineered DNA, extensive genome-wide mutations will arise due to the cell manipulations employed. Plant transformation procedures were found, typically, to introduce many hundreds to thousands of genome-wide mutations into the plant, amounting to a 2-4% reduction in genomic similarity compared with the parent type. Besides affecting the safety and performance of GM crops in a totally unpredictable manner, they will interfere extensively with the results, interpretation and usefulness of scientific experiments on GM plants.The second means of inserting DNA is to coat metal particles with many copies of the novel construct and fire them into the genome until some DNA sticks. This procedure was always found to be associated with genome disruption, rearrangements and the presence of superfluous multiple copies of DNA. However, very few studies have been made of the mutational effects of this method, and since these few studies have been on specially selected 'simple' events, the true extent of DNA disruption may be considerably more than that reported so far. The study notes that, besides the induced mutations, transgene insertion can have complex effects on the host DNA function, including the silencing of whole groups of genes and mis-reading of DNA. It also raises the concern that, after insertion of bacterial DNA into a plant, the incidence of horizontal gene transfer between the plant and other bacteria with similar DNA may be significantly elevated. The paper concludes by suggesting that, if we want to continue to insert DNA into our crop plants, we must first of all learn to do it with precision and find a way which doesn't disrupt the genome beyond the inserted construct. Suggestions for a more sensible approach include:tissue culture must be eliminated from the procedureDNA insertion must be targeted, not randomalternative methods must be developed which eliminate the presence of superfluous, non-gene DNA and chromosomal damage.effective back-crossing must be done to dilute out unwanted side-effects.There are several additional very disturbing aspects to these papers.The biotech industry is showing every signs of a PR drive to remove irritating regulations on GM. Its claims about our 'expanding knowledge' and long 'experience' are not backed up by science: very few publishable studies are in evidence; its own work has not been thrown open to scrutiny; and there is no reason to believe it has ever taken a thorough look at what it has created.Despite the huge numbers of GM plants generated in laboratories using a host of different transformation events, and their widespread presence in the American food chain, the extent of DNA disruption has not been documented. Neither is the ubiquitous presence of mutations being acknowledged by the biotech industry, by its scientists, nor by our regulators. Only a handful of the studies done refer to plants we are actually expected to eat.There is every sign that the biotech industry is being allowed to have all its own way by regulators. For example: The insistence that all GM crops be assessed on a 'case-by-case' basis is a good way to avoid connecting any problems common to all transgenic plants.The use of out-dated methodology, which became 'established' before GM days and was developed for a different purpose, is used to conceal the abnormalities emerging.As soon as man-made DNA is randomly inserted, correct scientific protocol becomes impossible: there simply is no plant which is genetically the same but minus the extra DNA to use as a control in experiments. The biotech industry, with regulatory approval, has slipped in the concept of substantial equivalence to get around this problem. Just how meaningless this concept is, is revealed quite clearly in Prof. Schubert's rebuke and the Review of mutational consequences of GM.The most grim implication of the genomic mess created might be long-term genetic instability of GM plants with their widespread mutations and re-mobilised mutational elements. This could well mean that last year's crop which was proven safe might not be the same as this year's crop which you are eating. And the enormous question of how these mutations might evolve outside of our neatly sterilised fields once they become part of weedy plants, or when they are absorbed into microbial life in the soil, is anyone's guess.(Adapted from an article which appeared in the GM-free Scotland website in April 2006)David Schubert, Sensible Regulations for GE Food Crops, Nature Biotechnology, July 2005, 23J. R. Latham, A. K. Wilson, R. A. Steinbrecher, 2006, The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation: Review Article, Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology, ID 25376J. Poerschmanna et al., 2004, Molecular composition of leaves and stems of genetically modified Bt and near-isogenic non-Bt maize', http://jeq.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/5/1508 AugustThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7240 

A two-day conference of senior judges and farmers in India has identified some very uncomfortable aspects relating to the regulatory procedures and growing of GM insecticidal, 'Bt' cotton. The issue under consideration was Emerging Jurisprudence of Genetic Engineering: Food, Farming and Biosafety.
Eleven farmers described their experiences after they had been duped into cultivating GM cotton. Besides being given inadequate information on the identity and quality of the seed, the company gave false promises of high yields and low pesticide use. 
The farmers' evidence included:Bt cotton seeds were found to be good for an initial boost in production for one or two years, after which there was consistent failureThere were large scale losses of Bt crops in a good number of farms due to the pods failing to mature and break open naturally, and instances of the plants starting to die off before providing any yield.When farmers chose to revert to traditional cotton or other crops, the soil required restoration at considerable cost before profitable cultivation was possibleFarm workers suffered severe, non-healing, skin irritations and disease, bronchial and other health problems.Cattle grazed on cotton residues, as is customary, developed health problems including diarrhoea, and diseases which veterinarians were unable diagnose. There were increases in livestock mortality, abortion, and infertility rates.Pests increased in the neighbourhood of Bt cotton.The farmers also noted how GM cotton was destroying their heritage. Previously excellent local varieties of traditional seed have, essentially, been lost. Government and seed agencies have not taken steps to maintain this supply or to support the farmers.Five high court judges, including one chief justice, listened to the farmers' experiences and then made a number of 'observations' (judges are not allowed to give 'opinions' outside of court):GM legislation must be in accordance with the fundamental rights of the citizens as guaranteed by the ConstitutionRegulatory procedure on GM must be independent of the seed manufacturersThe identity of persons involved in GM regulatory procedure must be in the public domain to ensure scrutiny, transparency and credibilityGM agriculture should only be permitted if it doesn't in any way impair biodiversity or other ecological parametersAny provision which would enable the silencing of the Indian public voice should necessarily be excluded from the statute (this was in response to an earlier provision made by the Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India Bill that anyone questioning the safety of GM products without scientific proof would be liable to imprisonment and a hefty fine).
If the above observations seem a bit extreme, it's worth noting that all of the statements emerging from this Indian conference resoundingly echo earlier complaints from Colombian Bt cotton growers.
In 2007, the Colombian authorities were condemned for their failure to regulate GM. An open letter from the Latin American Scientific Conference of Agroecology warned the government that: cultural tradition, historically the facilitator of national food security, will be vulnerable and ruined by the irresponsible (GM) policies of the Colombian state, which measures agricultural activity in terms of productivity and increases social inequality in the Colombian rural sector, forgetting their commitment to national sovereignty starting with food as a fundamental human right.The realities of these predictions unfolded in 2010 when Monsanto was fined for the poor performance of its GM cotton seed during the 2008-2009 growing season: Seven years after having released the seeds of GM cotton commercially, their failure is evident. They did not live up to promises of being more productive, nor of reducing the use of pesticides and herbicides, nor the lowering of production costs, nor the generation of greater profits for growers. Monsanto presented GMO technology as a the redemption of the cotton industry; in reality it has helped to take growers to the bottom of an abyss ... (Red por una America Latina Libre de Transgnicos).Curiously, the BBC World Service seems to have adopted its own a pro-GM, pro-biotech-company version of journalism. In fact, activist and scientist, Vandana Shiva, has suggested the BBC be renamed the 'Biotech Broadcasting Company'.Less than two weeks after the Indian conference, the BBC collaborated with biotech giant DuPont to produce a panel discussion entitled Feeding India: What will it take? (A Global Collaboratory on Food). The focus of the discussion was food security and the potential for new technology to boost food production and related environmental and sustainability issues. The outcome of the discussion is under wraps, but the panel chosen by the BBC was one hundred percent pro-GM (see note below), which suggests a foregone conclusion that India should grow and eat GM.Has our BBC been primed to support the UK government's Foresight Report? (see  - April 2011)? Let's hope the Indian government listens to its own judges and not to the BBC.BBC/DuPont panel chosen to discuss Feeding India: What will it take? (A Global Collaboratory on Food)President of DuPont, South AsiaCEO and Director of CropLife India, and Retired Executive Director of SyngentaThe father of India's Green RevolutionDepute Director General of the Indian Council of Agricultural ResearchA pro-GM farmer well-known to Monsanto and DuPontFarmers from Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Anhra narrate bitter Bt cotton tales, Daily News & Analysis, www.dnaindia.com, 28.03.11Judge' round table on genetic engineering, Southern Action on Genetic Engineering Press Release 27.03.11Carmelo Ruiz Marrero, GM cotton has been a failure in Colombia, Americas Program Biodiversity Report, April 2010, http://americas.irc-onling.orgBBC/DuPont collaborating on pro-GM fest, and Aruna RodriguesThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2565 


You are what you eat. How could it be any other way?
The statement sounds simple and obvious, but think of the implications.
Food is living matter, formed under the guidance of the intelligence of Nature. The soil from which our food grows is made by a vast array of living organisms, organised by Nature's intelligence to work in concert. Our bodies, too, are living matter and are a unique product of the intelligence of Nature. You are what you eat: to maintain the intelligence in your body, you need to eat intelligent food grown in intelligent soil.
Michael Pollan describes most of what we now eat as 'food-like substances'. You are what you eat, so presumably eating these gives you a body-like body. An intelligent body is a stable, coherent whole. Can a body-like body run itself intelligently, or does it fall apart?
Food-like substances are made in a factory. Some of their constituents may once have been 'food' but after the machines and added chemicals have done their bit, the results may say 'food' on the label, and may even look like 'food', but they are nothing like what your body recognizes as food. The number of added E-numbers, artificial vitamins and things with long chemical names, all disguising the lack of food actually present, should give you a clue: food-like substances have lost their intelligence. Can a body made of them maintain its own intelligence?
Pollan's disturbing views on 'food' have plenty of scientific and documentary evidence to back them up.
Replacing the work of the intelligent life in the soil with lifeless, man-made fertilizers has measurably eroded the nutritional value of the crops grown in it. Poor diet can lead to early aging. But then it gets worse: the crops whose intelligence is already compromised are processed into food-like substances and fed to ourselves and to our livestock.
Processed foods, it seems, produce processed brains which are too dull to function and become depressed, or go into an uncontrolled spin and get hyperactive, get aggressive, can't sleep, and can't think straight.
Processed fats produce processed blood which is too dull to flow: it drains the energy and clogs the heart. Processed fats also produce processed brain cells which can't remember things, and get moody. Unintelligent fats, it seems, produce unintelligent blood and unintelligent brains.
And processed sugar? Processed sugar is pure fuel, and a body made from pure fuel is unimaginable. The body doesn't know what to do with all that fuel, but is stuck with it. In desperation, the body stores it up and stores it up and stores it up ... until the whole system drowns in a sea of sugar. One in ten UK adults are obese, and the figure is rising year-on-year. Scotland is ranked fifth in Europe for obesity. Not surprisingly, obesity is strongly linked to diabetes.
One person in Scotland is diagnosed with diabetes every 40 minutes: over 4 percent of the population has been diagnosed diabetic and a further 60,000 are thought to have the disease but be unaware of it. (The picture in the USA is even worse. The Center for Disease Control and Protection predicts that within 40 years the prevalence of diabetes could increase to as much as one in three adults.) Side-effects of the disease include blindness, amputation, heart disease, kidney failure, and stroke: these are crippling and life-threatening. Processed energy-rich sugar even makes you tired: no question about it, it's not intelligent.
The cost to the UK Health Service in picking up the pieces of these bodies full of unintelligent chemicals, unintelligent fats and unintelligent sugars, which swell them up but can't hold them together, is 9 billion a year or 1 million an hour, that's 10 percent of its entire budget.
In your digestive tract, the microbes vital to maintain health, are being forced to eat unintelligent food too. The last thing your body needs is unintelligent bugs inside it.
Food-like substances are calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient, addictive-additive laden, pre-digested chemical substitutes for the real thing. You are what you eat: an overweight, protein- and micro-nutrient-deficient, prematurely aging, brain-damaged, chemical-addict. Whatever goes in at your mouth is absorbed in a sieve-like fashion, because your digestive system, which is what you eat too, has lost its intelligence.
Now, guess what is the major source of all this food-like junk fat, junk sugar and chemicals? Yes, GM maize, GM soya and the intensively-reared livestock fed on the same junk. You are what you eat: the biotech industry is not only busy redesigning your food-crops, it's redesigning your body too.
The source of life's intelligence is manifest in its DNA. Artificial DNA is not intelligent DNA. Plants whose DNA has been messed with are stressed, and you can't breed the stress out of them. You are what you eat: stressed.
GM herbicide-tolerant plants are made chronically sick by the weed-killer they absorb (see WHAT GLYPHOSATE DOES TO PLANTS  News, December 2010). You are what you eat: chronically sick.
And don't forget that GM plants are specially designed to be part of our modern intensive farming system dependent on unintelligent chemical fertility.
Recent estimates suggest that junk food claims 30,000 lives a year in the UK. Unintelligent food is a killer.
And what is the Government doing to get the 'food-like junk' out of our diet? Banning junk food on the grounds of health and safety seems the obvious choice, but in a land of junk-food addicts plus an economy dependent on exporting junk food to addicts overseas, this would be political suicide. So our regulators have hatched a plan to 'nudge' people into choosing a better diet. The 'team' chosen to draft their new policy on diet-related disease includes McDonalds, KFC, PepsiCo, Kellogg's , Unilever, and Mars UK (all the biggest manufacturer's of unintelligent food on the planet) plus a bunch of advertising industry lobby groups to make sure the spins right. A Department of Health spokesman explained the idea was that our behaviour could be changed most quickly using collective voluntary efforts. The Children's Food Campaign group described it differently:The easy ministerial access given to giant food companies is nothing less than a corporate takeover of public health policy. 
It pointed out too that the food industry is a very powerful lobbying force with a history of blocking progressive public health initiatives.So, those with everything to gain by making us sick and nothing to gain by the advent of intelligent behavioural changes on our part, are expected to volunteer to nudge us into intelligent eating, and nudge themselves into oblivion at the same time. How intelligent is that?Here's another, more intelligent, plan. Ditch the junk. Bypass GM. Buy fresh food, local if possible, organic if possible, and prepare it, intelligently, yourself. Your body will love you for it.Michael Pollan, 2008, In Defence of Food, ISBN 978-1-846-14096-9Depression link to processed food, BBC News, 2.11.09Tristan Stewart-Robertson, Junk food diet blamed as diabetes rates soar, Scotsman, 25.10.10Helen Carter, Diabetes and obesity soar to 'shocking' rates, Guardian, 25.10.10Stephen Deal, Scotland is fifth fattest nation in EU, Metro, 15.12.10Felicity Lawrence, McDonald's and PepsiCo to help write UK health policy, Guardian 13.11.10Felicity Lawrence, Health policy: extent of corporate influence revealed, Guardian 9.12.10Jane Kirby, Healthy diet could 33,000 lives every year, Scotsman, 16.12.10'You Are What You Eat ' - The Impact of Diet on Behaviour, BBC, www.bbc.co.uk, 18.07.03Diet and Children, www.diet.co.ukHayden Smith, Vitamin pills 'can damage your health', Metro, 20.12.10Eat it up and be a good boy, The Economist, 31.01.08Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4536 


Irresponsible soya by any other name

Photo  Greenpeace / Alexandra BuxbaumIn 2005, the World Wildlife Fund proposed the creation of the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS). 
No doubt formed with the best of intentions, the RTRS is a multi-stakeholder forum which labels soya products 'sustainable' if they fulfill its defined criteria on the protection of wild-life, responsible pesticide use, and workers' rights.
The prime motivation of the supporters of the RTRS is to promote the use of soya food products and soya-based biofuels. Its members include many multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Cargill (grain suppliers), Shell and BP, all of which have an alarming history of human rights and environmental violations. They also have a history of developing and promoting GM crops, and have managed to persuade the world that GM soya is 'responsible'.
Because GM soya is designed to be doused in Roundup, broad-spectrum herbicide, and because the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds has meant that the amount of the chemical used steadily increases year-on-year, GM soya cannot ever be part of a scheme to 'protect wild-life', nor of 'responsible pesticide use'. Biotech soya has also had a huge role in the clearance of forests to make way for GM monocultures, and in the eviction of small-holders from their land: 'sustainable' and 'workers' rights' are not compatible with this level of environmental and social destruction. 
The knock-on effects of GM soya include the bankrupting of small farmers in the face of large-scale monocultures, depriving farmers of access to the non-GM seed suitable to their needs, and dramatically increasing poverty in farming communities. There's no chance of sustainability in this scheme.
Sadly, it seems the RTRS is more of a green-washing PR exercise for GM soya than it is 'responsible'.Just to make matters worse, the RTRS is being supported by a string of British supermarkets including ASDA, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, and Sainsbury's.However, as Joanna Blythman wrote The only redeeming feature of the overbearing power of supermarkets is that they can use their muscle for the good. It is up to their customers (you) to persuade the supermarkets that they're being duped into supporting a scheme which is 'responsible' in nothing except its name.For supermarket contact details, check out GM Freeze for useful e-mail addresses and phone numbersDr. Eva Sirinathsinghji, UK Supermarkets to Label GM Soybean 'Sustainable', Institute of Science in Society Report 31.05.11Joanna Blythman, Second Opinion: we can't allow GM chicken feed, The Grocer, 21.05.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 61 

Mothers Are Demystifying Genetic Engineering (MADGE) has been busy gathering information on possible links between GM in the food chain and the incidence of severe allergic reactions in the population.
The MADGE investigation kicked off with the Australian research which found that peas (with no history of being allergenic) transformed with a gene from a bean (with no history of being allergenic) caused the peas to produce a bean protein as intended (with no history of being allergenic) and also created a GM pea which not only induced allergic reactions to the pea itself, but also induced allergic reactions to proteins in other foods.MADGE was further concerned to learn that there is no certain way to test GM foods for allergens. The tests carried out on the GM peas are not routinely done. Assessment of allergenicity usually involves looking at the history of safe use of the organisms involved, and comparing the chemical structure of the novel protein with known allergens. As the peas with the bean gene proved, these assessments are not nearly enough.Moreover, even if warning signs are seen during the assessment of the transgenic product, there is no guarantee that regulators will take action. For example, a gene commonly inserted in approved herbicide-tolerant crops to prevent the applied weed-killer accumulating in the plant has been recognised as potentially cross-reactive with a common allergen, red shell-fish (prawns, shrimp, lobster).In light of these findings, MADGE undertook a collation of historical statistics on the incidence of adverse reactions to food worldwide. The findings are disturbing:Since the mid-1990s when GM started to creep into our diet, allergy rates have steadily increased across all age-groups. The fact that allergies are increasing in the entire population disproves other hypotheses linking the rise to changes in modern child-care such as increased hygiene, reduced breast-feeding, immunisation etc.One set of data shows how allergy incidence started to increase in 1996-7 coincidentally with the entry of GM into the food chain. It then remained steady for five years coincidentally with precautionary restrictions on GM imports, but increased year on year once the restrictions were lifted.Severe reactions to food among 0-4 year-olds in Norway, which has very restrictive policies on GM, has been as little as one ninth of those recorded in Australia.www.madge.org.au/Docs/allergy-report.pdfGM post-market monitoring based on counting the bodies in hospital waiting rooms, or in the morgue, is one way to do it, but not even these checks are being done.(This article is adapted from an article which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in October 2008. The article is archived MADGE is a network of individuals across Australia interested in how our food is grown and the effects it has on our health. It is concerned about the lack of adequate labelling and testing of GM foods.No to GM Oilseed Rape GT73, Institute of Science in Society Press Release 22.09.04Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3674 

Activists blockade BASF warehouse
 Greenpeace / Christian slundIn the north of Sweden, biotech giant, BASF, is trying to plant Amflora, GM potatoes (for background see , GMFS News Archive, May 2010). The Swedes are not known for hot-blooded activism, but nevertheless, have been riled enough to block the entrance to BASF's potato warehouse. (Find out more 
They are particularly incensed that their government has has been openly critical of the weaknesses in the current EU GMO regulations and has asked for them to be strengthened, but at the same time has not taken any action to prevent Amflora from being cultivated in Sweden.
The activists are concerned that Amflora has been approved without sufficient independent studies, without an environmental risk assessment, without toxicity studies for animals or humans, and that the presence of an antibiotic resistance marker gene was simply ignored. 
Although the GM potato is intended for industrial starch production, it has been approved in food and feed at low levels (up to 0.9%). The antibiotic-resistance marker gene contained in Amflora has been defined by the World Health Organisation as of critical importance in fighting tuberculosis and other serious diseases.
Elsewhere in Europe, Hungary (since joined by Austria, Luxembourg, Poland and France) has already taken the EU Commission to the European Court of justice. Greenpeace Austria, together with Justice and Environment, and other NGOs are also taking legal action in the European Court of Justice to end the approval of the GM potatoes. Several countries have already forbidden the cultivation of the GM potato.
In an action reminiscent of the Munlochy Vigil in Scotland (see more below) the Swedish campaigners are braving cold temperatures, rain and period police arrest to maintain the blockade on the warehouse. They say they are prepared to stay for weeks if needed.The Munlochy Vigil  Scotland 2001-2002In August 2002, local people in the Highland demonstrated on a 100 acre field being sown with GM oilseed rape. This was the second Farm scale Evaluation, part of the wider UK programme, being held on a farm by Munlochy on the Black Isle. People dug their heels in and set up a round the clock vigil on a layby across the road from the GM site, which lasted for 343 days. The UK and devolved Scottish administration abandoned a projected third and final trial in the Highlands and to date the Highlands remains GM free.http://www.munlochygmvigil.org.uk/history.htmYou can support the Swedish activists by writing to their government. Greenpeace International has organised a letter to the Swedish Agriculture and Environmental ministers which you can send on-line (and can reword as you see fit). Check out: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/getinvolved/gmo-potato/In case you're worried that the campaign against GM potatoes might hurt farmers, a Belgian farmer commenting after protesters damaged a field-trial of 'DURPH', GM blight-resistant potatoes in Belgium, said They (the GM lobby) talk a lot about farmers, but we are never heard. This type of action strengthens us and seems like the only way forward for consumers and small producers ...The Belgium Field Liberation Movement which organised the demonstration said let's come together and show that the resistance against GM agriculture is growing. You can make a start simply by sending a letter.Risky potato plan mashed by activists, Greenpeace Feature story, 19.05.11Protesters destroy controversial field trial, GM Watch 29.05.11Belgium: NO GM crops on our fields! A Seed Europe, 17.05.11Activists held in 'Frankenfood' spuds raid, The Local, www.thelocal.se, 24.05.11Jess Miller, Activists in Sweden continue to fight against the Amflora potato, Greenpeace, 26.05.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8871 

Photo  Greenpeace / Christian LehstenCloning animals isn't strictly a GM-food issue.  However, it does involve removing DNA from its native environment and putting into a new one, with all the same, inevitable, disruption of genomic coherence and compromised health (see Nuclear Transplant (Cloning) below).  There's also no doubt that the major incentive for cloning animals is that the procedure enables genetic transformation.The current method of cloning involves transplanting the nucleus of a cell from an adult or from a developing embryo into a mature egg that has had its nucleus removed. The reconstituted eggs are activated to develop, and the resultant embryos are implanted into surrogate mothers.During cloning of non-GM animals, the survival rate is, at most, 10 per cent of the embryos selected for implantation (in terms of the total embryos prepared, this falls to 1 per cent).  Genetic modification will reduce this 'success' rate much further.After implantation, there is a significant incidence of spontaneous abortion and hydrops (the surrogate mother's uterus fills up with water, and the animal has to be put down).  In New Zealand, where cloning has been researched for some years, the Animal Ethics Committee reported 16 foetuses or calves from mid-gestation onwards spontaneously aborted or died in the neonatal period in 2010.  Another 10 foetuses or calves had to be euthanized along with 14 cows.www.i-sis.org.uk/death_rates_end_cloning.php
Sadly, despite the decision of the Scottish pioneer of cloning to abandon the technology after his experience with his first cloned creation, Dolly the sheep, Scottish scientists are still trying to lead the world in cloned, GM, animals.
Their reasoning seems to be that people want (note, NOT need) to eat more meat, so we have to produce more, and the only way to do this quickly is to insert genes to make livestock more productive.
To make them more productive, they want to create animals which grow more muscle and resist disease.  Inserting genes from other animals to achieve these is envisaged as the next 'green revolution'.  
A more real picture is that the GM livestock will depend on grain crops to sustain their extra growth, and the present shortages of agricultural land and water, clearance of forests, and starvation will continue to spiral.  Resistance to one disease will be traded off by the emergence of others, and used in some quarters as an excuse for poor (cheaper) husbandry.
The scientists involved in developing GM livestock in Scotland repeat the usual mantras of just-grin-and-bear-it and winning the 'race': It is inevitable.  It's not only inevitable, it is necessary.  The choice is not going to be other technologies, the choice is going to be not eating meat.  I think we should just get used to it ... Either we're in it or we come last. But the chance is we'll be exporting the technology without the benefits in this country.  We have the potential to change the world from Scotland. (Prof. Hume of Edinburgh)Two months before these sentiments were reported, the New Zealand National Science agency, AgResearch, brought its studies on the prevention of abnormalities in cloned animals to an end.  After 13 years of trials, and  unacceptable death rates, it was decided enough is enough.  
At the regulatory end of cloning, the European Commission (EC) has been accused of misleading Member States: its recent decision to refuse labelling of food from cloned animals and their offspring was based on trade law and not on the legal opinions presented to it.   The EC's position that labelling (or banning) of clones would violate World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and risk a dispute with the US is untenable.  Besides questions of clone equivalence to the 'parent' animal, there are perfectly valid ethical grounds and animal welfare concerns to legally reject cloning.We think it is highly unlikely that given the global economic and political situations the US would even launch a WTO dispute over something like cloning when everyone admits it is hardly widespread.  It would be pretty hard for them to defend when there is an FDA-requested (Food and Drug Administration) 'voluntary moratorium' on cloning still in place to meet US consumer demand and protect both domestic and export markets.Given all this and the legal opinion that even a complete ban could be argued, the Parliaments' compromise position on labels as a 'bare minimum' is entirely justified and feasible.  We've heard enough excuses.  Cloning is unnecessary, unwanted and cruel.  It's time consumers were told where it is being used so they can avoid it.A more practical reason for wanting to avoid regulation or product-labelling of cloned animals is the headache of having to identify them.  However, the suggestion that labelling or banning clones is impossible because they can't be traced was recently shown to be false.  
Canadian pig-farmers are sizzling over plans to develop cleaner-pooping GM (pigs  (see   GMFS News archive, January 2011).  The farmers have a real fear that their reputation and their product quality could be compromised if the novel pigs are allowed.  Scientists in charge of the GM pig programme dismiss these fears because a new pig tag tracking system is already being implemented to trace diseased stock or tainted meat back to their source farms.  This could also be extended to ensure that his Enviropigs didn't interbreed with their natural neighbours.  It's not long until all pigs are tracked, right to slaughterhouse and right to the food market ... And that being the case, then the Enviropig will be tracked like any other pig, so that the pork will be separated out.  The same system could obviously be applied to all livestock, including clones.
In Britain, it seems that the Westminster Government is not only condoning the presence of cloned livestock and the sale of their unidentified products within its own shores, but is intent on leading the rest of the world into the same future.
There are already more than 100 offspring of cloned cattle in the UK, including a Holstein dairy herd at Nairn in Scotland.  Meat, milk and cheese from these animals will be on grocery shelves shortly.
Sadly, the UK government has been at the forefront of moves in Brussels to sabotage any regulation or labelling of food from clones and their descendants.  While most MEPs have called for a complete ban or failing that clear labelling, the UK Food and Farming Secretary sided with the European Commission and ignored public opinion in rejecting both.  
Compassion in World Farming accused British ministers of shameful hypocrisy for claiming to champion animal welfare while supporting the unnecessary pain, suffering and distress which is part-and-parcel of cloning.It seems there are an awful lot of fibs being told to promote acceptance of products from cloned animals: we don't need more meat, GM animals will never be a route to better meat availability, GM is not inevitable, nor does GM technology represent a race we have to win, the EC is using clever, but unlikely, legal arguments to excuse its acceptance of cloning, and both tracking and labelling are entirely possible.If all these fibs have a purpose, it's not that cloning itself is especially useful.  It's just that the acceptance of food from clones is a necessary pre-requisite to the acceptance of GM animals.We have indeed the potential to change the world from Scotland.  Let's be a world model of a sustainable, local, natural food supply.  Start today by signing the 'Declaration against cloning of animals for food' at .  This initiative by Eurogroup for Animals is encouraging European citizens, politicians and companies, especially food producers and retailers, to show their opposition to cloning.  The first signatory to the Declaration was MEP Kartika Liotard, rapporteur of the recent Novel Foods directive review.Trade law an excuse to stop labelling of food from clones, Food and Water Watch, 17.05.11Joseph Hall Mon, Genetically altered pigs debate set to sizzle, www.guelphmercury.com, 14.03.11While the population debate rages, in the south of Edinburgh ..., Sunday Herald, 10 04.11Unacceptable Death Rates End Cloning Trials in New Zealand, Institute of Science in Society Report 28.03.11Sean Poulter, Unlabelled clone meat allowed on shop shelves as food safety proposals are ripped up, Mail Online, 26.05.11Sean Poulter, Cloned meat betrayal: Unlabelled dairy and beef products to go on sale here after OUR minister sabotages Europe's call for a ban, Daily Mail, 30.03.11New campaign to stamp out food from cloned animals, www.eurogroupforanimals.org, 22.06.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5615 


Microbes in our guts... a little something to worry about
Where will the biggest risk to our health from GM foods come from: Allergies? Toxins? Antibiotic resistant infections? Or, something more insidious?One of the earliest concerns raised about GM foods was that a disturbed genome would generate strange proteins to which our bodies would react.Regulators 'addressed' this concern by assessing the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the novel protein produced by the inserted gene. This neatly side-steps a fundamental safety problem with GMOs: it ignores the potential for the production of toxins or inflammatory agents due to changes in the wider genome and the metabolism it governs.Two unique scientific studies have been published which suggest our concerns about unexpected allergens are very valid. An early warning was sounded when a nut allergen turned up in soya which had been genetically transformed with a Brazil nut gene not known to be part of any allergen in its native form. More recently, an apparently innocuous bean gene inserted into peas not only generated an allergen, but induced cross-reactivity with other common proteins.Whether or not similar or worse problems are present in the GM in our food chain is unknown: none have been appropriately tested pre-marketing, and post-marketing monitoring is impossible in a supply chain flooded with variable amounts of different, untracked, GM crops. Unless people develop very unusual symptoms, as happened in the case of GM tryptophan poisoning in 1989, it's unlikely that GM toxins or allergens will ever be identified except as 'more of the same' upward spiral of modern chronic disease.However, toxins and allergens in GM foods may not the the biggest threat to our health ...The biggest health risk from GM food might well derive from the trillions of micro-organisms resident in our guts. These bugs will be living off a GM diet too. The only attention paid to them so far has been the consideration of antibiotic resistance genes in GM foods which might be taken up by pathogens and compromise the treatment of infectious disease. This absurdly narrow view entirely ignores the contribution of digestive tract microbes to our health.One researcher in the field of nutrition describes the mass of microbes inside our gut as an essential organ. This 'organ' is reckoned to weigh two to three pounds, and plays a vital part in digestion, in protection against disease, and in gastro-intestinal tract development.There's an increasing awareness amongst scientists of the complexity of the interactions between what we eat, the products of our digestion, the composition of our gut microbes, and our health. Think about it like this:- Our health affects our digestion. Our digestion interacts with our diet to form the products of digestion which determine our health. Our gut microbes, interacting with our diet and with the products of digestion, determine the products of digestion which in turn determine the composition of our gut microbes. The balance of good and pathogenic gut microbes supported by our diet and digestion helps or hinders health and disease. The microbe-induced products of digestion interact with our cells to help or hinder the inflammatory processes and their key role in health and disease. And around and around it goes.It seems that an 'old-fashioned' diet of seasonal vegetables, cereals, nuts and beans provides the right conditions to promote the good little guys which aid digestion, fight off the bad little guys, and protect us from inflammatory reactions.A diet of processed foods, whose products of digestion lack both variety and micro-nutrients also lack the ability to support a health-promoting microbial mix. The measured effects of this are an increase in inflammatory reactions such as asthma and eczema. As our diet has become increasingly processed, autoimmune disorders and inflammatory bowel disease have also increased. Obesity coupled to nutritional deficiencies is emerging as a clear part of this scenario.The role of current commercial GM crops (soya, maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet and cotton) has always been to support an unhealthy diet. These crops are designed to feed us with too much meat, and with an infinity of uniformly processed, 'pre-digested', junk foods and additives.Add GM foods with a host of strange proteins and other metabolic products into the above health-diet-digesta-microbe-pathogen-inflammation equation and you might well arrive at a vision of a global epidemic of chronic disease.The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is pouring billions of dollars into GM crop research with the goal of developing the world's first 'superfood': a single plant which contains all the vitamins, minerals and nutrients necessary for life, needs minimal water and generates its own pest-control.The prototype Gates 'superfood' is a GM sorghum for Africa which is easier to digest than its natural counterpart, has higher protein levels, and more essential amino acids, zinc and vitamin A.Someone needs to explain to the Gates that 'superfoods' are a fairy tale: we don't know all the nutrients necessary for life, and never will because what's necessary depends on whatever other nutrients are present in our diet, on our digestive system, on whatever gut microbes are present, and on the health of the individual.The novel sorghum sounds suspiciously like self-processing, self-supplementing junk food whose effect on the African gut microbes and the health of the African people could be catastrophic.Another little something to worry about in the microbe-health-GM equation is the staggering speed at which the bugs inside you might evolve in their novel environment: the adaptive processes might not be at all to your advantage.P.S. In case you're swallowing the latest fashion in probiotic(This article is adapted from an article which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in August 2010. The article is archived Mayeno and Gleich, 1994, Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: cautionary tale, TIBTECH 12Nordlee et al., 1996, Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans, New England Journal of Medicine, March 14Junk food linked to allergy risk, Telegraph 3.08.10Mark Harris, Gates joins quest to create world's first superfood, Sunday Times, 8.08.10De Fillippo et al, 2010, Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiiota revealed by a comparative study in children in 'Europe and rural Africa, http://www.pnas.org/ 30.06.10Do it like they do in your intestinal channel, Metro, 14.03.10Good Intestinal Health becomes Crucial in Promoting Your Overall Health, Mercola Advanced Nutrition, March 2008.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5864 

In ancient China, the emperor and empress could drink human milk throughout their lives. This was believed to be the height of opulence. In modern China, despite the massive economic growth and industrial expansion, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. The answer sought is in biotechnology: the country seems to have set its sights on making human milk available to all, babies, children and adults. The catch is that this 'human' milk will come from a cow.In March, China held an exhibition to showcase its major technological achievements during the 'Five-Year Plan' of 2005-10. Among the wonders on display were photographs of a herd of more than 200 cows that had been genetically transformed to produce 'humanised' milk.The actual genes, the techniques used to produce the herd, the health of the herd, and the quality of milk obtained are shrouded in mystery and hype, not helped by the need to translate or interpret all the information from Chinese.However, the lead researcher Li Ning who has produced the GM herd confidently predicts that his GM milk will be as safe to drink as that of the ordinary cows, and that Within 10 years, people will be able to pick up these human-milk-like products at the supermarket, ensuring that healthy protein contained in human milk is affordable to ordinary consumers. At this stage, the claim that milk from transgenic animals will be safe is scientifically indefensible, but the UK still managed to trot out a British professor to say Genetically modified animals and plants are not going to be harmful unless you deliberately put in a gene that is going to be poisonous. Why would anyone do that in a food? (Comment. The good professor obviously has not read about the GM soya with a non-toxic Brazil nut gene nor about the GM peas with a non-toxic bean gene, both of which would have been killers if they had made it into our food chainWhat we do know is that to develop the gene technology, make it work in cows (which are not usual laboratory animals), check out the results at every stage, and achieve a herd of over 200 beasts takes a considerable investment of expertise, time and money. China has clearly been on the case for a long time.So, what sort novel genes do these GM cows actually have? What sort of novel milk do they produce?The likely method of creating these cows would involve constructing the desired artificial DNA in a test tube, multiplying it up in a bacterium, injecting the DNA into bovine foetal cells grown in culture, removing the transformed nucleus and using it to replace the nucleus in an egg removed from a cow, inducing the egg to divide into an early embryo, and finally implanting the embryo into a surrogate mother cow for development into a calf (if you've been counting, that's spare parts from two adult cows and one foetus). The likely artificial DNA would include copies of human genes, marker genes, and any extra sequences needed to make the whole thing operate in a cow's mammary This all sounds very clever, but the GM milk is being declared as safe to drink as that of ordinary cows without saying anything about the complexities of testing it. The necessary clinical trials will have to be much more extensive in the case of this staple, variable food destined to be consumed by all sectors of the population, than they would be for the testing of a drug which has a highly controlled dosage. Recombinant proteins produced by transgenic cows:Lactoferrin is widely present in human body fluids, such as tears, saliva, sexual secretions, and blood. In human milk, it can comprise up to 15% of whey proteins compared with 0.5-1.0% in cows' milk. It seems to have a role in the absorption of iron in the gut, in defense against bacteria, fungi, protozoa, and viruses, in inflammatory responses, and in bone growth. Judging from the scant information available in the published papers, the DNA in these GM cows may includes copies of human-, cow-, goat-, chicken-, jellyfish- and bacterial-DNA. How 'human' is the protein created by that cosmopolitan concoction? Each of these carries it's own risk of introducing immune-reactive qualities, and of altering the microbial flora exposed to it.All these recombinant proteins are known to be highly biologically active, multifunctional, and able to assume a variety of chemical formats; we probably don't yet know the full range of these attributes. The scope for subtle differences in protein structure to result in inappropriate activity, or even a completely novel activity, is huge. There are 25 recognised allergens in natural cows' milk. This suggests a huge potential for increased allergenicity induced by unexpected gene products. Since there is no animal which can adequately model humans to test for human allergy, we can only find this out the hard way.Much of the experimental transgenic milk tested for quality has another intrinsically unnatural feature: it was obtained from young calves given artificial hormones to induce lactation. Milk produced by a mature cow lactating naturally may well be significantly different.Some forms of the recombinant proteins are destroyed (or changed?) by sterilization, while others survive. The outcome of processing GM milk might be quite unexpected.In summary, the 'human' qualities added genetically to 'humanise' the milk might be very 'non-human' in the final product.Every stage of the likely method of production of the GM cows described above can induce mutations or cause other abnormal cell development. The reported 'success' rate in terms of the number of GM cows achieved from the number of donor eggs removed for reconstruction seems to be around 1 per cent. One-third of the calves died within 6 months of birth.Another consideration is how 'human' will the GM cows' milk ever be? The fat composition, the sugar content and the mineral content of human milk are very different from cows' milk, as is the protein profile and concentration. All of these milk constituents interact in the nutrition of the infant. Inducing the over-production of three proteins will not make the two milks more than superficially similar: extensive further genetic changes would be necessary to make cows' milk anything like a realistic substitute for human. Is it really possible to create healthy human milk by tinkering with a cows' DNA? Is it really possible to create a healthy cow which can produce milk with this huge degree of unnatural alteration?The question of what weird and wonderful pathogens might be generated in human-goat-chicken-bacterial-jellyfish-cows' milk does not bear thinking about. Why is China so intent on going down this danger-fraught path? In 2008, 40,000 Chinese babies needed medical treatment, a further 13,000 were hospitalised, 104 became seriously ill and four died after poisoning by formula milk derived from deliberately adulterated cows' milk (see FOOD ADULTERATION - LESSONS FROM CHINA - GMFS News archive, October 2008). This tragedy should have highlighted the danger of using man-made milk-substitutes for a vulnerable sector of the population, plus the risk to infants from the declining rate of breast feeding in China. Transgenic cows seem to be the Chinese answer to both problems. But, as one food editor described it, the novel cows are an unnecessarily complicated solution to a problem that could instead be tackled through greater support for and awareness of the benefits of breast-feeding itself.You're not likely to find human milk from a cow in European supermarkets any time soon. However, once the GM juggernaut starts moving it can be very difficult to stop. If you get a chance to put the brakes on before anyone tries to feed you milk from a humanised GM cow, don't let it go.Richard Gray, Genetically modified cows produce 'human' milk, Telegraph, 2.04.11Cheng Yingqi, GM 'human milk' predicted to be on shelf, China Daily, 22.03.11Nicola Twilley, Food Editor, Genetically Modified Cows Produce Human Milk, www.good.is, 24.03.11Human Milk from Cloned Transgenic Cattle, Institute of Science in Society Report, 26.04.11Biogas for China's New Socialist Countryside, Science in Society 49, Spring 2011Bin Yang et al., 2011, Characterization of bioactive recombinant Human Lysozyme Expressed in Milk of Clone Cattle, PLoS ONE, 6:3 Penghua Yang et al.,2008, Cattle Mammary Bioreactor Generated by a Novel Procedure of Transgenic Cloning for Large-Scale Production of Junctional Human Lactoferrin, PloS ONE, 3:10J. Nordlee et al., 1996, Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans, New England Journal of Medicine, 24.03.96Harold Eddleman, Composition of Human, Cow, and Goat Milks, www.disknet.com, 6.02.09Human lactoferrin 'grown' in rice plants?, Dairy Reporter, 2.05.02Will Brink, Lactoferrin: The Bioactive Peptide that Fights Disease, Life Extension Magazine, October 2000Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7813 

Archive news - March 2008 (Please note links may no longer be active)
In 2006, a flurry of contamination scares started when nearly 20% of long-grain rice from America was found to be contaminated with an illegal GM strain. Before the dust had settled on the first one, more GM rice contamination was discovered in US and Chinese rice.
The biggest culprit was LL601, an experimental rice genetically transformed to be resistant to 'Liberty' weedkiller. US regulators moved quickly to limit the damage to their internal rice market, and the contaminant became their first approved GM rice.
That there should be little apparent regulatory concern about legalising a herbicide-tolerant GM rice is ironic, because the US is no stranger to the dangers of genetic contamination from such a rice. In recent years, rice-growing states like Louisiana have become increasingly dependent on rice with 'Clearfield' technology, designed to overcome the problem of contamination from wild 'red rice' weeds. 'Clearfield plants have a natural gene which allows them to tolerate the herbicide 'imazethapyr', sold by BASF as 'Newpath'. The company which holds the breeders rights to Clearfield plants has formed a partnership with BASF to market and police their Clearfield-Newpath package. Cross-breeding with red rice is a commercial problem because the hybrids vary in important agronomic characteristics such as plant height and yield. Because Clearfield and red rice are closely related, they cross-breed very easily. A study of the adverse consequences to a crop contaminated with red rice, published in 2006, recommended early-season field scouting and crop rotation schemes to limit cross-breeding and prolong the usefulness of the Clearfield technology.
Despite the obvious lack of sustainability of any herbicide-tolerant/herbicide system for any crop grown near a weed it can easily hybridise with, US rice consultants are ignoring the time-tested techniques of minding the crop and crop rotation. They are instead plugging expensive, high-tech solutions: GE rice is definitely a tool needed by US farmers, We need the LibertyLink type of technology because the Clearfield technology could start to break down by crossing with red rice. Once that takes place, red rice will become established and we won't be able to kill these red rice plants with Newpath herbicide, and, the GM concern issues need to be resolved where everyone will have confidence in our system, Our biggest obstacle to acceptance of GE crops is education of the end user and consumer of the GE product. The stigma applied to GE has got to be changed. We have to move forward. We have to find a way to correct the problems we have.
One outcome of the global GM rice contamination has been that it has forced regulators to look more closely at what they are doing. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has realised its oversight regulations for GM rice research need changing. The co-mingling of the GM test variety and non-GM commercial strain was traced to a single research station, but the question of how it happened will never be answered. The investigation has been thwarted by a lack of records and the disappearance of all crop samples from the time all the rice strains were grown together. The crops which were cultivated at the same time were separated by a distance of sixteen times wider than the requirement at the time (which was only 10 feet). The Biotechnology Regulatory Service is, therefore, proposing new rules on record-keeping, sample maintenance, and isolation distances.
To encourage industry to keep a handle on things, a new, voluntary, Quality Management Program, is being introduced. to help those who receive permits ... manage their trials in the best possible way to meet regulatory requirements.
Another outcome of the GM rice scare was that the State of Minnesota voted to protect the purity of its wild rice. Wild rice is not only historically and economically important for Minnesotans, it is sacred to
the Ojibwe people. It is an important food, and forms part of prime fish and duck habitats. The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board will now monitor the declining wild rice population and keep tabs on potential genetic contamination throughout the country. This is the first time a US state has moved to protect a native crop.
In Europe, the illegal GM contamination has inspired a clarification of the chain of responsibility for ensuring that imported products do not contain GM material:the exporting country must ensure its products are certified free of GMOsthe EU member states must control their borders and their imports besides their existing marketsbusinesses must ensure products imported by them do not contain GMOs.In December 2007, the EU seems to have started moves to lift its requirement for all US rice to be tested on arrival and sent back if found to contain GM. However, only two months later, Greenpeace reported another two new contamination incidents in imports from the USA: the same unauthorised Bt601 rice reported in 2006, and Bt 62.The points of collapse in the system, as highlighted by the ongoing contaminations of our rice supplies by experimental GMOs, are breathtaking.At the local level, farmers face economic ruin, while traditional farming systems and sacred native rice are threatened. At the research level, scientists seem to be cavalier with both their record-keeping and their housekeeping. The EU has realised that every single step in the process of export/import of foods must take responsibility for checking purity (and in a global market, that's a lot of very expensive steps). The US is, unfortunately, still trying /not/ to regulate GM: records won't /prevent/ GM contamination; isolation distances have to be measured in miles, not feet; housekeeping doesn't seem to feature much in their plants; voluntary systems of control are, by nature, bendable. US rice consultants can't get their heads around any future except herbicide-tolerant GM rice and chemicals no matter how much harm is done to the industry. They are clinging to notion (repeatedly proven false in Europe, for example, by the 'narrow but deep' arm of the UK GMNation? debate) that consumers just need to be educated to embrace GM.Safety is consistently given the brush-off.Concerns about the intrinsically unpredictable nature of food artificially altered by artificial DNA is lost in a sea of legal fussing.And, no one, but no-one, is mentioning the biotech industry's role in all of this.The only way out of this expensive, unmanageable, short-sighted, GM minefield is to STOP.Jess Halliday, Commission takes emergency measures on GM rice imports, www.foodproduction daily.com/news/ 15.04.08David Bennett, Lousianan Clearfield Lawsuit Points to Stewardship Requirements, Delta Farm Press, 25.04.06Zhang et al., Risk assessment of the transfer of imazethapyr herbicide tolerance from Clearfield rice to red rice (Oryza sativa), Euphytica 152:1 November 2006 pp.61-86Biotech industry impunity fuels global GE contamination spread, Greenpeace Press Release, 28.02.08, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/biotech-industry-impunity-fuelhttp://ec.europa.eu/food/food/rapidalert/archive_en.htm Rapid Alerts, Week 8, 2008, 21.02.08Elton Robinson, New rules for GE rice research? Delta Farm Press 9.02.08EU Decision on GMO Testing Opens Door for US Rice, Reuters, 21.12.07New statute protects the DNA of wild rice, Associated Press, 29.05.07John Vidal, US rice kept out of Britain because of GM contamination, Guardian 30.09.06http://www.newsfood.com/Articolo/International/2008-02/20080228-Biotech-industry-impunity-fuels-global-GE-contamination-spread.aspThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 182 


Monsanto's make-believe marketing
Corn grenade. Image by GreenpeaceMonsanto's marketing antics would be funny, if they didn't have serious implications.
At the beginning of the year, reports were filtering out of America about a nation-wide advertising campaign. In place of the tough and handsome Marlboro-smoking cowboys of yore, billboards and bus-stops are being festooned with with hardy American farmers showing off their Monsanto (GM) crops. It seems the Company is finding it imperative to persuade the US public that it really, really, is working in the best interests of the people and creating jobs on American farms.
Another on-going biotech antic is astroturfing. This involves the creating and financing of fake 'grass-roots' organisations to generate a (fake) climate of GM-support.One such organisation is the Institute of Liberty (IFL), which describes itself as an aggressive defender of the rights of individuals to pursue the American dream by injecting the perspective of small businesses and the working families that depend on them ... into the public policy debate. Its aim is to fight against the excesses of government.The IFL, clearly has an anti-regulation, anti-government agenda perfect for promoting the interests of the biotech industry. Nowhere does it mention the damage caused to small businesses and their workers by big business, especially if unregulated, nor does it acknowledge the threat posed by multi-national monopolies to their precious American dream.The head of the IFL, Andrew Langer, previously worked for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which has long been an aggressive GM-lobbyist and receiver of Monsanto donations (see more below). Langer has apparently imported the CEI's grass-roots methods into the IFL.Competitive Enterprise InstituteThe CEI is an educational institute which is dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise and individual liberty.It publishes original scholarly studies and markets its policy proposals.The CEI also engages in pro-freedom advocacy in the courts, to challenge all levels of government.Some idea of the organisation's agenda can be gleaned from is 30-strong work force:12 have a background in law and regulation10 have a background in journalism, PR, and communicationsDespite its intensive pro-GM lobbying, its only resident biotech 'expert' seems to be Gregory Conko. Conko's background is in political science and history. However, he is quite happy to provide information to teachers, journalists, policymakers, and the general public about developments in plant science, biotechnology, and sustainable agriculture via AgBioworld Foundation, a pro-GM lobby group which he co-founded.Product safety and individual freedom of choice don't seem to feature on the agenda of any of the three organisations Conko is involved with.
In 2010, Monsanto, the CEI and the IFL got together to generate a 'public' debate on the GM alfalfa grass for animal feed whose deregulation was under consideration at the time, and which was raising serious concerns. Langer organised a petition based on 8,052 comments from Joe Public collected by telephone, and submitted them as a petition to the government.However, when the New York Times examined a random sample of 50 of the 'petitioners', three were dead the others had no idea their names had been used. One such unwitting 'petitioner' vaguely remembered a survey about whether affordability of food was important.In Australia, the latest GM debacle involves litigation by an organic farmer against his GM-growing neighbour after gene contamination deprived him of his organic status. Monsanto's immediate reaction to this news was to go into battle, promising legal and financial support to its customer.However, this appears now to have been a knee-jerk reaction. The company seems to have rethought the long-term implications of getting involved. First, there's a tacit admission that its crops are going to cause a pollution problem (not good PR). Secondly, there's the knock-on animosity it's creating between farmers and neighbours (very bad PR). Thirdly, there's the certainty that such contamination incidents can only escalate (not good for the finances). Perhaps Monsanto has taken note of what's happening to its fellow biotech company, Bayer CropScience, since it had to admit to its role in the world-wide genetic pollution of rice. Bayer has reported a 4th quarter loss of 145 million, partly due to the enormous and on-going costs of US legal proceedings brought by affected rice growers and traders (and Bayer's name is mud in rice-farming circles).The make-believe that can be spread through billboards, bus-stops, 'phone calls to the dead, and creative petitioning, doesn't translate to the court-room. Monsanto momentarily forgot that, but remembered just in time to step out of the fight it had caused.There are several important lessons to be drawn from Monsanto's marketing antics:Don't take bill-board or bus-stops advertisements too seriouslyWatch out for the Institute of Astroturfing, it has several aliases but they are all fakesIf you're dead, best not petition the governmentIf you grow GM and pollute your neighbour, you're on your own pal.Ethan A Huff, Monsanto launches deceptive ad campaign in desperate attempt to improve image, NaturalNews.com, 25.01.11International Roundup: Americas, Australasia, Thin Ice, Issue 21, April 2011Odd Alliance, New York Times, 30.03.11Gregory Conko, www.sourcewatch.orgThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6812 


NFU Scotland and the GM train wreck

In March 2009, the President and the Chief Executive of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland (NFUS) described the US experience of GM crops as a train wreck.
One year on, the same farmers' union was calling for a faster approval system for GM imports and cultivation in the EU.
What is the NFUS basing its advice on? Is it hearing nothing beyond some short-term GM success stories and the continuing biotech company promises of farming-made-simple? Has something deafened it to the reports coming directly from today's GM farmers after several years' experience with the biotech crops?
When the Roundup/Roundup-Ready crop package entered US agriculture, it was hailed as a momentous, revolutionary, near-miraculous farming tool, an economic boon, a godsend. By purchasing the GM seed and applying a single herbicide when the weeds began to show, their crops could grow free from competition for light or nutrients. Even some environmentalists were interested in Roundup's safety profile and in the low-till, soil-saving methods encouraged by the Roundup/Roundup-Ready seed package. For farmers, the reduction in labour and input costs was huge: no more ploughing, no more guessing which chemical to use on which weeds and when to use it, effortless care of their precious soil. With farming this easy, their land area and their profits could be expanded, and the expensive machinery previously essential could be ditched.For a full decade and a half, everyone in the U.S. involved in agriculture, starting from the farmers themselves, including big agri-business and even the agricultural attachs in US Embassies worldwide, have declared European consumers as well as politicians and industry officials heeding consumer preferences half-witted for rejecting GMOs. Meanwhile, neither American nor foreign scientists warning USDA officials had a chance of having their concerns heard. (TraceConsult)Early warnings on the pitfalls of GM were dismissed by the biotech industry on the grounds that the science is shaky.
In the last year however, reports in US farming publications, from agricultural journalists, from economists, and even in a US television documentary, are painting a picture which looks very much like ... a train wreck.
Farming in America is now a serious, serious problem and nerve-wracking, because farmers have gotten spoiled a bit and the silver bullet of American agriculture is beginning to miss its mark. In a nutshell, Some growers aren't going to survive this.
Three problems are emerging loud and clear.
Superweeds, resistant to all of the (few) herbicides available to farmers are spreading relentlessly and very rapidly throughout the farming states.
Some of the weeds farmers are battling this year seem more like something found in a 1950s science fiction flick than a cotton, corn or soybean field.
One farmers In Arkansas interviewed for TV described how he spent almost $400,000 in only three months in a failed attempt to kill the new super-weeds in his fields.The most noxious superweed is pigweed (Palmer Amarynth) which, unchecked, grows several inches a day to tree-like proportions, defying mechanical harvesters and finally scattering hundreds of thousands of seeds of herbicide-resistant offspring throughout the field. Pigweed sucks the nutrients out of the soil, smothering everything around it. Weed scientists at the University of Georgia estimate that just two pigweed plants in every 6-meter length of a cotton row can reduce yield by at least 23 percent. According to a survey last year, half of Georgia's 1 million acres of cotton was weeded by hand for pigweed, at a cost of $11 million. Growers went from spending $24 per acre to control weeds in cotton a few years ago to spending $60 to $100 per acre now.
Adding to the difficulty of controlling the superweeds, is the fact that agriculture has been changed radically by the advent of the Roundup Ready package. Farmers have no wish to return to labour-intensive methods. Much farm machinery has been mothballed. Many farms have become too big to handle with hoes. Younger farmers have never farmed any other way but with glyphosate and GM crops. Consequently, they are all crying out for new chemicals and will pay a steep premium to control weeds chemically.
Agrichemical companies (what few of them have survived the competition of Roundup's dominance in the market) are dusting off older, more toxic weedkillers for relaunching, and rubbing their hands in glee because as one Syngenta spokesman put Now (the herbicide business) is getting fun again.
As one Center for Food Safety scientist said, we have to start using alternative methods of weed control, because otherwise We're talking a pesticide treadmill here. It's just coming back to kick us in the butt now with resistant weeds.
Needless to say, the biotech industry's strategy to overcoming Roundup-Resistant superweeds is to develop a new generation of GM crops resistant to other herbicides, such as Dicamba.
Problem number two is volunteers, the 'weeds' which grow in fields from seed spilled during the previous years' harvests.
Farmers have been rotating Roundup Ready Corn with Roundup Ready soya. Many are now looking at uncontrollable stands of volunteer soya mixed with volunteer corn. The only option here seems to be to hand-weed the corn (damaging the soya as they go) and cut their losses by harvesting what soya they can.
The yields from these are always poor: GM crops don't breed true and without Roundup which can't be sprayed without killing a significant proportion of the stand, it becomes choked with weeds; the fertilizers on which soya crops depend can't be appropriately applied for optimum growth; and without fungicide-treatment of the seeds, infection also takes its toll.
Increasingly, no-till or minimal-till is being replaced with deep-till and mixing herbicides into the soil, bringing back all the soil damage that, briefly, was a thing of the past.
Legal-minded readers might well be asking: given the infamous number of cases of non-GM farmers finding themselves facing law-suits for any biotech plants appearing in their fields, does Monsanto allow farmers to harvest volunteers? The answer is, yes of course, at a price. All farmers need to do to if they decide to harvest the mediocre yield of a partially-GM crop they didn't plant, didn't want and can't seem to get rid of, is to register their volunteer acres with Monsanto, sign a Monsanto Volunteer Use Technology Agreement, and pay Monsanto $15.65 an acre for the privilege.
Problem number three is the unprecedented spread of GM weeds. Herbicide-tolerant canola (oilseed rape) is growing on roadside verges, around petrol stations and grocery stores, often at large distances from areas of agricultural production. Some weeds derive from Monsanto's Roundup Ready varieties, others derive from Bayer's Liberty Link varieties (transformed to be resistant to the herbicide glufosinate), and after so many years' opportunity to interbreed, a few are resistant to both herbicides. Wind, weather, and spillage of seed during transport coupled to the widespread use of glyphosate and presumably glufosinate to clear weeds around roads and buildings have conspired to make herbicide-tolerant weeds inevitable. How far these GM plants have ingressed into wild environments or back into farmers fields from this weedy reservoir hasn't been studied.
The tactics suggested to deal with superweeds, volunteers and weeds are disturbingly military: superweeds are being aggressively attacked, prompting a counter attack from agribusiness; while Roundup is still part of a farmer's arsenal. Monsanto's only admission of failure in this war is that it could have been more aggressive with education (about the need to diversity crops and chemicals).
One of the older weedkillers being revived to combat Roundup Ready weeds was a key ingredient of the notorious 'Agent Orange', the defoliant used to clear the jungle in war-torn Vietnam and which continues to wreak havoc with the health of the people there to this day. Counter Punch quipped that, in order to maintain our diet of GM-dependent junk foods...we'll engage the services of the defense industry. We'll use Agent Orange to fight off weeds and ensure the delivery of cheap corn to Frito-Lay, Coke and Kelloggs; and when megaweeds evolve to withstand Agent Orange  eighteen-foot-tall weeds, stems like tree trunks  we'll reach for the napalm. 'Napalm-Ready' soy; that's our future.If you agree that US agriculture indeed, looks like a train-wreck, tell the NFUS to stop flip-flopping over its position on GM. Tell it to support the Scottish Government's drive for modern, sustainable agriculture, and let Scotland be a model for other to follow. You can contact the NFUS through its website NFUS Scotland call for more GM train wrecks, GM freeze Press Release, 25.03.10Scott Kilman, Superweed Outbreak Triggers Arms Race, Wall Street Journal, 4.06.10Dennis Sherer, Weeds that defy pesticide invading farms, Times Daily, 4.07.10William Neuman and Andrew Pollack, Farmers Cope With Roundup-Resistant Weeds, New York Times, 3.05.10David Mercer, Roundup resistant weeds pose environmental threat, Associated Press, USA Today, 21.06.10Caroline Stocks, Any GM volunteers? NufSaid, 8.07.10, Brad Haire (University of Georgia), Pigweed threatens Georgia cotton industry, South East Farm Press, 6.07.10Brian Cross, Consider economics, legalities of volunteer canola, Saskatoon Newsroom, The Producer, 07.08.10Firmin DeBrabander, The Return of Agent Orange, Counter Punch, 13.07.10Roundup's potency declines and foils U.S. Farmers, TraceConsult, 30.07.10Georgina Gustin, Roundup's Potency Slips, Foils Farmers, St. Louis Post-Dispatch (MO), 25.07.10Natach Gilbert, Transgenic canola found growing freely in North Dakota, Nature, 6.08.10F. William Engdahl, GMO Crop Catastrophe in USA , a lesson for EU, Marie-Monique Robin, The World According to Monsanto, The New Press 2010, ISBN 978-1-59558-426-7Tim King, Judge in California Could Halt planting of Genetically Modified Sugar Beets, Salem-News.com, 5.03.10.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5329 

The huge resources and expertise being diverted into the science of DNA have been pushed relentlessly forward by a commercial carrot dangled by a patent-shaped hand.
Up until now, what's been keeping the biotech seed and gene-testing companies in business has been the acquiescence of patenting offices which exist to promote and protect commercial interests.
Common sense might disallow the idea that a component of life which is self-replicating infinitely evolving, dispersive, and is, in some cases, a result of completely natural evolution can be patented.
Industry and patent offices seem to have easily convinced themselves that common sense can be by-passed when there's profit in the offing.
Predictably, the realities created by patents on DNA are beginning to become too apparent to ignore.
Starting with the concentration of the global seed market in the hands of a few multinational patent-holders, we have rapidly witnessed the inevitable consequences: seed price hyper-inflation, erosion of seed diversity (especially of traditional seed availability) and along with this consumer choice, diversion of land-use and food-crops into production of industrial chemicals, and a stifling of independent science and innovation.
The biggest problem is that the DNA in seed is not only fundamental to seed and crop quality. It also lies behind the resulting food and feed quality, the chemicals which can be extracted from the crop, the quality of livestock fed on the feed, and the quality of food or other materials derived from the livestock. By patenting the DNA in the seed, control of the entire farming system and food chain becomes possible.
In 2010, at least 250 patent applications for GM plants were filed with the European Patent Office (EPO). A further 100 patent applications were filed for conventional, plant breeding. In other words, the principle of patenting life put in place to suit the biotech industry's need for a high price tag on its expensively-developed GM seed, has insidiously been extended to cover any life-form the seed industry wants to own.
The principle of patenting DNA has even extended to natural human genes, on both sides of the Atlantic.
However, the absurdity of patents on DNA is beginning to be noticed in regulatory circles.
In Europe, the EPO is in the process of setting a precedent that conventional breeding methods themselves can't be patented. However, one month after the announcement of this decision, it wrote a letter to Seminis seed company (a subsidiary of Monsanto) indicating no objections to its patent application for a conventionally bred tomato with reduced core. It seems the EPO can't get its head round what should or shouldn't be patentable.  has spelled out to the Members of the European Parliament and European Commission what is wrong: Clear and effective prohibitions from patentability are largely missing from the present legal framework. Existing prohibitions concerning patents on plants and animals can be easily circumvented, as shown by many decisions of the EPO. For example, patents on gene sequences and breeding processes are easily extended to plant and animal varieties.In America, where gene patents have been issued for decades, the decisions of the patent office on patentability of natural genes have, for the first time, been examined in court.
The case was brought by academic representatives, doctors and patients to question the patents granted on human genes thought to be linked to cancer and used as to predict risk of the disease.
Their complaint concerned the restriction of scientific and clinical research, and the denial of patients' access to second opinions and medical care by the patent holder.
With a price-tag of $3,000 per test, and revenues of over 300 million by one gene testing company alone, the court's opinion was as described by one genetics professor as a bit of a landmark, kind of a line in the sand. What the judge said was:The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is 'isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth ... 
We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the long-standing practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA ...
The information encoded in DNA is not information about its own molecular structure incidental to its biological function, as is the case with adrenaline or other chemicals found in the body ... 
this informational quality (of DNA) is unique among the chemical compounds found in our bodies, and it would be erroneous to view DNA as 'no different' than other chemicals previously the subject of patents ... 
DNA, in particular the ordering of its nucleotides, therefore serves as the physical embodiment of the laws of nature  those that define the construction of the human body ... 
the preservation of this defining characteristic of DNA in its native and isolated forms mandates the conclusion that the challenged composition claims are to unpatentable products of nature.This pronouncement will, no doubt, have repercussions around the world: the EPO will have to rethink it's 2008 decision to grant patents on human genes, and the Australian government will shortly be receiving a call from one of it's MPs to amend its own Patent Act in line with the US.Perhaps someone will run some other profound questions through the US courts sometime soon. For example: how can an inherently self-varying and mobile material be defined or controlled sufficiently to apply a patent law to it? Or, will man-made DNA constructs still be patentable when they mutate or move into non-target organisms?The next absurdity to be tackled is how a change small enough to be concealed from the person who will absorb it into their body, is nevertheless large enough to permit control of our entire present and future food quality, food price and, ultimately, food availability by purely commercial interests? has prepared an open letter to the European Parliament and the European Commission because Legal clarification through a change in European patent laws is urgently needed. Individuals and organisations are invited to sign the letter. Open letter To Members of the European Parliament and European CommissionEuropean Patent Office to grant Monsanto company patent on tomatoes  Seed monopolists increasingly gaining market control, No Patents On Seeds, 9.03.11Death of Gene Patents? Institute of Science in Society, 11.11.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9970 

In December 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made a landmark decision that the process of conventional plant breeding could not be patented. Concerns were voiced at the time that the move was window dressing, and that all the products of conventional breeding would still be patentable.Sure enough, almost immediately, a patent was granted on a conventionally bred tomato with a reduced core. Five months on, melons too became a Monsanto 'invention', complete with patent.In a blatant case of biopiracy, non-sweet virus-resistant melons from India have been bred with sweet melons from elsewhere to produce disease-resistant strains. summed up the whole situation thus: This patent is an abuse of patent law because it is not a real invention. It contravenes European law excluding patents on conventional breeding. Further, it is a case of biopiracy, since the original and most relevant plants come from India. Patents like this are blocking access to the genetic resources necessary for further breeding, and basic resources needed for daily life are subordinated to monopolisation and financial speculation.Besides the move to replace plant-breeders rights with the much wider control attaching to patents, Monsanto's melons are part of a bigger issue. The Netherlands seed company which actually bred (not created) the melons was taken over by Monsanto in 2008. This acquisition was part of a strategy of collecting promising germplasm and expertise from all over the world (See below).Monsanto's habit of collecting germplasm.Monsanto has a catalogue that now spans 4,000 vegetables and fruit varieties across 20 species.This resource is already being turned into profit by the generation of novel, non-GM, varieties such as 'EverMild' tearless onions and melons which customers can be sure are ripe because they turn pink when they're ready to eat.The venture is unfolding against a background of escalating sales of fresh produce in the US.Biotech's collection-habit is a paramount concern because it promises to exert its influence, not only world-wide, but also on the whole future of humanity.Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Picture from Wiki CommonsAn escalating danger has already been recognised that we are fast losing the plant varieties vital for a sustainable future food supply. As a safeguard against this, the  was created to preserve global germplasm diversity for posterity. However, the Svalbard project may not give us much protection: it's more like putting all our eggs into one basket and giving it to the fox to carry.The Center for Food Safety (CFS) has long been an advocate for in situ protection of plant diversity. The Center stresses that ex situ saving should be a last resort and carried out in the most local and ecologically appropriate way possible.Experience has shown that huge seed vaults inevitably run into practical problems with funding, staffing and routine seed testing. Svalbard has already revealed all these basic flaws.Another fundamental question is being asked about the Global Seed Vault: its purpose is to safeguard our food supply, but it's also perfectly poised to safeguard the ability of the biotech industry to control our future agriculture.There is a troubling connection between Svalbard and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and between the Gates Foundation and Svalbard has received almost $30 million from the Gates Foundation, by far the largest support of any non-governmental entity. The Foundation has long been a determined supporter of spreading GM crops throughout the developing world. Notably, it has invested $23 million in Monsanto to help the Company through financial woes, and has hired a former Monsanto Vice President to run its International Development Program.Sceptics have concluded the Gates Foundation is not so much a benevolent organisation as a 'respectable' surrogate to promote Monsanto's interests in Svalbard.Add to this that there have also been million-dollar donations to the Global Vault from biotech giants Dupont/Pioneer and Syngenta. Between them, Monsanto, Dupont/Pioneer and Syngenta own 50% of the world's commercial seeds, and an awful lot of patents.None of these companies are renowned for their altruism, nor for their concern for the integrity and diversity of seeds. They have, in fact, been steadily eroding seed diversity through genetic transformation and patenting for decades.A CFS legal team has revealed another sinister aspect: the deposit agreements used in Svalbard are extremely complicated, opaque, at times downright misleading and involve difficult questions and interpretation of international law. Users of the seed-bank, especially developing countries, are unlikely to have the legal expertise, nor the resources, to hire the legal expertise, to decipher the myriad complications of the Svalbard contract: they have little chance of understanding or controlling what can happen to their deposits, much less give informed consent.The conclusion is that corporations are using Svalbard as an opportunity to get a grip on the world's future agriculture: the seed-bank is a source of germplasm for creating patentable or GM seed varieties, and endless profit.The Svalbard Global Seed Vault is also usurping local seed saving. Check out a recent speech given by Kent Whealy about the fate of the Seed Savers Exchange which he founded and tended for over three decades:PDF file: Svalbard Doomsday Vault: Biopiracy by U.N. TreatyCorporate ownership of life tied up in a Gordion Knot of legal gobbledygook is one dream of the future we could do without. If you haven't done so already, consider adding your name to No Patent on Seed's open letter to the European Parliament and European CommissionTim Lloyd, Monsanto's new gambit: fruits and veggies, Harvest, 8.04.11Andrew Kimbrell, Seed Saving and Seed Banks, Center for Food Safety, April 2011Melons now a Monsanto invention, No Patents on Seeds Release, 17.05.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6163 


Poverty, hunger and education
Ethiopian mothers with babies. Image Wiki Commons
In March 2011, Michael Moore told his fellow Americans:Today just 400 Americans have the same wealth as half of all Americans combined ... Four hundred obscenely rich people, most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008, now have as much loot, stock and property as the assets of 155 million Americans combined. He explained how these 400 Americans got what they have: they bought and paid for hundreds of politicians across the country to do their bidding for them, they control the media to shape American minds, they have created a poison pill that they know you will never want to take in the form of a threat of mass economic annihilation.
In 2009, Biotechnology companies spent $70 million on lobbying the US government to get their own way. Political action committees, formed by some food and agri-biotech firms, have 'donated' an average of $2 million a year to congressional candidates to get their own way. Former members of Congress have received fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars from biotechnology companies for representing biotechnology interests to their former colleagues in Congress. The Biotechnology Industry Organization, which represents biotechnology interests, spent over 4 million in the first half of 2010 lobbying for FDA approval of biotech political priorities such as approval of GM animals and cloned livestock in Europe.
Meanwhile, a Scottish charity, Mary's Meals, founded 9 years ago, is now feeding half a million children in need round the world every day. The average cost of providing food for a child for a year is 9.40. Mary's Meals not only addresses the immediate needs of hungry children by giving them a daily meal, it also allows those children to receive an education that can provide an escape from poverty for themselves and their communities.
Most GM crops have been developed to feed to animals to provide meat for the well-fed or, more recently, to produce biofuels to run cars for the well-off to sit in.
How many of the world's children could have been lifted out of poverty and hunger by the sums of money used to line the pockets of American politicians and lobbyists? How many of the world's children could have become healthy working adults if they had had a tiny part of the sums of money spent on manipulating America's political agenda? How many of the world's children could have received the education they need to become the providers of the future if they'd had access to the sums spent by the rich trying to get richer?
The most important statistic of all is, as Michael Moore reminds us, that even though the few seem to hold all the money and all the cards, there are more of us that there are of them.
Mary's Meals can always use donations and volunteers. Check out Kirsteen Paterson, Scots charity is feeding the world, Metro 4.02.11Michael Moore's speech in Madison, Wisconsin, 5.03.11Food and Agriculture biotechnology Industry Spends More Than Half a Billion Dollars to Influence Congress, Food & Water Watch Issue Brief, November 2010Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7994 


Progress in Cyprus, Madiera, Sweden, and Scotland
Protest in Sweden. Photo from FlickrA landmark, unanimous vote by the government of Cyprus has passed a law making it compulsory to display GM foods on separate shelves in supermarkets.
The new bill provides for a prominent sign stating clearly that the food is GM and, also, for labelling in all three languages appropriate to Cypriot culture, Greek, Turkish and English.  It stipulates hefty fines for non-compliance.
Under EU legislation, each member state is free to display GM foods as  it sees fit.  This seems to be the first time anyone has taken the  initiative to use this power.
The Cypriot Green party were celebrating because the bill caps their efforts of Predictably, Cyprus' GM separation bill was stopped in its tracks in 2005, after underhand threats by the US government.  The president at that time was unofficially strongly urged by Washington to make sure such a law never got through parliament, because Cypriot-US relations would be damaged.  The US embassy expressed concern that separation of GM foods (most of which are produced in America) would stigmatise them.
The legal move in Cyprus follows another European GM landmark last year when Madeira became the first territory to be given formal permission to remain completely free of GM organisms.
Portugal told the European Commission that: "the risk to nature presented by the deliberate release of GMOs is so dangerous and poses such a threat to the environmental and ecological health of Madeira, that it is not worthwhile risking their use, either directly in the agricultural sector or even on an experimental basis."Part of Madeira's case rests on the country's status as a UN-designated World Heritage Site due to its unique subtropical laurel trees, once widespread in Europe.  The Island's significant earnings from tourists who come to see the forest would, of course, be as threatened by any GM infiltration as its natural biodiversity.
Another first in the EU has just rolled off the press.  Swedish livestock producers and food manufacturers have volunteered not to permit GM feed to be used for their animals.  After a long campaign by the Swedish Consumer Coalition which included a boycott of cheap imported meat and strong lobbying by the  GM-soya importer supplying a few intensive pig farms, the biggest slaughterhouse company has decided to stop accepting GM-fed pigs and other slaughterhouses have declared their intention to do likewise.These cases mark the unofficial beginning of EU member states lawfully taking control of GM in their own lands.  They set a precedent which might be contagious and which America would rather not see.Protection of the natural environment, safeguarding of the tourist industry, respect for consumer opinion, and upholding the people's right to choose what they buy and eat are all at the heart of the well-being of Scotland just as much as Cyprus, Madeira and Sweden.Fortunately, we have the Scottish National Party now fully in power,  whose position on GM is clear:While the SNP are open to examining the possibilities, and have no problem with laboratory trials, they are not convinced by the case for this particular technology.  There remain too many unknowns in terms of health and environmental risks; consumers have made it clear that they do not want GM products on their shelves or in their fields; and the seed multinationals have grossly oversold the potential of GM: they have had most of the rest of the world outside Europe to play with and have come up with very little.Scotland will remain GM-free, safe, and prosperous if its government keeps listening to its people, and if people keep demanding adherence to the present practical and precautionary approach.Elias Hazou, Separate shelves for GM foods is not law, www.cyprus-mail.com, 8.04.11James Kanter, E.U. Signals Big Shift on genetically Modified Crops, New York Times, 9.05.10E-mail from Alyn Smith MEP, SNP headquarters, Edinburgh, 18.04.11Bengt Ingerstam, Sweden will soon be GM-free! Swedish Consumer Coalition, 28.04.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3350 


RNA interference technology... the next GM adventure

The latest thing in genetic manipulation is RNA interference: this is even less predictable and controllable than artificial DNA.
The first commercial GM crop, back in the 1990s, was a long-life tomato which had had one of its genes switched off. The engineered DNA which achieved this wasn't a gene, but a 'back-to-front' version of one of the plants own genes. The effect of the 'backwards' DNA was to interfere with the expression of a key gene necessary for the ripening process, causing a delay in softening of the tomatoes. The only artificial gene this plant contained was an antibiotic resistance gene, and the risk assessment successfully focused on this side issue and on the artificial DNA construct, ignoring any effects of the actual transformation process. Despite these limitations, all subsequent GM risk assessments seem to have been largely modelled on this first one. The long-life GM tomato was a biological and commercial failure.Since then, the biotech industry has become pretty much fixated on three types of genetic manipulation: 'Bt' look-alike genes which are toxic to insect pests; toxin-neutralising genes which allow the crop to survive weedkillers; and paired fertility-adjusting genes which control cross-breeding of the GM plants. Commercial crops with other artificial characteristics inserted seem thin on the ground, a fact which has raised speculation that genetic transformation is an inefficiently unreliable technique which should be discontinued in favour of other more successful and less intrusive modern breeding technologies.However, there are signs that genetic engineers are shifting their attention away from the pasting of re-invented genes into plants, and abandoning the unpredictable 'backwards' DNA to switch genes off. They are devising more sophisticated versions of DNA technology to interfere with the normal functioning of genes.Far from being a few genes sitting in a sea of 'junk' DNA, the genome science is now uncovering is a plethora of different types of DNA with different functions. Some DNA, the type mimicked by genetic engineers, causes a protein to be generated by the cell. The DNA achieves this by constructing and sending out a messenger molecule related to itself, referred to as 'RNA'. A second type of DNA is not a gene and doesn't generate a protein, but it still functions by sending out RNA. The purpose of this type of RNA is to control all the on-going physiological processes in the cell which it does by interacting with the activities of the DNA and the other RNA.Unlike DNA which is a highly stable molecule, these various RNAs don't usually hang around long in the cell: they act and are quickly destroyed. As a result, they have been very difficult to study.One new focus of genetic engineering has been to insert artificial DNA which produces an RNA designed to interfere with the expression of a specific gene. Such techniques are receiving major attention in a clinical setting; for example, gene-therapy to knock out 'faulty' genes or genes associated with disease is being tried out. In the world of plants, biotech research has focused on how to keep the active RNA molecule, which is inherently unstable, intact long enough to be useful outside the plant.The answer so far seems to be to create paired RNAs which stabilise each other by sticking together, and can even resist digestion. This type of 'double-stranded' RNA is found in nature only in certain viruses, referred to as 'retro-viruses'. You are probably familiar with retro-viruses, because this group includes leukaemia- and AIDS-causing viruses. Some retro-viruses can integrate into the host genome and be passed to the next generation, and infectious particles are known to be passed on in breast milk. They can, of course, only be pathogenic if the infected host's immune system fails to identify and destroy them. A plant or animal which recognises a piece of double-stranded RNA inside it will trigger a virus-alert and get rid of the intruder. Genetic engineers have, however, successfully introduced a variety of structural tricks in their novel RNAs to evade the immune response in both plants and animals.GM crops of the future look likely to contain two pieces of artificial DNA, one for each RNA strand. It seems there is no need for them to be close to each other in the genome, but they will, of course, have to be accompanied by the usual consort of viral promoters to make them work, marker DNA to see if they're there, carrier DNA to get them in, and joining-up sections of DNA etc. The double-stranded RNA generated by the crop will be designed to interfere with a key gene in the metabolism of an insect pest, which will die after eating it.Institute of Science in Society has long been warning that, after the usual denial of any unwelcome science relating to GM, the RNA designed to selectively knock out one specific gene is not so specific after all, and interferes with a whole range of other, non-target, genes. Would the same stabilised and disguised RNA which kills insects quickly, make humans very ill, but slowly?Also of concern is the creation of a crop generating large quantities of material peculiar to pathogenic viruses. This is made worse because they are attached to viral promoters which can be active in any organism, and the fact that retro-viruses are notorious for their rapid genetic variation. Even if defective, viruses can make use of other 'helper' viruses or foreign viral material in their surroundings to make up for deficiencies, in fact, many pathogenic viruses are defective. It's not difficult to envisage how the links between natural pathogenic particles abounding in the environment and a plentiful supply of spare double-stranded RNA plus powerful viral promoters in crops, could lead to the emergence of widespread novel crop diseases which could obliterate our staple food supply. The inevitability of genetic pollution which will bring together different types of double-stranded RNA will make these crops a time-bomb. Neither is it difficult to envisage how links between viruses abounding in ourselves (two per cent of the human genome is estimated to be made up of retroviral sequences) and a frequent exposure to spare, unusual, double-stranded RNA plus powerful viral promoters in our food could evolve novel viral human diseases.Safety assessments on GM crops in the US remain essentially voluntary and are now much less exacting than the prototype which generated FDA approval of the long-life tomato. Unwisely, the days of escaping a potato famine by rushing off to another continent are over: problems over there will quickly become problems over here.The EU has taken considerably more care than the rest of the world and has drafted carefully detailed regulations for GMOs, but our immediate worry is that the existing regulations have not been designed to deal with this type of genetic manipulation. Our system focuses on such concepts as the 'history of safe use' of the non-GM sources of all the materials used to construct the novel organisms, not on how the whole or the parts have been changed in the process. Safety assessment is focused on the novel protein generated, not the emergence of unexpected knock-on effects of the transformation. The double-stranded RNA does not generate a protein, nor does it really have a species of origin except that it is designed to complement a section of DNA in the target insect.These novel, novel crops could be slipped onto your plate as just another insect-resistant crop. Or worse, as 'safer' non-GM crops because they don't contain any new genes.(This article is adapted from an article which first appeared on GM-free Scotland in February 2008. View an archived copy of that article Institute of Science in Society Press Release, 05.04.05The Biochemist online, 26:5 October 2004Shlomai and Shaul, Liver International, December 2004, 24:6 pp.526-31Monsanto Patent on 'Double-stranded RNA stabilized in planta', 01.11.07Baum et al. Letter in Nature Biotechnology, online 4.11.07Levin et al. Plant Molecular Biology, 44:6 December 2000Belinda Martineau, First Fruit, 2001, ISBN 0-07-140027-3University of Cape Town, Department of Medical Microbiology, 3rd Year Notes for Medical Students 1999Latham and Wilson, 2007, Molecular Plant Pathology, 8(6) Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3081 


Roundup and birth defects - a new report
'Roundup' herbicide is toxic, and not only to plants. In animals, it causes endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, reproductive and developmental toxicity, neuro-toxicity, and cancer, as well as birth defects.The science has been summarised in a new report, , co-authored by a group of international scientists and researchers. The Report details the published, peer-reviewed, freely accessible and mounting evidence of harmful effects. Some of the findings are recent, but some go back a far as the 1980s. All of them have been ignored. also asks Is the public being kept in the dark? The question is answered in a blow-by-blow account of how EU regulators have manipulated the information presented to them to promote and preserve the Roundup in your food chain and to protect the interests of the biotech industry. The story isn't pretty: a disgraceful combination of cherry-picking the studies, redefining scientific terms, disconnecting the corroborating data, shifting the regulatory goal-posts and avoiding transparency at all costs.Roundup has been on the market for decades. Why is it suddenly a problem?This herbicide is now a problem because GM 'Roundup Ready' crops have been designed to tolerate it. As a result, Roundup accumulates in Roundup Ready crop plants. The more Roundup farmers spray on their GM crops, the more Roundup accumulates in the crop and in the soil. And it doesn't go away.Given this predictable increased exposure to the herbicide, you might think it must have been checked for safety? The problem with studying 'Roundup' for safety (or anything else) is that, just because it's called 'Roundup' on the label, doesn't mean it's just one substance nor just one product. Roundup is a cocktail of chemicals which has evolved over the decade to make it increasingly lethal to plants and increasingly easily absorbed by all plants, both non-GM (weeds) and GM (food). Add to this that the ingredients are a commercial secret. It has been impossible for systematic studies of all the constituents (individually and combined) of all the successive Roundup formulations to be carried out. Moreover, safety studies have been based on antiquated methods much less sensitive than the modern techniques now available.And as if all that isn't bad enough ...The problem with Roundup is that it has been used so excessively, courtesy of Roundup Ready crops, that Roundup Resistant weeds have evolved. The desperate answer to Roundup-resistant weeds is to spray ever more Roundup and a stack of other toxic chemicals, all of which end up in food and feed.In short, the problem with Roundup is that it's present in food in increasing quantities, in increasingly toxic formulations and in increasing combination with other, potentially synergistic, toxins. Commercials interests move much faster than the science needed to support them, and both move faster than the regulators.Here are just some examples of what the Report uncovered.The EU manufactured a loophole in its own laws to please industry and let their chemicals flow unimpeded into Europe. Although a new regulation (1107/2009) mandating a new, stringent, approval process is now in place, regulators have found themselves so overwhelmed by the deluge which poured through the loophole, that they have postponed the review of many toxic agri-products including that of Roundup's active ingredient, glyphosate. In practice glyphosate safety may not revisited under the new EU regulations until 2030. In the meantime the outdated assessment method will be applied, and if Roundup passed this with flying colours last time, it will do so again.Regulators have made a habit of arbitrary exclusion of key sets of data on Roundup's safety. Serious problems revealed by feeding studies in rabbits were dismissed because it was decided rats should be the only model used in such studies. The thinking seems to be that rabbits are an inappropriately sensitive model when it comes to Roundup. However, the possibility that humans are even more sensitive than rabbits doesn't seem to figure. (Readers might remember that the UK Food Standards Agency dismissed a study which found severe health problems in GM-fed rats in favour of one which found no ill-effects in mice, see   GMFS News Archive, February 2009).Antiquated tests have been mandated under the pretense of setting standards in the science. Older tests are based on gross changes of a very narrow range of parameters. Modern methods have identified predictive functional changes at the sub-cellular level which are risk factors for chronic disease: these can be used to identify windows during which the physiology is vulnerable to damage for example from endocrine disruptors. Modern, sensitive methods are disallowed just because they're new.Established models are rejected. Early embryological mechanisms are so similar in all animals that most studies are carried out on models which can be studied easily because they occur outside the mother i.e. amphibian and chicken eggs. This has allowed the regulators to ignore them because frogs and hens are not humans. It has also led to the declaration that studies based on the micro-injection of amphibian embryos with glyphosate are too unrealistic to take the defects produced seriously. Since, unlike the human embryo in the womb, amphibian eggs have a thick protective layer to enable free existence in a pond, injection of toxins is often the only way to expose them to a chemical. It is a very spurious and ignorant objection to one of the most damaging studies to emerge in the literature (see   GMFS News Archive, October 2010)Recommendations made in the Report include:immediate withdrawal of Roundup and glyphosate until a new review has been carried out using the full range of up-to-date testsassessments must include all adverse effects found in the peer-reviewed open-access literatureindustry tests must respond to the findings of independent, peer-reviewed studiesregulators must abandon the habit of repeating outdated and misleading assurances about the safety of Roundup and glyphosate.The authors call for transparency at all levels of the assessment process and for all available data to be used in the assessment process.We seem to be living with a severe case of regulatory dysfunction born of addiction to GM. Like any other addict, the regulators will be the last to admit their problem. Unless you take action, they will continue to manipulate the rules and reason away or trivialise all problems which emerge.Roundup and Birth Defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? is a long report, but very readable. Check it out for yourself at: www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5Like all the damning evidence described in this Report, it will be brushed under the carpet unless you make it clear to your MP, MSP and MEP that you expect action to be taken to protect yourself and your family from Roundup and glyphosate.Michael Antoniou et al., Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source, June 2011Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8828 


Roundup causes birth defects in humans

Spraying weeds with Roundup herbicide kills them. Spraying GM Roundup Ready crops with Roundup fills them up with Roundup. Spraying people and their food with Roundup has been 'proved' safe. But is it?Reports from South America of congenital malformations in babies of women exposed during pregnancy to the herbicides sprayed on nearby fields, have at last received the serious attention they deserve.The main herbicide in question is 'glyphosate', the active ingredient of 'Roundup' which most GM crops, especially soya, have been engineered to withstand.A study has now been published which details, not only the developmental abnormalities induced by glyphosate, but the nature of the early tissue disruption involved, and the actual biochemical interference which distorts the tissue growth.Argentinean researchers used frog embryos, whose early cellular differentiation into different tissues is very similar to the human embryo and is regulated by very similar mechanisms. Their findings were backed up using chicks which are known to be another good model for the human embryo.As a healthy embryo elongates, natural chemical gradients are set up along its length so that one end develops into the head and nervous system and the other becomes the tail. The vital chemical in this process is retinoic acid which acts on the cascade of genes involved in organ-formation and tissue stability. Precise adjustment of the level of retinoic acid in different parts of the embryo is vital for normal development. This is achieved by a localised enzyme which destroys retinoic acid and so selectively reduces its presence. The problem with Roundup is that glyphosate interferes with that vital enzyme, and levels of retinoic acid remain high and active in the wrong cells. Embryos exposed to high levels of retinoic acid suffer a failure of brain, craniofacial and eye development leading, for example, to anencephaly.The quantities of glyphosate required to cause reproducible malformations were tiny: 1/5000 dilution for frog embryos and 1/3,500 for chick embryos. The amount given to the embryos was about one tenth of the EU allowable limit for glyphosate. Allowable limits normally include a safety factor of at least 1/100 below the level at which no harm has been detected. The observed malformations were dependent on the dose (this is a key indicator used to prove toxic effect). Although there are other 'commercially confidential' chemicals in Roundup, added to aid cell penetration and increase the desired toxic effect in weeds and which may exacerbate the problem, the researchers identified glyphosate as the ingredient which is at the basis of the observed harm to animal embryos. Studies have shown that the human placenta is permeable to glyphosate.The first official report, commissioned by one State Government in Argentina, documented a four-fold increase in both cancers and birth defects in the ten years since Roundup Ready crops were introduced there (2000 to 2009). Besides observations from the villages of South America, other relevant laboratory-based evidence of the danger of Roundup has been trickling out. For example: disruption of the placental enzyme needed to create the necessary endocrine hormone balance (via androgen to oestrogen conversion); impairment of mitochondria (i.e. the cells' energy sources); cell toxicity and death; DNA instability which could lead to cancer.The authors noted the paucity of data regarding chronic exposure to sublethal doses (of glyphosate-based herbicides) during embryonic development, and the preponderance of industry data in safety evaluations. Crucially, tests indicate that chemical measurements of retinoic acid in cells are not sensitive enough to reveal the subtle differences vital to healthy cell function: the use of embryo models as sensitive biosensors of the toxicity of industrial pollutants such as Roundup are clearly needed.The Institute of Science in Society has pointed out that glyphosate binds metal ions, and that this could alter the activity of the many metal-dependent enzymes in any life-form. It comments: What is becoming clear is that glyphosate can poison crops, soils, wild life, livestock, human beings and the entire ecosystem in multiple systemic ways, and a global ban is long overdue.Roundup Ready plants have been designed to withstand glyphosate because they've been given an artificial enzyme which can take over when the natural glyphosate-sensitive enzyme (vital for protein synthesis) has been knocked out by spraying. This is a clever technical trick. However, it also means that the Roundup Ready plants accumulate the glyphosate sprayed on them. As superweeds spring up beside them, Roundup Ready plants are sprayed with glyphosate (and other more toxic herbicides) at greater concentrations and with greater frequency. The end result can only be increased levels of toxins in your food. As this most recent study shows, current levels of herbicide residues may already be too high for safety due to inadequate test sensitivity.Glyphosate-rich GM foods have been in the North and South American food chain for some years, with no means in place to identify or monitor those consuming them, especially the unborn. Malformed embryos commonly abort, and tend not to become a statistic. Under these circumstances the level of the problem could be masked for many years.The vast majority of GM crops being grown today and under development, are Roundup Ready or designed to withstand other herbicides which haven't been adequately tested for their ability to cause birth defects in humans. (This article is adapted from an article which originally appeared on GM-free Scotland in October 2010. The original article is archived Alejandra Paganelli et al., 2010, Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling, Chemical Research in Toxicology, published on-line August 9 2010Michael Antoniou, et al., GM Soya Sustainable? Responsible? Report 2010Mae-Wan Ho, Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, Institute of Science in Society Report 04.10.10, www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosateCausesBirthDefects.phpThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4680 


Reports from South America of congenital malformations in babies of women exposed during pregnancy to the herbicides sprayed on nearby fields, have at last received the serious attention they deserve.
The main herbicide in question is 'glyphosate', the active ingredient of 'Roundup' which most GM crops, especially soya, have been engineered to withstand.
A study has now been published which details, not only the developmental abnormalities induced by glyphosate, but the nature of the early tissue disruption involved, and the actual biochemical interference which distorts the tissue growth.
Argentinean researchers used frog embryos, whose early cellular differentiation into different tissues is very similar to the human embryo and is regulated by very similar mechanisms. Their findings were backed up using chicks which are known to be another good model for the human embryo.
As a healthy embryo elongates, natural chemical gradients are set up along its length so that one end develops into the head and nervous system and the other becomes the tail. The vital chemical in this process is retinoic acid which acts on the cascade of genes involved in organ-formation and tissue stability. Precise adjustment of the level of retinoic acid in different parts of the embryo is vital for normal development. This is achieved by a localised enzyme which destroys retinoic acid and so selectively reduces its presence. The problem with Roundup is that glyphosate interferes with that vital enzyme, and levels of retinoic acid remain high and active in the wrong cells. Embryos exposed to high levels of retinoic acid suffer a failure of brain, craniofacial and eye development leading, for example, to anencephaly.
The quantities of glyphosate required to cause reproducible malformations were tiny: 1/5000 dilution for frog embryos and 1/3,500 for chick embryos. The amount given to the embryos was about one tenth of the EU allowable limit for glyphosate. Allowable limits normally include a safety factor of at least 1/100 below the level at which no harm has been detected. The observed malformations were dependent on the dose (this is a key indicator used to prove toxic effect). Although there are other 'commercially confidential' chemicals in Roundup, added to aid cell penetration and increase the desired toxic effect in weeds and which may exacerbate the problem, the researchers identified glyphosate as the ingredient which is at the basis of the observed harm to animal embryos. Studies have shown that the human placenta is permeable to glyphosate.
The first official report, commissioned by one State Government in Argentina, documented a four-fold increase in both cancers and birth defects in the ten years since Roundup Ready crops were introduced there (2000 to 2009). Besides observations from the villages of South America, other relevant laboratory-based evidence of the danger of Roundup has been trickling out. For example: disruption of the placental enzyme needed to create the necessary endocrine hormone balance (via androgen to oestrogen conversion); impairment of mitochondria (i.e. the cells' energy sources); cell toxicity and death; DNA instability which could lead to cancer.
The authors noted the paucity of data regarding chronic exposure to sublethal doses (of glyphosate-based herbicides) during embryonic development, and the preponderance of industry data in safety evaluations. Crucially, tests indicate that chemical measurements of retinoic acid in cells are not sensitive enough to reveal the subtle differences vital to healthy cell function: the use of embryo models as sensitive biosensors of the toxicity of industrial pollutants such as Roundup are clearly needed.
The Institute of Science in Society has pointed out that glyphosate binds metal ions, and that this could alter the activity of the many metal-dependent enzymes in any life-form. It comments 
What is becoming clear is that glyphosate can poison crops, soils, wild life, livestock, human beings and the entire ecosystem in multiple systemic ways, and a global ban is long overdue.Roundup Ready plants have been designed to withstand glyphosate because they've been given an artificial enzyme which can take over when the natural glyphosate-sensitive enzyme (vital for protein synthesis) has been knocked out by spraying. This is a clever technical trick. However, it also means that the Roundup Ready plants accumulate the glyphosate sprayed on them. As superweeds spring up beside them, Roundup Ready plants are sprayed with glyphosate (and other more toxic herbicides) at greater concentrations and with greater frequency. The end result can only be increased levels of toxins in your food. As this most recent study shows, current levels of herbicide residues may already be too high for safety due to inadequate test sensitivity.Glyphosate-rich GM foods have been in the North and South American food chain for some years, with no means in place to identify or monitor those consuming them, especially the unborn. Malformed embryos commonly abort, and tend not to become a statistic. Under these circumstances the level of the problem could be masked for many years.The vast majority of GM crops being grown today and under development, are Roundup Ready or designed to withstand other herbicides which haven't been adequately tested for their ability to cause birth defects in humans. What this means is that the moment Europe caves in to biotech industry pressure to accept GM, your food will be full of glyphosate and other herbicides. Tell the US Food Standards Agency and your MEP that any question of approving a herbicide-tolerant crop must be rejected until safe levels of the chemicals they will contain have been independently established and detailed monitoring for compliance is in place.
Readers may have noticed that 'retinoic acid' has been mentioned before in GM-free Scotland articles in connection with one of the biotech industry's flagship projects to gain acceptance for GM foods: 'golden rice' enriched with vitamin A (see GM issues  
This novel rice is destined for areas in the world where vitamin A deficiency causes major health problems, especially in children.  Currently, children at risk are given supplements, however, golden rice will represent mass medication.
Vitamin A, which we normally consume in foods such as carrots, is the natural biochemical precursor of retinoic acid.  The unnatural form of vitamin A which is generated by golden rice's artificial genes will be eaten by the general population, including pregnant women.  This clearly carries a risk of disturbing retinoic acid metabolism, especially its vital balance in the embryo. 
Golden rice has been through no meaningful feeding-studies to assess its safety.Alejandra Paganelli et al., 2010, Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling, Chemical Research in Toxicology, published on-line August 9 2010Michael Antoniou, et al., GM Soya Sustainable? Responsible? Report 2010Mae-Wan Ho, Lab Study Establishes Glyphosate Link to Birth Defects, Institute of Science in Society Report 04.10.10, www.i-sis.org.uk/glyphosateCausesBirthDefects.php Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9070 


There's evidence of what Roundup does to human cells that Monsanto doesn't like at all.
French scientists have revealed that Monsanto's prize herbicide, Roundup, may not be anything like as safe as previously supposed.In one study, human liver cells, a recognised model for studies of toxic effects, were exposed to four different Roundup formulations and to their active weed-killing ingredient, glyphosate. The results did not support the regulatory agencies around the world who concluded that glyphosate herbicides pose no unreasonable risk to human health (Monsanto 2005). Endocrine disruption was seen after exposure to one formulation of Roundup at a concentration as low as 0.5 ppm (parts per million). At increasing concentrations of the herbicides, DNA damage was observed at 5 ppm and cytotoxic effects were seen at 10 ppm. The maximum allowable residue level of Roundup in animal feed is 400 ppm. The study suggests that, if a safety factor of x100 below the lowest harmful dose is applied, the allowable residue level in human food should be 100,000 times lower than is currently the case.Other studies by the French team have found disruption and death of human placental, umbilical and embryonic cells after exposure to Roundup. Elsewhere, scientists have observed the herbicide to cause impaired liver-cell respiration and chromosome aberrations.Until 1996 and the advent of 'Roundup Ready' GM crops which can accumulate high levels of the herbicide without harm, our food couldn't be sprayed with Roundup. Human safety studies focused on the occupational hazard to farm-workers handling bulk quantities of the weed-killer: the daily intestinal absorption of small amounts of Roundup sequestered inside food was not an issue. Somehow, the possible health effects on the developing embryo and infant were overlooked.The serious safety questions raised by the present findings could put an end to the use of Roundup Ready crops as human food. This would consign most of Monsanto's current GM crop research and development to the dustbin.True to form, the company is not rushing to check up on what its Roundup-sprayed products might be doing to the public, but is busy shooting the French messengers who carried out the experiments.Monsantoblog jumped into action with a blunt discussion written by its Director of Medical Sciences and Outreach. The offending scientists apparently are guilty of choosing to test reproductive cells and to measure endocrine-receptor activity for maximum political ruckus, and not because of a need for optimum scientific understanding.Interestingly, Monsanto's article seems to tell us quite clearly that Roundup is, and indeed always was, unsafe to eat. For example, it stresses: that cells exposed to surfactants such as those included in Roundup, get sick (surfactants are detergent-like chemicals which allow water-soluble glyphosate to penetrate the waxy layer on the outside of leaves, and possibly help entry into the cells too)that the surfactant in Roundup injures cellsthat the disruptions observed would be found in all cellsthat all herbicides have some such damaging surfactants.The Monsanto Director's blunt discussion seems to suggest that NO food should be sprayed with weed-killers because they pose an inherent risk to every cell of our body, leading to chronic disease and reproductive harm.The French scientists also tested the effects of one known adjuvant of Roundup formulations, polyethoxylated tallowamine, or 'POEA', a derivative of fat. Their references for this information are dated 1999 and 2000. They also note that Roundup's adjuvants are usually considered as inert and are protected as a trade secret in manufacturing. The Monsantoblog article makes a point of drawing attention to POEA as a detergent based on natural materials. But is this a smoke-screen? In 2005, when Monsanto was pushing new formulations of Roundup, the original Roundup herbicide which was introduced in 1974 is referred to in the past tense, and its ingredients are clearly identified as glyphosate, water and POEA. There are no secrets there, and presumably no need for secrets since the original Roundup is history. If you've a very suspicious nature, you might wonder if the Roundup formulations now being sprayed on crops have anything as innocent as the suggested POEA in them? You might also suspect Monsanto's eagerness to draw attention to POEA. Whatever the current formulations of Roundup contain, independent scientists aren't likely to be able to do any experiments to assess their safety.Our food watchdog, the Food Standards Agency, should be encouraged to make VERY sure that any inert, and therefore un-metabolised, Roundup ingredients incorporated into our food are safe to eat.(This article is adapted from an article which originally appearedon GM-free Scotland in November 2009. The original article is archived Gasnier et al. (2009) Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine-disruptors in human cell lines, Toxicology, June 2009Benachaur and Seralini (2009), Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology, 22(1)Benachaur et al. (2007) Time- and Dose-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 53:1Richard et al. (2005) Differential Effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Plancental Cells and Aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives 113:6Peixoto, (2005) Comparative effects of the Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, Chemosphere 61:8Rank et al. (1993) Genotoxicity testing of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate isopropylamine using the mouse bone marrow micronucleus test, Salmonella mutagenicity test, and Allium anaphase-telophase test, Mutation Research/Genetic Toxicology 300:1Williams et al. (2000) Safety evaluation and risk assessment of the herbicide Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate for human, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31http://blog.monsantoblog.com/2009/06/23/seralini-safety-study/Monsanto Backgrounder - History of Monsanto's Glyphosate Herbicides, June 2005Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 1023 


Roundup impairs animal fertility

Evidence is accumulating that Roundup herbicide affects fertility.The infamous study by Russian scientist Irina Ermakova, which found that feeding rats on Roundup Ready (RR) soya led to stunted growth, small litter size and pup deaths was dismissed by the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on the basis that an American study on mice published in 2004 had recorded no pup survival, health or litter size problems at all.Using mouse testicular development as a sensitive biomonitor of toxic effects, the American study looked at what happened when the mice were given a diet of RR herbicide-tolerant soya. The authors measured the various cell types present in testicular tissue, and concluded that the transgenic diet had no negative effect.That same year, a preliminary study by an Italian team, also using mouse testis as a bioindicator, appeared in the literature. This team took a close look at subcellular features in the testes of mice fed RR soya. They observed cellular changes typical of those previously linked to stress factors or drugs. The similarity of the test material of these two studies coupled to their contradictory findings and the FSA's apparent eagerness to ignore studies which suggested GM-linked problems in favour of one which found no problems, led us to take a closer look at the two pieces of research.In the US paper all background introductory information is derived from Monsanto. The 'Materials' section specifically mentions that Glyphosate degrades to harmless products, is inactivated rapidly in soil and has low toxicity to animals. After this statement establishing safety, the weedkiller is not mentioned again and formed no part of the study. Note the side-lining of 'Roundup' in favour of the more innocuous 'glyphosate': this seems to be a typical industry slight-of-hand, and one which scientists shouldn't fall for. The testimonial of safety appearing in the description of the materials was presumably an excuse for the absence of data on pesticide applications or residue levels in the test diet. The authors seem to be trying uncommonly hard to draw attention away from herbicide effects. Was someone steering the FSA towards the US study to make sure it got the right message? There's no hint anywhere in the US paper of any relevant background reading into other work suggesting reproductive effects linked to RR soya.The Italian authors on the other hand cite a number of studies indicating adverse reproductive effects from the herbicide, and point out that these suggest glyphosate could have a role in the toxicity they observed. These references were obviously available and relevant to the American team.The studies noted by the Italians don't make comfortable reading:In 1998, a chemical component derived from Roundup was reported to be attaching itself to DNA in mice (Peluso)In 2000, Roundup was reported to disrupt steroid production (Walsh)In 2001, Roundup was reported to disrupt cell division (Marc)Also in the literature at the time:In 2001, glyphosate added to drinking water was reported to induce functional abnormalities in the vital organs of pregnant rats and their foetuses, suggesting the herbicide can cross the placental barrier (Daruich)And subsequent to these, more evidence has emerged:In 2005, Roundup was reported to disrupt endocrine metabolism in placental cells; this finding was confirmed by a later study published in 2007 (Richard, Benachaur)In 2009, Roundup was reported to be lethal to human umbilical cord vein, embryonic kidney and placental cells (Benachaur)This last study tested Roundup at concentrations as low as 1 part per million (or 0.0001%), which is five times the permissible level of glyphosate residues. To put this into context, the maximum level of a contaminant allowed would normally be set at a hundredth of the measured toxic amounts. A five-fold margin is not acceptable as this could too easily be detrimental in exceptional circumstances.Human experiences with glyphosate-containing herbicides are filtering in from abroad. South American countries, caught in the grip of soya monoculture fever, have made many of their communities into unwilling test-animals for the effects of Roundup.In Argentina, GM crops and their inevitable crop-sprayers are within metres of people's homes. One neighbourhood was declared a health emergency area in 2002 after the provincial ministry of health discovered a high incidence of leukemia and genetic malformations. A study of five towns in close proximity to GM soya found ten times more cases of liver cancer, double the number of pancreatic and lung cancer and three times more gastric and testicular cancer than the national average.In Paraguay, now the world's fourth largest exporter of soya, a three-year old child died after intense spraying. The same year (2007) an investigation of the areas of greatest soya production revealed 78% of families had health problems linked to frequent crop spraying, 63% of which were due to contaminated water.Roundup is also being used liberally in Columbia's war on drugs, and, as in all wars, the local civilians have been caught in the cross-fire. Researchers report coca crops there being sprayed with twenty times the maximum recommended dose of Roundup, coupled to a 600-800% higher incidence of DNA damage in people living nearby. The people exposed to the spray, and the subjects of the study, were in neighbouring Ecuador. The South American examples of harm are from very extreme levels of exposure which you're not going to get from your daily soya pinta. However, more limited but cumulative DNA damage from repeated trace doses of the same toxic formulae may simply take longer to kill you.To go back to Irina Ermakova's rat study in which the levels of harm caused to reproduction and to the pups were so extreme that the work was treated with derision by pro-GM scientists and the scientific press. As the FSA said at the time there are a number of possible explanations for the results obtained in this preliminary study, apart from the GM and non-GM origin of the test materials. Without information on a range of important factors, conclusions cannot be drawn from this work. True, so how much Roundup was in the diet of these rats? While all other feeding studies used highly processed RR soya, Ermakova used simple ground soya, along with anything else it might contain. For example, a Japanese team (Teshima et al.), which found no problems in the immune systems of rats or mice fed GM soya chow, used heat-treated soyabean meal, and the American mouse testicular cell study used frozen GM soya chow for the long-term feeding part of the study. Glyphosate is not normally stable at extremes of temperature and the effects of processing the many secret ingredients in the various Roundup formulations are complete unknowns. What was actually fed to the laboratory animals in experiments where the chow had been heated or frozen might be very different from a ground soya paste.A review of the evidence on the safety of glyphosate and Roundup in 2000 found There was no convincing evidence for direct DNA damage in vitro or in vivo, and concluded that, under present and expected conditions of use there was no increased risk of cancer or reproductive effects associated with the herbicide. How does the evidence look now? Is it looking like we are eating bits of Roundup in our food and drink, and even in meat and diary, and are creating fertility problems and cancers in the generation just born?The thorny question of whether 'safe' levels of Roundup are actually safe needs to be urgently revisited in light of science and experience which is suggesting otherwise. Try to jog the FSA's attention, it's a delicate subject which it won't want to tackle, but if enough people ask ...If you want to explore some of the implications of a world suddenly rendered infertile, read P.D. James chilling novel, (This article is adpted from an article which originally appearedon GM-free Scotland in February 2009. The original article is archived Irina Ermakova, Influence of Genetically Modified-SOYA on the Birth-Weight and Survival of Rat Pups: Preliminary Study, Paper originally presented to the National Association for Genetic Security symposium on genetic modification, 10.10.05, Andrew Marshall, GM soybeans and health safety  a controversy reexamined, Nature Biotechnology, 25:9 September 2007Ermakova, Leifert, Heinemann, Cummins, Chassy Letters to the Editor, Biotechnology, 25 2007Statement on the affect of GM soya on newborn rats, Food Standards Agency Advisory Committee for Novel Foods and Processes, 5.12.05Brake and Evenson, A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development, Food and Chemical Toxicology 42, 2004Vecchio et al., Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Letter to the Editor, European Journal of Histochemistry, 48:4, 2004Peluso et al., 32P-postlabeling detection of NDA adducts in mice treated with the herbicide Roundup, Environment. Mol. Mut. 31, 1998Walsh et al., Roundup inhibits steroidogenesis by disrupting steroidogenic acute regulatory (StAR) protein expression, Environmental Health Perspectives, 108, 2002Marc, et al., Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin B activation, Chemical Research in Toxicology, 15, 2002,Daruich et al., Effect of the Herbicide Glyphosate on enzymatic Activity in Pregnant Rats and Their Fetuses, Environmental Research Section A, 85, 2001Richard et al., Differential effects of Glyphosate and Roundup on Human Placental Cells and Aromatase, Environmental ealth Perspectives, 113:6, 2005Benachour et al., Time- and Dos-Dependent Effects of Roundup on Human Embryonic and Placental Cells, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology LLC 2007Benachour et al. Glyphosate formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology, 22(1) , 2009Williams et al., Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31:2, April 2000Lisbeth Fog, Aerial spraying could damage locals' health, Marcela Valente, Residents Say Stop the Spraying!, Inter Press Service, 17.11.06Marco Castillo and others, Campesino Leader Charged for Confronting Crop Spraying, www.lasoyamata.org 2;7.03.08David Vargas, Effects of soy expansion in Paraguay, Who Benefits from GM Crops, Friends of the Earth Europe, February 2009Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4181 

Do you want to eat sick plants? Or to feed the livestock which provide your food on sick plants? Are you comfortable with giving the vulnerable in the developing world sick plants to eat? Then just spray them with Roundup.Weed-killers kill weeds. Just how they kill the weeds doesn't matter too much, so long as they do it efficiently.During the many years that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup brand weed-killer) could only be used to clear fields before planting began, or for paths and roadsides, little research was carried out to find out what it actually did to the weeds, besides kill them.When GM Roundup Ready plants resistant to glyphosate appeared on the scene, we were presented with a clever technological trick which seemed to be based on the science of how the weed-killer worked. Glyphosate, we were told, kills by reacting with and inactivating an enzyme vital for the manufacture of many essential proteins in plants. The GM plants get round this by generating their own novel version of this enzyme which can't be knocked out by glyphosate. So we have weeding made easy: the GM seedlings survive spraying with Roundup while the weeds around them die.But, are the life-processes really so simple?Some varieties of Roundup Ready soya have a disturbing habit of turning yellow after being sprayed with Roundup. They recover, but it can take up to two weeks. This wasn't meant to happen.When university crop scientists began belatedly to investigate the effects and side-effects of glyphosate on GM plants, what they found amounted to significant disruptions throughout the plants' physiology.Roundup Ready plants can't get rid of the Roundup they absorb: glyphosate remains there until the plant is fully mature. Very little of the chemical stays bound to the enzyme it de-activates. Most glyphosate ends up being translocated to active growing areas, while a small amount is degraded to AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is toxic to the plant. There's lots of scope here for the weed-killer to perpetrate wider metabolic mischief.One major mischief comes from the fact that glyphosate reacts, directly and indirectly, with plenty of other vital substances in the plant besides the one enzyme replaced by genetic engineers. Foremost amongst these are the essential mineral micro-nutrients (such as magnesium and calcium) which glyphosate binds to and makes unavailable to the plant. After spraying, glyphosate can interfere with these micro-nutrients at all stages: in the soil, during root uptake and transportation to the leaves and growing points, and in all the plant's tissues.The metabolic pathway glyphosate disrupts is a very major one: one-fifth of the carbon fixed by green plants (from carbon dioxide in the air using photosynthesis) is channelled into this pathway. The function of the pathway includes the production of a huge range of proteins (such as enzymes and structural mterials), besides lignin, plant hormones and the plants' immune mechanisms. Glyphosate can potentially create mischief in all of these.Recently published studies have revealed that glyphosate-treated GM plants have:low leaf chlorophyll (i.e. the green colour which carries out photosynthesis)low water-use efficiency (i.e. an attribute that enables the plant to cope with drought)reduced biomass of the shoot and rootsreduced amino acid content (i.e. the building blocks for all proteins)reduced micro-nutrient content, with the exception of nitrogenreduced lignin content (lignin is an important structural component providing mechanical support and compression strength to the plant, especially its vascular system, and contributing to protection of the seed coat).These parameters are all part of the intricate physiological processes essential to life. How much any one of these disruptions causes, is caused by, or exacerbates the others can't be unravelled. For example, reduced photosynthesis must result in less energy being available to drive everything else, while low micro-nutrient availability will impair the enzyme activity needed for many life processes. Other interacting factors are now coming to light in glyphosate-treated areas, such as a higher incidence of plant disease and disturbances to beneficial soil microbes.In summary, the metabolic pathway which is broken by glyphosate and allegedly mended by a GM elastoplast enzyme is clearly not made entirely whole. The picture emerging is that Roundup Ready plants are chronically sick.First generation Roundup Ready soya was hyped as having provided about 5% more crop than conventional soya. In the event, it proved to yield more than 5% less. This is hardly surprising considering the fundamental physiological impairments wrought by the glyphosate it absorbs. Now, we have a second GM generation, Roundup Ready 2 Yield, again hyped as having improved yield. This new Roundup Ready soya has been manufactured using a less disruptive gene insertion technique, an improved DNA construct, and an elite soya cultivar. The studies found that it does, indeed, have less impairment of photosynthesis and respiration compared with its prototype, but these are cancelled out by an even greater reduction in leaf area and biomass (resulting in a reduced level of functional chlorophyll). Also, Roundup Ready 2 Yield doesn't seem to be yielding terribly well.In West Virginia, officials are investigating Monsanto for unfair or deceptive practices in the marketing of its latest GM soya. Farmers there have relied on advertising claims by the Company that its Roundup Ready 2 Yield soyabeans would yield 7-11 percent more than the original GM ones. It seems the yields do not live up to these claims and do not justify the increased prices charged for them.Monsanto described this allegation as a 'misunderstanding'. The Company's response was that it could provide data demonstrating the performance of Roundup Ready 2 Yield, based on 40,000 soybean yield records collected between 2007 and 2009. These data apparently give a rolling average yield benefit of more than 7 percent compared to competitors' seeds also engineered to tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.This last statement has been emphasised because, typically, the Company has generated a huge amount of data based on comparisons with different (possibly irrelevant) seed varieties. It hasn't compared like-with-like. This trick can be used to statistically 'prove' just about anything you want. It may be good sales-talk, but it's bad statistics and it's certainly not science.The science is telling us that all glyphosate-tolerant plants are sick, and sick plants are vulnerable to stress and disease. Expecting a good yield from sick plants is scientifically implausible.Most GM crops in the pipeline seem to consist of elite varieties bred by traditional methods, with a herbicide-tolerance gene added in to allow them to be patented and sold at a premium, along with the herbicide. If we are going to 'feed the world', science tells us that these GM glyphosate-resistant (and probably other herbicide-tolerant) crops are definitely, and intrinsically, NOT the answer.(This article is adapted from an article which originally appearedon  GM-free Scotland in December 2010. The original article is archived Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects lignin content and amino acid production in glyphosate-resistant soybean, Acta Physiologiae Plantarium 32Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil, 328Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects photosynthesis in first and second generation of glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil article published on-line 2.07.10Carey Gillam, West Virginia investigating Monsanto for consumer fraud, Reuters 25.06.10Monsanto 1997 Report on Sustainable Development including Environmental, safety and Health PerformanceTsuioshi Yamada, 2009, Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability?, European Journal of AgronomyThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5778 


Roundup Ready beet legal saga
The tortuous issue of GM sugar beet, transformed to resist Roundup herbicide, has come to its final conclusion.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) has been ordered to prepare a full rigorous review of the environmental impacts of the GM beet before re-considering its future commercial use.
All planting of Monsanto's patented beet must stop and all GM beet planted since the initial ruling (now upheld) must be destroyed.  As a regulated plant, GM beet is now illegal to grow commercially.
The attorney for the Center for Food Safety said: Today's order cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food.  Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination.Concerns surrounding Roundup Ready beet relate to its environmental impacts, especially the inevitable emergence of very problematic herbicide-resistant weeds, and the inevitable gene pollution spreading from the crop.  Growers of organic and non-GM beet, plus growers of many related plants such as table beet and chard, will be financially damaged by transgenic pollination of their crops.  More subtle problems could arise from impaired plant vigour due to contamination by artificial DNA, and such gene-polluted plants will have the capacity to absorb and accumulate glyphosate residues from the soil or from spray-drift (see   GMFS News archive, December 2010).
Court orders to stop all growing of GM beet were first ignored by the USDA and then side-stepped by inventing a partial deregulation scheme (this decision is now the subject of further, separate, litigation that is ongoing).
Remarkably, in over 15 years of approving GM crops for commercial-scale production, an impact assessment like the one now mandated is only the second the USDA has ever undertaken.  Both assessments were court-ordered.
The whole sorry affair of Roundup Ready beet has, more than anything else, shown that the USDA favours the interests of Monsanto over those of the American people and even over those of farmers, and that it treats the law with contempt.
More worryingly, in just three years since the introduction of Monsanto's GM beet, the seeds have come to form 95% of the US beet supply.  Alternative bulk suppliers of non-GM seed are simply not available.   Confident of USDA backing, neither Monsanto nor other seed producers, ever took the initial court order seriously enough to take action: there has been no attempt to fill the impending gap in the supply system and now it's too late.
The inherent dangers in our present food supply system are evident.
A dire warning and suggested action towards a solution have been provided by one US blogger: As farmers lose the right and then the now-how to save seed for the next season's demands, you end up with a problem, a big problem ... (but) ... There is a way to help all farmers AND avert the ecological/economic disaster promised by large scale plantings of GMOs.  Force agribusinesses to downsize and compete on a level playing field with family farms by buying local produce from farmer' markets (or local food suppliers).  Or, start your own backyard garden.  Support neighbors and friends who grow their own food.  Small food producers hold the key to our survival as a species.  This isn't hyperbole, this is documented fact.  Heirloom gardeners and seed savers protect and strengthen genetic diversity needed for agrarian-based civilization to survive.If you have a garden and can't manage to work it yourself, think about offering space in it to local people who haven't any garden of their own.  You might get some very nice flowers to look at and some nice  fresh veg to eat in return.If you don't have a patch of ground of your own, look out for city garden schemes to join.  Check out GROW GLASGOW at Monsanto's appeal of GM beets case dismissed, Center for Food Safety, 20.05.11Chris Hinyub, Judge's ruling on GE beets exposes inherent danger in prevailing food system, http://tiny.cc.xt1ofThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6256 


What's going on in the real world of Roundup Ready farming?Crop spraying by TaminaMiller on FlickrAn article in Ag Journal gives some useful, at times poetically vivid, insights into what's really happening in GM Roundup-based agriculture in the USA.
The problems described are much the same as we've been hearing elsewhere.  Roundup Ready seeds genetically transformed to resist Roundup herbicide are being mis-used and over-used, and farmers don't seem to know how to stop.
Encouraged by the convenience of biotech seed-weedkiller packages, plus company spin, plus a reduction in the cost or Roundup from $80 a gallon in the early years to $10 today, farmers are shifting away from traditional tillage and crop rotation.  Increasingly, they are adopting a no-till, reduced-labour, low-rotation regime.  Year-on-year rotations of Roundup Ready corn and Roundup Ready soya, coupled in some areas to a two-year fallow period for the soil to recover (and for the weeds to thrive), have all set the scene for the inevitable emergence of some very problematic Roundup-resistant weeds.  So far, farmers have reacted by upping their applications of Roundup: in some cases three or four times in the same field besides a pre-emergent application.
This weed-resistance problem may also be increased by little-known interactions between Roundup and its environment.  A university soil management specialist describes new research which is revealing how much soil acidity levels can inhibit the useful life of herbicides.  As he put it: We aren't letting our herbicides live the length they need to live.  That's a recipe for (weed) resistance.One university weed expert compared modern weed-control strategies to the historic Pony Express which once came through his home-town.  Along each leg of the mail delivery route, the goal was to mount a fresh horse and ride it as hard as they could before jumping onto the next one.  US farmers are engaged in riding Roundup to exhaustion.  The problem here is that there isn't a fresh horse waiting for them to mount.  Safe, effective new weed-killers haven't been developed, and don't even seem to be on the horizon.
Interestingly, both weed and tillage experts, like the biotech companies, blame the farmers.  Everyone wants to point at the biotech as the issue said one well-known no-till advocate: It's like the guns: it's not the guns it's the idiots with the guns.  It's the way we use them that matters.Farmers have come to treat Roundup as some sort of miracle drug, and it's made them lazy. They think of  Roundup as a pill which can be popped to keep fit instead of working out everyday and eating healthier.
The answer is that farmers have to stop looking for shortcuts and instead become increasingly sophisticated managers of their resources.  They have to move away from the mentality that throws more technology at a problem that was created by technology in the first place: they need to focus on improved farming methods rather than on new products.
Biotech companies have been putting out the message that weed control has a dead simple solution: just picking the right herbicide said one weed specialist.  But, It has nothing to do with the herbicide, it's all about good agronomics.
An early adopter of no-till methods commented that the weed issue will force producers into hard choices over whether to till or not to till, with two distinctive paths to follow.  In his own case he's clear which to choose I'm not going back to plowing.  However he adds I've had some of my land no till for 18 years now which means his experience of the no till methods goes back many years before the age of Roundup Ready GM crops.Perhaps the  farmer with 18 years experience could teach his fellow-farmers a thing or two.However, what is actually meant by 'no till' seems to be seriously open to question, check out 
Candace Krebs, Farmers look to broader strategies to battle weeds, Ag Journal on-line, 22.03.11
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 422 

There's no such thing as a poison that's 'safe as salt' Roundup is no exception.Here are some of the claims made by Monsanto...Roundup is tough on plants, but no more toxic to people and animals than table salt (Monsanto Europe, December 1995)... Roundup, a herbicide widely known for its very favourable environmental profile. (Monsanto website, November 1996)Applying Rounup over soyabeans doesn't raise herbicide residues above existing residue standards (Monsanto Europe, December 1995) * Roundup has been used commercially for more than 20 years ... in more than 100 countries.* Glyphosate is rapidly broken down in soil by naturally occurring soil microorganism* Roundup is effective ... eliminating the need for additional herbicides in Roundup Ready soyabeans (Monsanto Europe, undated but pre-1997)Thisseems very reassuring. It tells us that Roundup herbicide has been around for years all over the world, long before the GM crops designed to be sprayed with it came on the scene. It's safe to eat, environmentally friendly, naturally disappears to negligible levels, and saves any need for additional weed-killers.The final claim has been the first one to unravel.Between 1994 (pre-GM) and 2005 (nine years post-GM), US government data reveal a 15-fold increase in the use of glyphosate; the following year, glyphosate use jumped a further substantial 28%.This has been due to a number of Roundup-related changes in farming practice:Whereas before the introduction of Roundup Ready (RR) crops, Roundup was used as a one-off burndown to clear fields of weeds before any crop seedlings emerged (or they would have been killed by the herbicide), now the food crops themselves can be sprayed liberally and repeatedly with the weed-killer.Plants actively absorb Roundup and some Roundup Ready plants have been found to take in 15% more than their conventional counterparts. This means a lot of the Roundup applied to a GM field disappears into the crop plants without ever reaching the weeds it's supposed to be killing.Four out of every five GM crops are already Roundup Ready varieties, and Monsanto is incorporating the RR trait into nearly every GM seed it sells.No-till farming, which uses Roundup instead of a plough, has become more widely practicedThe rotation of RR soya with RR maize, each with its own doses of Roundup has become increasingly common.The result has been, as predicted right from the start of RR crops, the emergence of some very problematic Roundup-resistant weeds, and a spiraling cycle of increased spraying using more Roundup plus some very less friendly weed-killers.Monsanto's promised elimination of the need for additional herbicides was short-lived.The Company's assertion that 'Glyphosate is rapidly broken down in soil' also needs qualification. glyphosate is actually in the soil, and if the soil conditions are conducive, and if the right micro-organisms are there, glyphosate can be degraded in a few days.However, most of the 'disappearance' of glyphosate from the soil is due to dissipation rather than degradation. Glyphosate readily washes away in soil water, and tends to attach itself to minerals such as soil particles, or magnesium or calcium in solution. Under the wrong soil conditions, microbial breakdown of glyphosate can take several weeks, and the total clearance of the herbicide from soil can take several months.Monsanto's natural rapid breakdown of glyphosate by soil micro-organisms isn't untrue, it's just a very small part of the bigger picture.The successful history of widespread use of Roundup is true. However, again it needs qualification.Look at the US government figures for increased use of Roundup quoted above, and the changes in agricultural practice which have led to them.The suggested long history applies to the use of the weed-killer on weeds, not on the crops you eat. Part of that 15-fold increase is now going into the plants which produce your food.But, you may well ask, if Roundup is safe as salt and generally dissipates quickly from the environment, does it really matter if there's a bit more of it around and some of that bit is in our food?Monsanto's claim that Roundup is 'no more toxic ... than table salt' is supported by a report on the safety of glyphosate prepared jointly by the UN Environment Programme, International Labour Organisation and the World Health Organisation in 1994. This summarised the data available at the time. It noted low toxicity in a wide range of animal species, and few effects in most tests except at very high dosages of the herbicide.There are, however, a few alarm bells in this report. For example:Inhibitory effects on soil fungi and nitrogen-fixing bacteria (both vital for soil health) were noted.The resulting deleterious effects of glyphosate on nitrogen-fixation in RR soya roots have since been confirmed. This is a cause for concern for agriculture in the long-term because even a small reduction in nitrogen fixation potential may have long-term effects on sustainable soil nitrogen pools, considering the widespread adoption of the (glyphosate resistant) soyabean system (Zablotowicz and Reddy, 2004)Measurements of daily human intake of glyphosate from food and drinking water were unavailable, and data from monitoring programmes on glyphsate levels in the environment were very scarce. Animal studies suggest a third of glyphosate consumed is absorbed into the body, from which it is cleared unchanged after a few days.In the field, glyphosate is taken into the leaves of the plants from where it is actively moved to different parts of the shoot and root where it accumulates unchanged.The overall impression from all the above descriptions of the fate of the herbicide in the soil, in water, in animals, and in plants, is that glyphosate hangs around in the system: it isn't metabolised in plants or animal (including food-animals), once consumed it isn't processed by the digestive or immune systems, so the only way to get rid of it is by slowly flushing it out. Glyphosate has a habit of attaching itself to things in the soil which have parallels in the living system. What mischief might it get up to inside you during the days before it is cleared? And of course, if you're eating traces of glyphosate at every meal, it suggests there would be small amounts perpetually flowing through your body.This hanging around in the environment and inside us raises a safety question, especially if no one knows exactly how much we're consuming.A reviewer of data on glyphosate residue levels in 2005 commented surprisingly little has been published on herbicide residues in (glyphosate resistant crop) foods .... He noted a single published study which reported, as Monsanto assured us, that glyphosate residues are within established tolerance levels in harvested seeds. Beyond this, it seems all we have to rely on are the herbicide residue data presented for regulatory approval as supplied by Monsanto. Tolerance levels are of course set at many times below measured concentrations toxic to animals. But, see below.The safety of glyphosate's major degradation product, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is barely mentioned. Soil levels of AMPA could reach levels of 25% of the applied dose and were found in fish up to three months after exposure.The single published study on herbicide residues inexplicably found greater amounts of AMPA than glyphosate in the seeds despite the science which has shown that plants are unable to degrade the herbicide. This begs the question, are the glyphosate levels in food being kept below tolerance standards because the herbicide is being replaced by something else no one's testing for? Which brings us to a more obviously serious alarm bell.Most experiments seem to have been carried out using chemical glyphosate. There is a single mention of a study indicating that, in the case of aquatic invertebrates, Roundup has a higher toxicity than glyphosate mainly due to the presence of surfactants.This is a bit of an understatement of the situation because 'Roundup' is marketed in several formulations containing anything from 7 to 45 percent glyphosate and a varying cocktail of secret chemicals (such as surfactants) all designed to get glyphosate into the plant and to kill it more effectively. Newer Roundup formulations also have additional more toxic herbicides added in.Another piece of this jigsaw was added when Italian researchers noted that cellular toxic responses in laboratory animals fed Roundup Ready soya were very similar to those caused by glyphosate. While some animal feeding studies have identified adverse effects from RR-spiked chow, others have not, but none of these studies measured the levels of glyphosate or Roundup in the feed used.Four pivotal scientific papers looking at physiological effects of Roundup in animal cells have given real cause to question the safety of the formulations. Two found modifications in the membranes of mitochondria (these are vital cellular bodies which generate the energy to power all cell functions) after treatment with Roundup suggestive of a decline in mitochondrial activity. One found other signs of decreased activity, for example, in the cell nucleus. The third study found Roundup interferes with the pathway for endocrine hormone synthesis. The fourth found Roundup induced cell death. There was clear evidence that the problems were attributable to Roundup, and not to glyphosate.Ominously, similar harmful effects were observed with one of the few known adjuvants in Roundup, and with AMPA, glyphosate's breakdown product which is inexplicably turning up in harvested seed. The authors noted surprisingly (or, perhaps, politely speaking) Roundup is always more toxic than its active ingredient, glyphosate (Benachaur and Seffralini, 2005)There are far too many serious safety questions here about the cocktail, and possibly cumulative, effects of the various Roundup formulations: what might all these secret unknowns and their secret derivatives and their secret interactions do to animal, environmental and human health?Since GM animal feed is our main source of dietary Roundup, what quantity of these secret unknowns and their derivatives is being passed on to us in meat, milk and eggs?Glyphosate may indeed be no more toxic than table salt, but that's a claim which doesn't extend to the actual mixture of chemicals being sprayed on our crops.(This article is adapted from an article which appearedon GM-free Scotland in February 2009. The original article is archived Monsanto quotes from Monsanto Information Pack, January 1997Pat Thomas, Behind the label: Roundup Weedkiller, The Ecologist, April 2008Euroabio admits increased chemical to fight superweed, Thin Ice 10, March 2008Hetherington et al., The absorption, translocation and distribution of the herbicide glyphosate in maize expressing the CP-4 transgene, Journal of Experimental Botany, 50:339, October 1999International Programme on Chemical Safety, Environmental Health Criteria 159, GLYPHOSATE, jointly sponsored by UN Environment Programme, International Labour Organization, World Health Organization, Geneva 1994Zablotowicz and Reddy, Impact of Glyphosate on the Bradyrhizobium japonicaum Symbiosis with Glyphosate-Resistant Transgenic Soybean, Journal of Environmental Quality, 33, 2004Cerdeira and Duke, The Current Status and Environmental Impacts of Glyphosate-Resistant Crops, Journal of Environmental Quality, 35, 2006Benachour and Seffralini, Glyphosate Formulations Induce Apoptosis and Necrosis in Human Umbilical, Embryonic, and Placental Cells, Chemical research in Toxicology, 22:1 2009Richard et al., Differential effects of Glyphsate and Roundup on Human Placental cells and Aromatase, Environmental Health Pe5spectives, 113:6, June 2005Peixoto, Comparative effects of Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, Chemosphere, 61:8, December 2005Malatesta et al., Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function, Toxicology in Vitro, 18, September 2008Who Benefits from GM Crops? Friends of the Earth Europe, February 2009Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8800 


So, no one has been harmed by GM food?

There's no doubt that GM foods have been part of the typical American diet for many years.  This is hardly surprising when an estimated 70% of all foods on US supermarket shelves contain genetically modified ingredients, including most things bulked up with starches, sugar syrups, vegetable oils, 'protein' in various guises, imitation meat, and a host of additives.  Over and above this 70% of processed food, the majority of animal products come from livestock given GM feed.
US consumers, we are told have a high degree of faith in the food-safety oversight carried out by their regulatory agencies (the FDA, EPA,and USDA), and are happy to accept GM, even if most of them don't know they're eating it.  The oft-repeated basis for this confidence is We can't argue with the record: no one has been made ill from eating genetically modified foods.The American Council on Science and Health (ACSH)
The origin of this sound-byte seems to be the second edition of a booklet entitled Biotechnology and Food, prepared for the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) in 2000.  This not-for-profits organization describes itself as a consumer education consortium which accepts funding from industry and private foundations as long no strings (are) attached.  Whistleblowers Stauber and Rampton describe the ACSH as an industry front group that produces PR ammunition for the food processing and chemical industries. 
The main author of the ACSH booklet is , a molecular geneticist now working in the University of California at Riverside. 
Back in 2000, McHughen had a powerful motive for getting GM accepted.  At the time, he was busy manufacturing a GM flax so that it could withstand soil residues of the herbicides used on previous crops in the field.  Demonstrating a clear misunderstanding of the flax market, he argued that it was an ideal crop for transforming to produce industrial chemicals because it wasn't part of the food chain.  He persisted in his GM flax venture despite strong opposition from flax growers, and even gave away packets of his GM seed for farmers to try out.  The outcome has been an absolute nightmare for flax growers (Canadian NFU), the collapse of the Canadian flax seed market, and a substantial loss of money for the University of Saskatchewan where McHughen was working at the time (See THE DAY OF THE FLAX  News, November 2009).  Global contamination of flax by McHughen's genes persists to this day, along with various versions of his time-tested 'proof' of GM safety.
In 'Biotechnology and Food', McHughen's pseudo-scientific evidence for dismissing 'public concerns' and 'general food safety issues' of GM food is: Three hundred million North American consumers have been eating several dozen GM foods grown on hundred of millions of acres since 1994 , with no documented adverse effects (later in the report this statement reappears` as there are no documented cases of harm attributable to the process by which the GM crops were bred, which actually says something quite different).  The 'evidence' for safety surfaced again as recently as November 2010, in a report designed to influence the Vatican's ongoing GM-unfriendly position.  It was trotted out by the inventor of GM 'golden' vitamin-A rich rice who is having endless difficulties getting his 'world-saving' GM crop onto the market but has managed to get himself elected to the Vatican's science-advisory body.  He said There has not been a single documented case of harm to consumers or the environment.
In a situation where there has been no testing on humans, there has been minimal or no testing on laboratory rodent models, no testing on livestock beyond the routine commercially-required checks on product quality (such as the weight gain achieved), no labelling and no post-market monitoring, these statements are impossible to either prove or disprove.  Without relevant records, measurements and controls, the length of time which has elapsed, the number of people involved and the area of GM crops grown constitute no evidence whatsoever.
Jeffrey Smith, educator and founder of The Institute for Responsible Technology, can't fill in the scientific gaps either, but he does talk to a lot of people, especially professionals in a position to spot 'cases of harm' from eating GM.  He's aware of doctors whose patients have been cured of conditions as diverse as skin reactions, irritable bowel syndrome, migraines, weight problems and fatigue, after being prescribed a non-GM diet.  The problem with this kind of evidence, in the absence of a scientifically controlled study, is that to avoid GM food, the people also stopped eating processed junk and started eating organic.  It's impossible to tell if it's the absence of junk, the absence of GM, the introduction of organic, or all three together which brought about the cure.
However, Smith has also talked to veterinarians and farmers.  Animals on farms don't have the complex and varied diet typical of humans, nor do they have much choice about what they eat: as a rule they're given a very restricted diet of maize- and soya- based animal feed.  Farmers have observed that when their pigs and cows were taken off GM feed, death rates and still-born rates dropped, litter size went up, and overall health improved.  One farmers was ecstatic about the huge increase in milk production in his GM-free herd.  Both vets and farmers also saw differences inside GM-fed animals during autopsies or after butchering, including liver damage (a classic symptom of toxicity), stomach ulcers, discoloration, and a stench which shouldn't have been there.  Again, this evidence doesn't definitively point the finger at GM feed, but because there are far fewer interfering parameters, it is at the very least worthy of further investigation.Illinois prisoners made sick by soy-based diet
US citizens, don't generally restrict their staple diet to a single crop plant.  However, there is one instance where this was done.  Since January 2003, inmates of the Illinois prison system have been fed a diet comprised largely of soy and soya protein isolate.  The reason was to cut costs by replacing meat and cheese with cheap processed soya imitations.  Prisoners were therefore consuming upwards of 100 grams of soya a day (this is 3-10 times what is normally consumed in Asian countries where soya is part of the traditional diet).  The high-soya diet soon started to have deleterious effects on the men, including chronic and painful constipation alternating with debilitating diarrhea, vomiting after eating, sharp abdominal pains, fainting, palpitations, rashes, acne, insomnia, panic attacks, depression and symptoms of hypothyroidism (feeling cold, brain fog, fatigue, weight gain, infections, enlarged thyroid gland); many of the men have had part of their digestive tract removed.  After four years of this and no action from the prison staff, the inmates began contacting the to take action on their behalf.  At the time of writing, a lawsuit brought by eight of the affected prisoners assisted by the Foundation is pending in the central Illinois District Court. Check out the for news about the Illinois prisoners' court case, and actions which US citizens can take to help the 'Soy Alert' campaign.
That it should take representations to a not-for-profits organisation, rather than the obvious ill-health of the prisoners to stimulate action may seem strange until you discover the politics behind the whole soya-diet venture.  The Governor of Illinois in 2003 was Rod Blagojevich.  Blagojevich has been the subject of more than a dozen federal investigations that include fraud, and was the first Illinois governor to be impeached.  He also received huge contributions from the giant soya-supplier, Archer Daniels Midland (ADM).  ADM then went on to become the primary supplier of soya-based products and meat substitutes to the Illinois prison system.
The FDA  lists 300 studies indicating negative health effects from soya.  Most soya available in the US since 2003 has been GM and has never undergone clinical testing for safety.  The prisoners were certainly eating large quantities of GM on a daily basis, and they definitely became sick.  Again, without controlled scientific studies it's impossible to tell if it's the soya, the GM nature of the soya, the absence of vital animal-based nutrients, or a combination of all three which is causing the problems.  However, the incident makes the view that no one has been made ill from eating genetically modified foods incorrect.
Ironically, McHughen has claimed that Opponents to GM put forward untenable pseudo-scientific assertions, than run away, unwilling or unable to defend their positions.  The Illinois prisoners certainly aren't running away, and are very willing to defend their position if any one will let them. 
Note.  The claim made by the inventor of 'golden' rice that there has been no documented case of harm to the environment is definitely untrue.  GM weeds are now a major problem in farmland and beyond (see NFU SCOTLAND AND THE GM TRAIN WRECK  News, September 2010), and Oregon waterways are clogged with GM grass (see The most worrying aspect of the Smith conversations was that newer vets, who started practicing after GM entered the feed supply, consider the above-described problems in livestock as 'normal'.  Newer doctors will fail to spot human health problems for the same reason.  In a GM-fed world, animal and human health professionals could rapidly become unable to identify what constitutes 'health'.Next time you hear the suggestion that  no one has been made ill from eating genetically modified foods, give them an argument.  And watch out for a sleight-of-hand which might change the claim from no 'adverse effects from GM foods' to no 'harm attributable to the process by which the GM crops were bred': the most immediately visible health problems may be connected to the absorption of herbicides or other toxins by the GM crop, or to novel diseases suffered by GM crops, rather than from the genetic transformation 'breeding process' itself.The Real Problem with Genetically Modified Foods, Natural Solutions, Alan McHughen, Biotechnology and Food, Second Edition, September 2000Jeffery Smith, Celebrating our National Non-GMO Movement, Institute for Responsible Technology,  www.responsibletechnology.org 26.11.10Food Wars: Governmental Programs & Industrial Food, Nourished Kitchen, http://nourishedkitchen.com/illinois-prisoners-soy-diet/Suffering of inmates and Update on soy lawsuit, Alan McHughen, www.powerbase.info, December 2010Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops, New Scientists Magazine, 30.11.10John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge Is Good for You, 1995, ISBN 1-56751-060-4Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 7319 

In December 2008, the UK Government announced that unauthorised GM oil-seed rape (OSR) had been found growing in Somerset.  
The offending grain received EU approval for import, food and animal feed use in 2005 providing the handlers had been given appropriate plans for eradicating any volunteer GM OSR plants which could arise.
The contamination was found in a small trial field of a new non-GM variety of OSR shipped from a Monsanto seed production farm in Idaho.  It was found to be contaminated with about  five GM seeds in every 10,000.  This doesn't sound like a lot, but nevertheless an adjacent OSR trial crop was found to have been contaminated at a measurable level of one in 10,000.
Regulators have decided to keep the location of the problem confidential.  It was felt that the low level of the contamination did not justify publication of precise identifiers of the affected fields.  Their stated priority was to protect the farmers involved, who had no intention of growing GM and had no way of knowing their crops were contaminated.  The farmers are justifiably concerned that their reputation and land value will be compromised.
The illegal seed is a Roundup Ready strain which will survive routine glyphosate-based weed-control treatments.  OSR seed is known to be able to persist in soil for at least a decade.  Gene pollution from stray survivors can spread by pollen and seed due to wind, wildlife and farming activities.  In areas where glyphosate forms the dominant weed-control system, these factors can combine to lead to escalating gene contamination.
What started as a very small level of rogue seed nevertheless brought about contamination at one-fifth of its source-level simply by pollination.  The GM construct in the contaminating OSR includes viral DNA suspected of generating genomic instability which could lead to unpredictable future mutants.  Add to this that the offending OSR was created using a GM Agrobacterium bacterial vector which may still be present in the plants and could promote horizontal gene transfer.  When future spread of the novel DNA to other plants and to the soil ecosystem by seed-plus-pollen-plus-horizontal gene transfer are factored in, the problem could become endemic. made a huge effort to obtain the map references of the contaminated fields.  It's view is that farmers, gardeners, allotment holders, and local council environmental control officers need to be made aware so that they can act to contain the GM plants.  Like the grain-handlers, unless landowners are alerted to look out for oilseed rape plants which have survived spraying with Roundup and are made aware of what steps are needed to remove them, the problem could escalate.    In light of the recent Court of Justice ruling in Germany that honey containing GM pollen is a GM product and needs authorisation and labelling before it can be marketed, bee-keepers are especially at risk.  They could find themselves, not only with unsellable honey and contaminated hives, but charged with having spread the contamination. 
Unfortunately, GM Freeze was unsuccessful this time, but is aware of a wide range of important questions which DEFRA's intransigence may prevent being answered: for example, are measures in place to ensure there are no GM seed remaining in the soil, how close were the plants in which cross-contamination occurred, have lessons been learned to prevent a repeat in the future? 
GM Freeze intends to monitor DEFRA's efforts to keep track of seed privately imported into the UK, and which might be contaminated.The bigger picture here is that there has been a regulatory failure and that the government is protecting Monsanto at the expense of the people it represents: if Monsanto damages the business, reputation and land-values of UK farmers, Monsanto must be made to compensate them.  You might ask your MP to start suggesting DEFRA set a precedent in favour of UK farmers.You might also think of supporting GM Freeze which is doing so much to combat the constant GM threat on our behalf (including commissioning expensive legal representation).  Check out Scientists Discover New Route for GM-gene 'Escape', Institute of Science in Society Report 2.03.11No to GM Oilseed Rape GT73, Institute of Science in Society Report 22.09.04Tribunal keeps GM contamination secret, GM Freeze Release, 10.03.11Fighting Fund Appeal  GM oilseed rape contamination in Somerset, GM Freeze Updates 28.10.10 and 15.02.11Concern over GM contamination site, www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.ukStephanie Bodoni, HONEY made Close to Modified Crops May Need Regulatory Approval, Bloomberg, 9.02.11Commission's marketing approval for G%73 oilseed rape and measures recommended for consent holder to take in event of spillage, Times Higher Education, 6.09.05Unapproved GM Found in UK Conventional Oilseed Rape Trial, M2 Presswire 19.12.08, Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8653 

 - February 2011, you'll know all about Monsanto's latest GM venture: added-value, nutrient-enhanced GM soya. You probably also noticed a hint of sarcasm in the description of the regulatory oversight of GM crops in the USA.
American GM 'oversight' takes the form of a voluntary consultation with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during which all parties can ensure they have a get-out should anything go wrong: the biotech company can spin the process into FDA 'approval' of its GM crop, and the FDA can spin it into a thoughtful assessment of all the available evidence.
Although the FDA consultation sounds like a foregone conclusion in favour of the biotech industry, its completion in regard to MON 87705, high-oleic acid, GM soya was a cause for jubilation. So much so that Monsanto put out a press release telling the world about it.
This press release provides some fascinating insights into US regulatory attitudes to GM and into Monsanto's concept of 'life'.
The first half-sentence of the press release announces that the FDA consultation on MON 87705 has been completed. The following nine-and-a-half paragraphs mention the benefits to health, to farmers, to consumers, and to food quality of the new 'nutritionally improved' (mentioned four times), 'nutritionally desirable', 'additional value', high-oleic, low-saturate, low-trans fat Vistive Gold soya. (There's also a final paragraph reminding the press about how wonderful Monsanto is.)
This is slightly confusing because MON 87705 and Vistive Gold are two different kinds of soya, and there's a third kind called simply Vistive which has been around since 2005.MON 87705 has been genetically transformed to increase its oleic acid content (which results in a lower linoleic acid and saturated fat content). It's also Roundup Ready.Vistive is the off-spring of a conventionally-bred low-linolenic acid (and therefore low trans-fat) soya made GM by crossing with Roundup Ready soya. Since the Roundup Ready trait has been around a long time, and the change in nutrient profile is a result of traditional breeding, Vistive soya hasn't been particularly controversial.Vistive Gold seems to be the next generation of nutritionally-enhanced soya. It's connection with Vistive seems to be in name only.According to Monsanto's press release, the exciting things are that MON 87705 is a key component of the new Vistive Gold, and that its FDA consultation completes a key regulatory step towards the introduction of Vistive Gold. Assuming this indicates that MON 87705 has been crossed with something else to produce Vistive Gold, it means that Monsanto's view of life is a set of 'components' at its personal disposal to manufacture its products. Also, worryingly, it suggests that once one 'component' has been run past the regulators, anything further bred from it will also be deemed OK, no matter what it may have been crossed with afterwards.
However, the Vistive Gold lineage is further complicated. Apparently it will be 'combined with' Roundup Ready II Yield soya to give farmers an increased yield opportunity. Quite how they are to be 'combined' (shaken not stirred?) without altering the 'healthy' fatty-acid profile isn't clear.
What's certain is that the FDA 'consultation' has been spun into a major PR stunt for Vistive Gold, despite MON 87705 being an entirely different soya.
And, what's of concern is that there's every reason to expect that 'nutritionally improved' (mentioned four times), 'nutritionally desirable', 'additional value', high-oleic, low-saturate, low-trans fat Vistive Gold will carry all the risks of MON 87705 and a few new ones of its own.
Stick to healthy, natural, minimally processed oil.Monsanto Completes FDA Consultation Process for Low-Saturate, High-Oleic Soybeans, Paving the Way for Introduction of Vistive Gold Soybeans, Monsanto News Release 26.01.11Prof. Joe Cummins, Beware Monsanto's Vistive Soybeans, Institute of Science in Society Report 26.11.04About Vistive, www.vistive.com, February 2011Laura McGinnis, Genetic Markers Point Toward Low-Linolenic-Acid Soybeans, 31.03.11Application for authorization to place on the market MON 87705 soybean in the European Union, according to regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, Part II SummaryROUNDUP READY 2 YIELD  News, April 2009, www.gmfreescotland.org.ukThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5246 


Bt-crops have huge direct and indirect costs attached.Monsanto spends millions of dollars on PR to persuade maize farmers that their crops, and profits, will be eaten to oblivion by the European Corn Borer (ECB)As its name indicates, ECB is a very expensive mistake introduced to America in 1910 on imported broom handles. It is an especially problematic pest because it produces three generations during the May to September corn-growing season, and the larval form buries itself inside the plant within 7 to 10 days, after which it is inaccessible to any conventional insecticide applications.The ECB-weakened stem is prone to breakage and the disruption to the plant's vascular system inhibits plant growth and seed production.Agronomists, entomologists and plant breeders have accordingly devoted tremendous efforts to combat the pest.Chemical control is only feasible with intensive scouting and monitoring to identify the windows of opportunity when the larvae have moved to positions where they're exposed on the leaves, followed by a highly directed spray or by a powder poured onto the leaf-stalk to catch the grubs as they are about to start burrowing. More cost-effective methods involve crop rotation and adjusting planting dates to reduce the pests' opportunities to infest. The most important form of control is the selection of resistant hybrids, of which Bt-toxin generating GM varieties are, hands down, the most successful.However, Bt maize comes at a cost, and many questions about its true value remain to be answered.Amidst the host of commercial comparisons between Bt maize and other, conventional, maize strains in use, there are remarkably little controlled scientific data.When one relevant study was published in 2005, some interesting results emerged. Several Bt maize lines were grown side-by-side with their isogenic (closest non-GM genome) equivalents. Measurements showed:Bt maize produced a similar, or up to 12% lower, yield (suggestive of an inherent energy drain)Bt maize had a similar or lower nitrogen content in the grain (suggestive of a lower nutritional value)Bt maize had similar or higher nitrogen content in the plant residues (suggestive of plants directing effort into vegetative growth rather than seed production)Bt maize took three days longer to reach maturity (suggestive of an inherent energy drain)Bt maize had a 3-5% higher moisture content at maturity, representing a significant post-harvest drying cost (also suggestive of an increasing susceptibility to fungal attack)Bt maize leaves and stalks stay green and more succulent when the cobs reach physiological maturity (suggestive of a diversion of effort away from the natural development of the seed and towards maintaining the rest of the plant).There is no doubt that, in areas prone to high and frequent ECB infestations, Bt maize can be grown cost effectively when otherwise maize-cultivation would have to be abandoned. However, in areas of infrequent, low- to moderate- attack, the extra cost of GM seed is not justified.Interestingly, the author of the study commented that the slower drying and maturation of Bt crops was probably due to the fact that, unlike non-Bt hybrids, there was no cavity caused by ECB in the Bt-hybrids.The use of a low (natural) level of 'pests'-infestation as an aid to creating healthy seed by helping the plant to dry-out once its reproduction is complete, seems a much more efficient system than using fossil fuels to achieve the same result. However, monoculture, lack of crop rotation and reduced tillage all preserve a man-made environment which converts a useful 'pest' into a devastating nuisance.Other, longer-term costs must always be added into the equation. Bt crops do not reduce the need for vigilance and costly chemical treatments for other serious pests, and may even increase these in the long-term.Natural Bt-toxin in Bt-bacteria is known to be allergenic to humans: the potential for artificial formats of Bt to be immunogenic is obviously present but hasn't been tested. Ill-health represents a huge cost which is never factored in to the Bt maize costs and benefits equation.Ma and Subedi, 2005, Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines, Field Crops Research 93 Issue 2-3, SeptemberKrupke et al., European corn borer in field corn, Field Crops, Purdue University, Purdue extension E-17-WNielsen and Colville, Stalk Lodging in Corn: Guidelines for Preventive Management, Purdue University Co-operative Extension service Agronomy Guided AY-262Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 892 

Time-lapse photographs taken of a single point on a chromosome inside the nucleus in a living cell, demonstrated very graphically why GM is an inherently disruptive technology.The marked spot, which could represent any gene, was seen to be in constant rapid motion, travelling between the periphery and the centre of the nucleus four times within a 60 second period.
When the normal business of the cell is in progress, an elegant choreography is performed by the mingling chromosomes, putting each gene in an ever-changing location in the nucleus and in an ever-changing position in relation to every other gene. The biotech industry, with its blinkers firmly in place, has never looked beyond the molecular sequence of the DNA which forms a gene, and the single protein which can be generated by an artificial gene. The 98% non-gene DNA is dismissed as 'junk', and the protein structure to which the DNA is bound is dismissed as mere 'scaffolding'.Science outside industry is uncovering a very different picture.The nature of the carrier protein is subject to change and mutation, profoundly altering the expression of the genes it carries. For example, the protein 'scaffold' determines the all-important folding of the DNA attached to it: this affects the structure and timing of the protein expressed. It is the protein matrix which transports the DNA to precise locations within the nucleus: one position will express the gene while another represses it, another will allow any damage to be repaired, and another will degrade and recycle DNA matter damaged beyond repair. The ability to move quickly and precisely is clearly vital, not only for correct coherent expression of genes, but for the very health of every cell and the whole organism.The scientists who carried out this ground-breaking research described the centre zone of the working nucleus as a riot of movement in which the seemingly amorphous nucleus has compartmentalised zones, and location is everything.What will happen to this elegant choreography when a GM-laden bullet rips through it leaving its DNA debris behind? Or, when a cunningly redesigned pathogen forces its way in to insert its man-made burden?In a constantly shifting and totally interconnected system, random attacks can only disrupt the whole functioning and create vulnerability to disease.Acknowledging this inherent weakness in the genetic transformation process, the latest thrust of GM research is to insert, not single genes or groups of genes, but an entire man-made mini-chromosomes which will sit outside the nucleus. The genes packed into these chromosomes are naked of all controlling segments which might interfere with their artificial function. Mini-chromosomes are being promoted as a way to avoid the nuclear disruption of genetic transformation, and to by-pass the self-regulating capacity of healthy cells which usually expels or silences foreign DNA. It will certainly allow much more complex sets of genes to be inserted. Since pollen generally transmits only the nuclear material from the parent, mini-chromosomes are touted as a way to avoid the biotech bugbear of gene pollution.Unfortunately, mini-chromosomes bring as many new problems as they (may) solve. There are assumptions being made about mini-chromosomes which might well prove as simplistic as the old genetic transformation process:How likely is it that nuclear function will be disrupted by the presence of a foreign body in the surrounding cell with which it's intimately connected?How likely is it that the cells and whole organism harbouring a large foreign body, will be healthy?How often will the the artificial cell bodies make their way into pollen and out into the wider environment?Artificial chromosomes share important characteristics with bacterial DNA, and it is to be expected that bacteria will be able to incorporate some or all of their genes and be able to transfer them to other bacteria and beyond. Since the main reason for mini-chromosome development is in the manufacture of pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, horizontal gene transfer can be predicted to have serious long-term consequences. The by-passing of the nuclear communication and repair system is downright dangerous. No-one can predict how unregulated DNA will evolve to produce who knows what toxins. The problem is, mini-chromosomes can't dance.(This article is adapted from an article which appearedon GM-free Scotland in September 2009. View an archived copy of that article Susan M. Gasser, Tracking the dance of DNA and structural proteins within the nucleus shows that placement makes the difference between gene activity & silence, The scientist, July 2009The new weapons of genetic engineering, GRAIN, 17.03.09, www.grain.org.seedling;?id=576Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8619 

Refuting any suggestion that Mayan predictions claim the world will end in December 2012, one Mayan elder (a priest and spiritual guide) has a very different version of what the world is heading towards just now.
He tells us we are in a time of cosmic transition. As we pass through transition, there is a colossal, global convergence of environmental destruction, social chaos, war, and ongoing Earth Changes.Considering the recent unprecedented droughts, floods, snow-storms, gales, tsunamis, fires, sub-zero temperatures, volcanic eruptions, political upheavals, financial crises, declining human fertility ... he may have a point.
The Elder also tells us that 21 December 2012 will be a date of rebirth: there will be a cleansing which will lead us to a new and better world. If, that is, we have not, in the meantime, destroyed too much of our Earth beyond the point of no return.
He warns of enormously powerful forces that seek to block the way to that rosy future. They seek to unbalance the Earth and its environment so we will be unready for the alignment in 2012. The strength of these forces lies in the pure focus of their intention on personal material gain: just now, the dark side is very strong, and very clear about what they want. They have their vision and their priorities clearly held. Their greatest fear is the unity of the people they must control for their own ends, and so the dark side works to block unity through denial and materialism.Can you read these words without thinking about the unbalancing effects of GM crops and the sore need to cleanse from our world, or the dark and powerful, single-minded, force of the biotech juggernaut with it's patents and spin and threats and control of the market?
In the space of one week at the beginning of February, at a time of spring and renewal in the world, we saw the dark side at work all around us.
President Obama extinguished the hope of his early promise to be a people's president: he has elected instead to join the rest of the 'Monsanto Minions' in government. Ignoring the 200,000 concerns raised by farmers, scientists, academics, conservationists, and food safety and consumer advocates, Obama has chosen to listen to a handful of agri-biotech companies. Direct orders issued by the White House instructed the US Department of Agriculture to abandon any idea of controlled deregulation of GM alfalfa which would have, for the first time, taken the reigns of GM out of the hands of the biotech companies. The Roundup-Ready grass will be planted this spring, and, like all GM crops in America, it will be untested, unregulated, unrestricted, and unlabeled.
The US Department of Agriculture (USDA), erstwhile protector of American farmers and farming, has become a protector of biotech. This rogue agency, it seems, is above the law: it has ignored an American court ban on the commercial planting of GM sugar beet and has declared it will allow Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beet to be planted again this spring.
In the UK, the coalition government has shifted position on GM from people-driven abstainer to industry-driven proponent. It's poised now to take a much more aggressive stance towards GM and put GM at the heart of it's agricultural policy.
At EU level, the Commission is set to abandon the precautionary principle and drop its zero tolerance policy on unapproved GM crops entering our food chain. Not unusually, the move was supported by the UK , but two countries which have always wary of GM in the past, Italy and Ireland, have changed sides. The health of the people, the safety of our food, and public trust in the EU regulatory system seem to have disappeared off its horizon: the biotech industry has succeeded in making more than 61% of the people of Europe invisible.
On the light side, the elder also tells us what we can do. The dark power ... cannot be destroyed or overpowered. It's too strong and clear for that, and that is the wrong strategy. The dark can only be transformed when confronted with simplicity and open-heartedness. No more darkness or light in the people, but an uplifted unity. We need to put our entire mind and heart into pursuing unity and unity now, to confront the other side and preserve life.Now is the time to awaken and take action. Everyone is needed. You are not here for no reason. Everyone who is here now has an important purpose. This is a hard but a special time. We have the opportunity for growth, but we must be ready for this moment in history.The elder adds advice to take special care with our diet. Food is fundamental to our clarity of thought and focus.Eat wisely  a lot of food is corrupt in either subtle or gross ways. Pay attention to what you are taking into your body.He finishes with a reminder that The real knowledge is free. It's encoded in your DNA.Real knowledge is also encoded in the plant's DNA. Genetically corrupt food feeds your body corrupt knowledge, and is intrinsically damaging.The message here is that we have to act to balance the dark side, not by fighting it, but by the invincible power of unity.There's enough knowledge about the GM issue here on GM-free Scotland to give you the clarity of understanding you need. Use this clarity to make your focus as singular as the biotech industry. In this way you can can help yourself and others to choose natural food and a healthy future.Encourage everyone you know to inform themselves about GM. Start by passing on GM-free Scotland articles to them.Carlos Barrios, What the Mayan Elders Are Saying About 2012, SERI-Worldwide http://lettertorobin1.site.aplus.net/Monsanto's GE Alfalfa: Obama's Organic Betrayal, Organic Consumers' Association, Organic Bytes #262, 3.02.11Maria Rodale et al., We Stand in Opposition to GE Alfalfa, The Huffington Post, 1.02.11Carey Gillam and Chuck Abbott, USDA partially deregulating biotech sugar beets, Reuters, 4.02.11Elizabeth Gibney, Government lays plants to reopen GM debate, Research Fortnight, 1.02.11Spelman Urged to Reject EC Plans to Drop GM Zero Tolerance Policy  Legal doubts about Commission proposals, GM Freeze Press Release, 7.02.11Action Update  Unapproved GmOs in EU feed imports, GM Freeze, 12.02.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2024 

Archive news - November 2009 (Please note links may no longer be active)
Triffid genes have been found contaminating imported flax in Europe, where they risk contaminating cereal, bakery goods, bread and omega-3 fatty acid supplements. 
On September 8, 2009, the EU issued a Rapid Action Alert closely followed by four others when a German food processing company detected GM genes in its  products.  Contaminated shipments may have been distributed to 10 EU countries and 28 countries world-wide.
Triffid flax is not legal for food use anywhere, including its country of origin, Canada.   After what was poised to be a very good year for Canadian flax farmers, sales of the seed have collapsed, causing serious financial hardship.
The GM flax, fancifully named Triffid, was transformed for tolerance to sulfonylurea-based herbicides which persist in the soil.  The purpose of the novel variety was to allow a crop rotation of flax and winter wheat where weeds are routinely controlled with sulfonylurea derivatives lethal to conventional flax.
Triffid was developed in the 1990s, approved for feed in 1996 and for food use in 1998 in Canada, closely followed by authorisation in the USA.  The crop was grown in open fields at this time.  However, under pressure from flax growers anxious to protect their European markets which import about 70% of the harvest, Triffid was deregistered and removed from the market in Canada in early 2001, at which time further research was abandoned.  Before it was halted however, 40 farmers across the Prairies were already growing 200,000 bushels of GM flax seed ready for marketing
The incident is highlighting the difficulties in tracking GM crops once they have been in the field: The gene has gone undetected for eight years.  Because the novel genes in Triffid are not the common ones found in other herbicide-tolerant crops, routine DNA testing didn't show up the contamination.  As genetic engineers dream up more sophisticated artificial DNA, and introduce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals into food crops, the problems of identification can only get worse.The globalised free market means flax from anywhere can wind up anywhere by circuitous routes difficult to track.  EU rules mean that imported seed can be passed  between EU countries, disguising its Canadian origin, and avoiding the suspicion which would lead to testing.The Canadian Seed Growers Association has a record of every grower who produced Triffid seed, how much they produced and where, but the trail has been complicated by several factors:For example - the recall in 2001 was voluntary and may have been incompleteFor example - packets of seed were handed out by the Triffid's developer in the early daysFor example - farmers have a habit of using farm-saved flax seed and holding back seed from year to year in the hope of a better price which would keep GM flax in the system once the contamination startedFor example - conventional flax doesn't outcross easily, nor is it a competitive volunteer; however in sulphonylurea-contaminated areas these characteristics might tend to promote survival of the GM version.At the end of the day 8 years on, no one's certain how much of what may have been grown     where or by whom. Everybody's relying on 10-year memory or files they can or can't find (Canadian Seed Growers Association)
Flax is also grown in the EU and, worryingly, it has been reported that home-grown crops are also contaminated, all the way from Canada. 
The big warning here is that any notion of the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops is a nonsense.  Despite the very brief time the crop was grown, the fact that full-scale commercial production was never achieved, and the fact that flax is mainly self-pollinated, the Triffid has emerged throughout the world eight years later.
The future plans of the GM brigade include the development of GM flax to produce pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals, the excuse being that it will avoid the risk of polluting a 'major' food or feed crop.  As the current contamination incident demonstrates, this threatens the crop's valuable natural dietary and medicinal properties.
GM Freeze has reported that the UK Food Standards Agency (FSA) is claiming there are no grounds for issuing a food alert and has failed to take any action.  This seems to echo their past handling of GM contamination incidents ... the FSA appear to be waiting for someone else to tell them where the GM flax is before they will act.  So much for the body which is supposed to promote and protect consumer safety.Let's hope our food protection agency can act faster when the GM pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals start appearing in our food.  Rather than just crossing your fingers, why don't you suggest to the FSA that it uses the current illegal flax in your food as a practice run for the next big GM contamination scare.
Illegal GM contaminates flax  UK fails to respond, GM Freeze Press Release, 14.09.09
Illegal GM flax in 10 EU countries? - FSA still fails to act in UK, GM Freeze Press Release, 23.09.09
Illegal GM Flax Contaminates Canadian Exports, 
The Day of the Triffid in Transgene Contamination, Institute of Science in Society Report, 23.09.09
Stephanie Dearing, Canada's GM contaminated flax has now been found in 28 countries, 
Allan Dawson, CDC Triffid Flax Scare Threatens Access to No.1 EU Market, Manitoba Co-operator, 17.09.09
Allan Dawson, Changes Likely for Flax Industry, Manitoba Co-operator, 24.09.09
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9474 

A decade after the introduction of 'Bt' insecticidal GM cotton in China, scientists started to give unequivocal warnings that problems with the management of the crop were increasing, and change was needed before these problems become crippling.
Field data collected in 2004, indicated that during the first six years of Bt-cotton seed planting, the initial benefits (reduced need for pesticides and increased income) had already been eroded by the need to control emerging secondary pests which the Bt toxin didn't kill. The scientists stated Failure to find a solution, may lead to the discontinuation of the use of Bt-cotton seed in China and elsewhere.
By 2010, 95% of cotton grown in China was GM. Chinese scientists reported that pesticide use on Bt crops had crept up from nil to two thirds of its pre-GM levels, and that this rise was anticipated to continue. A key problem noted by the authors of this study was that farmers are facing new pests, which they react to by overusing pesticides because information on the timing, dosage and frequency of chemicals appropriate to the new pests is not available. Chinese cotton farmers have no prior experience to fall back on, and scientists haven't yet been able to provide the knowledge they need.
Indeed, scientists have a lot of catching up to do in this field: the long-term effects of transgenic Bt crops on non-target pests have received limited attention, especially in the diverse small-holder cropping systems in the developing world. 
The most problematic secondary pests to emerge on Bt cotton in China are mirid bugs (see below). Ten years of field trials in China have tracked a steady increase in these previously innocuous insects. This has happened because the heavily-sprayed cotton of the past which used to act as a sink for mirids and prevent them from destroying many other crops, has now become a source: mirids use the unsprayed GM cotton as a haven from which to spread to neighbouring fields.Mirid bugs are herbivores which infest a wide range of crops including cotton, cereals, vegetables, and fruit. Historically mirid bugs in China were considered occasional or minor pests, only sporadically requiring management.Mirids have, however, the potential to become major pests because of their ability to switch host crops, their fast growth rate, their strong dispersal capacity, and their environmental adaptability.
A study of Chinese farmers' experiences with Bt cotton published in 2011 found that a quarter of farmers reported reduced productivity, and two thirds reported no savings in costs due to the high price of Bt seed. More disturbing was the revelation that Chinese cotton farmers who have used the biotech seeds for a decade don't know the words transgenic nor Bt. Data on how Bt cotton effects both farmers and the environment are confounded by the huge trade in illegal Bt seed of unknown quality.
So far, scientists in China have been trying to develop multi-pronged solutions to the mirid bug problem, including defining the most effective way to use pesticides against them, growing crops the bugs prefer near to the GM cotton, and producing plants which will kill cotton bollworms and mirids.
One scientists stressed that pest control must keep sight of the whole ecosystem. The impact of genetically modified crops must be assessed on the landscape level, taking into account the ecological input of different organisms. This is the only way to ensure the sustainability of their application.
Inserting a single gene into a crop plant is simple. The effects of that one gene on the whole ecosystem around the crop are complex beyond our ability to grasp.
It seems the answers sought by scientists to the predictable emergence of secondary pests on Bt crops are more (expensive) chemicals, more (expensive) artificial genes, or paying the price of a sacrificial non-GM crop to preserve a GM one. None of these are sustainable.More fundamentally, the underlying problem seems to be at the landscape level of the Chinese farmers: they're being sold high-tech seed without the resources needed to manage them, and their traditional skills are useless. Add to this that no matter how much technical information the scientists generate and pass on to the farmers, if rogue Bt seed is being planted this knowledge will likely be useless too.Lack of control by the authorities in China may pose the biggest threat. When (not if) cotton seeds emerge containing health-damaging Bt-toxin variants, or with interacting combinations of Bt-toxins, their effects at the landscape level of the people and the environment will be catastrophic.India is going through something very similar with mealy bug. Check out Shenghui Wang et al., 2008, Bt Cotton and Secondary Pests, International Journal of Biotechnology 10:2/3Yanhui Lu, et al., 2010, Mirid Bug Outbreaks inMultiple Crops correlated with Wide-Scale Adoption of Bt Cotton in China, Science 328, 28.05.10Jane Qui, 2010, GM crops use makes minor pests major problem, Nature online, 13.05.10Jennifer H. Zhao, et al., 2011, Benefits of Bt cotton counterbalanced by secondary pests?, Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 173Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3970 


The first 'science' of Roundup Ready soya

- The basis for regulatory and commercial acceptance of RR soyaIn the beginning, there was Roundup Ready soya, a crop with a unique ability to survive a drenching with Roundup herbicide while every other living, green thing around it curled up and died. Its creator saw that it was good, and that there was a lot of profit to be made from it
Its creator also saw that, while regulators would easily be persuaded of Roundup Ready wonders, the public would not.
Therefore, the creator of Roundup Ready soya took steps to oil the wheels of acceptance.
In 1996 and 1997, just as the first Roundup Ready (RR) soya crops were entering the food chain, letters of concern from the British public to Monsanto were enthusiastically answered with a folio of papers extolling the benefits and safety of its new GM beans:Roundup Ready soyabeans are just like any other soyabeans in safety, nutrition, composition and the way they process into high-protein animal fed and ingredients in the food we eat, such as margarine, salad dressings and bakery products.At the same time, the Company website quoted 1800 evaluations concluding RR soyabeans are the same as other commercially available varieties. In the UK, The Soya Bean Information Centre was set up to assure the sceptical that extensive testing procedures had found No health risk of any sort. 
All these glowing assurances were based on three studies which Monsanto had published in 1996.
The papers were accepted by the Journal of Nutrition after the standard peer-review process, and were usefully published all together as an information package. Because Monsanto had paid part of the costs of publication, the articles were marked advertisement, but readers would have to wade through the small print to discover this.
The soya used in all these studies seems to have been derived from various combinations of beans from the 5th, 6th, and 7th generations after genetic transformation, grown in 13 different sites over 2 different years. The varieties grown were the GM soya commercialised in 1996, and the untransformed parent control. Another GM soya, transformed using the same method (particle gun bombardment, a method notorious for causing random genomic disruption) and using a similar DNA construct (with an added marker gene) was included to double the experimental materials, although this variety was not considered for commercialisation. The beans were processed in various ways: toasted (as in animal feed) from which meal, oil, lecithin, protein isolate and protein concentrate were derived, and untoasted (as in human food). That's a lot of different test materials and a lot of variables to cram into a single study. And data from a different transformation event, not intended for the market, are irrelevant.
The first paper sought to demonstrate that The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Seeds Is Equivalent to That of Conventional Soybeans. This it did by chemical analysis of the various consumed portions of the beans, including: Macronutrients, such as total protein, energy, fibre etc. (7 parameters in all)Amino acids resulting from digested proteins (18 parameters in all)Fatty acids resulting from digested fats (12 parameters, including 2.3% 'unknowns')Known anti-nutrients and other biologically active substances found in soya (16 parameters in all)Lecithin fractions (4 parameters)This is a total of some 65 tests, which, multiplied by the number of different test materials explains where Monsanto's impressive 1800 evaluations came from.
These chemical compositional tests give a general nutritional overview, and are long-established measurements of the theoretical products of digestion which are used to check the commercial quality of any new feed crop. They are relevant to the desirability of the crop in terms of food processing and animal feed. What Monsanto presented is a huge array of data on known substances highly unlikely to reveal the presence of novel material. Safety, and unknowns, simply don't figure in such tests.
The authors' conclusions were that Several minor differences between glyphosate-tolerant soya and control soya were found to be statistically significant, but were considered biologically unimportant. 
Presumably, the composition of the fibre fraction was also considered by Monsanto's scientists to be unimportant since only the total fibre content was measured (and like all the other macronutrients, was found not to be significantly different from the control). However, subsequent analyses by other scientists showed that the lignin portion of the fibre was nearly double in the GM soya compared to the control. This unnoticed difference was definitely of biological importance: the excess lignin in GM soya crops has since been identified as a major cause of crop failure in times of environmental stress.
Buried in the 'discussion' of this paper was a note that the parent plants from which the tested and analysed seed was derived were not treated with glyphosate in order to focus the analysis on any effects of the introduced gene and protein. 
After it was pointed out that, in the absence of the herbicide, the data on these GM crops were not, representative of the GM soya actually being eaten by animals and humans, Monsanto carried out a brief repeat of some of the measurements on Roundup-treated crops. 
These subsequent Quality studies performed on glyphosate-treated, glyphosate
This follow-up study focused particularly on the parameters connected to the 'aromatic biosynthetic' pathway. This pathway is what glyphosate interferes with. It is also the pathway in which the novel protein of the inserted gene is active to overcome the otherwise toxic effects of the herbicide. The study, therefore, specifically included amino-acids and phyto-oestrogens. Lignin is also a product of the aromatic biosynthetic pathway, but the Monsanto scientists' reasoning on what might be disturbed by the engineered gene in action doesn't seem to have extended that far.
The only way to assess complete dietary unknowns is to feed them to animals and monitor the effects, and this indeed was the subject of Monsanto's next advertisement/study.
The second paper was entitled The Feeding Value of Soybeans Fed to Rats, Chickens, Catfish and Dairy Cattle Is Not Altered by Genetic Incorporation of Glyphosate Tolerance.
The feed used in these trials was the same as that used for the compositional analyses of the first paper. In other words, half the test animals were fed an irrelevant GM soya, and the source and glyphosate treatment of the feed was indeterminable. 
The lactating dairy cow study lasted four weeks. The chicken and catfish study lasted as long as these livestock normally live before slaughter, 6 and 10 weeks respectively. These are short-term studies aimed at commercial concerns, they are not safety studies. 
In the Abstract, the tests were referred to as 'animal feeding studies' conducted as part of a safety assessment program. In the Introduction, they were animal feeding trials ... undertaken to provide further support for commercial acceptance. In the discussion, they are animal feeding studies (to) provide reassurance. Either Monsanto's scientists are confused, or are trying to sow confusion.
'Feeding value', as described in the title, determines the 'gain-to-feed performance', or, how much product (milk, meat etc.) you get in return for the feed given. These tests are commercially important, but (as Monsanto itself points out) there are well-established feed nutrient values (as measured in the first publication) which can realistically predict 'feeding value' without actually feeding anything to find out. Despite what Monsanto tells us about providing a safety assessment and assurance, feeding value studies are not designed to detect toxic effects beyond the very gross. (This limitation was recognised by the UK government when it commissioned Arpad Pusztai to develop the GM safety tests which went inconveniently wrong in 1998). 'Feeding value' trials should not be confused with the animal-feeding experiments GM concern groups have been asking for since the mid-1990s. 
The closest Monsanto gets to any kind of toxicity assessment is the 4-week rat feeding study in which the animals' organs were weighed and eye-balled. Since all soya contains a range of anti-nutrients, some of which interfere with pancreatic function, this organ received some extra attention to check for gross tissue changes. The variables measured in all these trials were declared similar, and the differences found during the rat study were easily explained away or declared not meaningful. Ignoring data in this way is easy if your measurements are gross enough. Try measuring your dining table rounded up to the nearest centimeter and meter, and use your two sets of data to work out what minimum size of doorway will be needed to move it through. The grossest measurements will give you some very unrealistic answers, and you will have to dismiss them for practical purposes. 
In 2003, scientists reviewing the feeding studies on health consequences of GM food and feed, made a number of important criticisms of Monsanto's experiment on rats. They pointed out that the test diet was so artificially high in protein (close to 25% of the chow) that it would almost certainly mask, or reduce, any effects. Monsanto's authors were described as giving a bland assurance that no differences had been recorded without presenting any data. Despite the obvious short-comings of the 1996 studies, these reviewers found only one other feeding study on RR soya worth mentioning in the seven years after Monsanto's publications.
The third paper was designed to test whether the transgenic protein generated by the commercialised GM soya strain was safe to eat. Scientifically, it showed that eating a similar protein produced by a GM bacterium is safe, providing it is pure (in other words not complexed with other food materials), provided it by-passes the mouth to enter the stomach, and provided you have the super-efficient digestive system of a laboratory beaker full of digestive juices. There is minimal possibility of such tests identifying any adverse reaction to the actual protein as actually consumed. Monsanto's studies of its RR soya are poorly controlled, over-generalised, gross measurements of inappropriate or indefinable materials, and are designed not to reveal unexpected qualities.Either the Journal of Nutrition's 'standard peer-review' process is poor, or, the 'standard peer-review' applied to an advertisement is very different from the 'Standard peer-review' applied to a scientific contribution.In summary, the basis for regulatory and commercial acceptance of Monsanto's RR soya seems to be three advertisements dressed up as science.(This article adapted from an archived article entitled , which first appeared on GM-free Scotland in February 2009)
Padgette et al., The Composition of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean seeds Is Equivalent to That of
Conventional Soybeans, Journal of Nutrition, 1996, 126
Padgette et al., Quality studies performed on glyphosate-treated glyphosate-tolerant soybeans (GTS), Monsanto
Hammond et al., The Feeding Value of Soybeans Fed to rats, Chickens, Catfish and Dairy Cattle Is Not Altered by Genetic Incorporation of Glyphosate Tolerance, Journal of Nutrition, 1996 126
Harrison et al. The Expressed Protein in Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean, 5-Enolypyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase from Agrobacterium sp. Strain CP4, Is Rapidly Digested In Vitro and Is Not Toxic to Acutely Gavaged Mice, Journal of Nutrition, 1996, 126
Tudisco et al., Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis, Animal Science, 2006, 82
Pryme and Lembcke, In vivo studies on possible health consequences of genetically modified food and feed  with particular regard to ingredients consisting of genetically modified plant materials, Nutrition and Health, 2003, 17
Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5031 


The GM 'higher yields' mantra
Throughout the short history of GM plants, the crops have been promoted for their higher yields. British academics are repeatedly quoted as saying that GM crops allow farmers to attain high yields while using less chemicals.However, at least one Canadian Professor of Plant Agriculture, Ann Clark, has suggested let's stop with the 'higher yield' mantra and stick with the scientifically defensible evidence.Cotton has been subject to extensive commercial genetic transformation. The first GM cotton, in 1995, was resistant to bromoxynil herbicide, followed quickly by Bt-generating insecticidal and glyphosate herbicide-resistant varieties. After that, the artificial traits began to stack up with other Bt-toxin variants, and different kinds of herbicide-tolerance.In Monsanto's 1997 Report, readers were informed that, the previous year, The company's insect-protected cotton provided a 7% yield improvement. In 2011, Monsanto was complaining about the efforts of NGOs seeking to protect farmers from Monsanto's infamous lawsuits when their fields suffered genetic pollution. The company stated that These (NGO) efforts seek to reduce private and public investment in the development of new and higher-yielding seed technologies. The link between 'GM' and 'higher yields' has thus been firmly established in the public, agricultural, political and academic perception.A report from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2006 stated that currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety ... In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars.A year-on-year comparison of cotton yields based on USDA data, reveals that these have increased an impressive 5-fold since 1930. This included a distinctive surge from 1980 to the early 1990s before GM cotton was introduced. During the seven years when GM cotton was rising to dominance, 1996-2003, yields went flat and stagnated until excellent weather conditions produced higher yields in 2004-5.Reports coming in from all over the world are telling a similar story: Bt cotton introduced to Australia in 1996 has not boosted the cotton sector with improvements in either yield or quality; South Africa has shown a constant yield level before and after the adoption of Bt cotton; secondary pests on Bt cotton have crippled yields in China; Indian farmers chasing the white gold promise of Bt cotton have ended knee-deep in debt from the need to buy expensive GM seed, pesticides and fertilizers on credit (shored up apparently by bribes and threats if they try to complain). (For more on India, see A US study published in 2008 made a direct comparison between several GM and non-GM cotton varieties over a four-years period. In contrast to the standard scientific procedures for conducting official cultivar trials (OCTs) which prescribe a common pest management system for all tests, each crop variety was instead managed to maximise profit as recommended by the University of Georgia Extension Service.The conclusions reached were that:When considered as a whole, no transgenic technology system provided greater returns than a nontransgenic system in any year or location. and that profitability was most closely associated with yields and not the transgenic technologies.In one instance, the return from the GM test crop was 40 percent lower than its non-transgenic counterpart. Also, there was no difference in returns (profit) between the GM and non-GM cultivars once the technology fees for the biotech seeds were factored in. Growers do, however, associate GM crops with convenience in terms of reduced labour time and costs: a benefit often attributed to transgenic production systems is the ability to farm more hectares or to reduce personnel.Interestingly, the authors identified a number of biasing factors in previous data on GM crop yields. Farmers have only industry advertising and OCT information to base their choice of seed on. These are not necessarily based on best management practice for the crops. Besides this, the rate of development of GM crop varieties, and especially the newer multiple-trait types, has outpaced the capability of OCTs to evaluate their agronomic merits.Another factor which might become increasingly important in future trials of GM crops is that the supply of appropriate non-GM varieties to compare them with is dwindling, not just because the biotech industry isn't producing them but because seed stocks are becoming contaminated. Note also the yield claims made for GM soya and maize:With regard to GM soya, which Monsanto claimed provided a 5 percent yield improvement in 1997, university studies from 1999 to 2007 consistently show Roundup Ready soya to yield 4-12 percent less than conventional varieties.With regard to GM corn, which Monsanto claimed provided an 8 percent yield improvement in 1997, a university study of several Bt maize hybrids compared with their closest non-GM relatives found no yield advantage of Bt hybrids when pest levels were low to moderate, which is the case for most farms and for most years.Not much hard evidence there that GM cotton crops yield more or are more profitable than correctly-chosen and correctly managed non-transgenic varieties. The biggest danger suggested here is that farmers are being made dependent on biased industry information when choosing seed, and are being deskilled. As long as the biotech industry can churn out new GM seeds faster than any one can evaluate them, it's likely to be successful in bamboozling US farmers.Make sure EU regulators are not tempted to be similarly bamboozled. Make it clear you don't want untested, industry-dependent, GM food. Also, consider challenging any claims in the press that GM crops yield more: ask for scientifically defensible evidence.Monsanto 1997 Report, March 1998P. Jost et al., 2008, Economic Comparison of Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton Production Systems in Georgia, Agronomy Journal 100:1Transgenic Cotton Offers No Advantage, Institute of Science in Society Press Release, 27.03.08Mitch Lies, Researcher finds GMO traits in non-GMO canola, Capital Press, 22.04.11B. L. Ma and K. D. Subedi, 2005, Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines, Field Crops research 93:2-3New Soil Association report shows gm corps do not yield more  sometimes less, Food Democracy, 18.04.08Carey Gillam, Organic farmers sue, seek protection from Monsanto, Reuters, 29.03.11E. Ann Clarke, Let the Roeld Learn From Our Experience with GMOs, Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9793 

... and other landmark decisions
Bolivia is set to pass some landmark new laws.  The country will soon have the world's first laws granting 
Politicians and grassroots social groups have agreed the 'Law of Mother Nature' which redefines the countries natural resources, its rich mineral deposits, as blessings.  The new law is expected to lead to radical conservation and social measures which will reduce pollution, reduce emissions, and control industry.
Eleven rights will be established for Nature, including:the right to continue vital cycles and processes free from human alterationthe right to pure water and clean airthe right not to have cellular structure modified or genetically altered.All industries in Bolivia will have to think long and hard about what their activities are actually doing to life, especially the biotech industry which doesn't seem to have any place at all in a land with laws like these.
Head South to Argentina, and you'll find an area which has noticed what its high-tech agricultural system is doing to the people living there.
The province of Santa Fe has now banned the spraying of agrochemicals in the vicinity of urban areas.  This is the first case in Argentina where a Court has made a firm decision to prohibit such spraying to protect health.  It sets an important precedent for judges elsewhere in the country and establishes a legal basis for questioning the GM soy/agrochemical agricultural model which has been implemented on a huge scale in Argentina.
There are lots of important implications in this landmark decision:  People have a right not to be sprayed with toxinsThe precautionary principle (which states that lack of information or scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm to health or the environment) has been implementedLong-overdue questions over the safety of glyphosate have been raisedThe door has been opened to hundreds of new court cases for people affected by spraying.The president of the Argentinean NGO, Cepronat, which has been involved in the law suit, summed up the whole situation: After years of complaints, and being treated as crazy, the court has confirmed that the sprayed villagers are right.  With this precedent, we will ask the same prohibition in the 300 affected villages in the province.  He continued that the problem is not only glyphosate, but the agricultural model with health and social consequences ...  The use of pesticides in Argentina is authorized based on the 'studies' of the companies themselves, and not on independent research.  When you carry out a serious review of scientific studies that were not purchased, they support fair decisions, such as that taken by the court ....
In Europe, France grocery giant, Carrefour, has taken landmark steps to give its customers the choice not to be part of a food chain which includes GM.  The world's largest hypermarket chain has launched labelling to tell its customers that its own-brand animal products are produced without GM feed.  Its Executive Director said: We have a very strong belief in Carrefour to inform our customers and give them the freedom to choose.  With this new labelling, we allow our customers to decide in a transparent way whether or not to buy products from animals having been fed GM-free food.  Being a responsible retailer is a fundamental value for us.Other good news in Europe is that attempts (by a UK conservative MEP) to introduce 'accepted' GM thresholds into EU law have failed.  This move was widely seen by green groups as a foot in the door to flooding our food chain with all manner of artificial, untested and unapproved DNA constructs.  The legal mechanisms to protect us from GM-polluted food remains intact.As Carrefour has demonstrated, it is perfectly possible for retailers to demand full disclosure labelling on any animal product they sell.Like Mother Earth and the Argentinean villagers, we should have the right not to have our food or our bodies polluted or altered.   Bolivia Set to Pass 'Law of Mother Earth', www.truthdig.com, 2011Dario Aranda, Pesticides-free zone in Santa Fe, Paginal2, 26.02.11Carrefour launches 'non-GM' labels, Just Food, 25.10.10Carrfour launches new GM labelling, The Connexion, 26.10.10GM Freeze campaign to prevent routine GM contamination of EU's seed, 7.04.11 www.gmfreeze.org, and response from Struan Stevenson MEP, 12.04.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2088 

The Charter signed by King Charles II in 1662 for the formation of The Royal Society of London was granted in order that the whole world of letters may always recognize the United Kingdom as the universal lover and patron of every kind of truth.Henri Poincare (1854-1912), a top French mathematician-physicist in his day, defined science in terms of beauty: The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it; and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing and life would not be worth living. What Poincare was taking about was the ultimate beauty which comes from the harmonious order of its parts and which a pure intelligence can grasp.
Science of the 21st Century seems to have become defined in more practical terms. The modern scientist's most likely expertise is in designing artificial DNA constructs and using them to corrupt living cells.The DNA-design part has been largely taken over by dial-a-gene companies which have developed computer programmes to work out the best sequence for the purpose intended. A DNA production lines then rolls out whatever the scientist wants.As far as inserting the artificial DNA into the cell is concerned, scientists now have an arsenal of methods at their disposal.The earliest and most widely used method of genetic transformation is biolistic bombardment. DNA constructs are stuck to the surface of tungsten or gold microspheres and blasted using an explosive, shot-gun fashion, into cells in culture. To get an idea of what happens next, imagine blasting a room full of people with a shotgun: some of the pellets will miss everyone, some will be fatal, some will maim, one in 10,000 of the pellets will pass right through a body and the body will recover. If the genetic engineer is lucky, his artificial DNA will rub off that 1/10,000th missile inside a genome and become pasted into the cell's own DNA. All the healthy and maimed bystanders are then subject to mass execution. This isn't a very efficient technique and results in a lot of collateral damage to the genome transformed.The second most used method of creating GM plants, is Agrobacterium technology. Agrobacterium is a plant pathogen which has its own, natural, genome-invasion mechanism. In the wild, this pathogen inserts its own DNA in plant cells to transform them into a tumour (plant gall) in which the Agrobacterium can live happily ever after in a sea of food from the tumorous tissue. By genetically transforming Agrobacterium so that it has man-made DNA instead of its own DNA to insert, the pathogen can be harnessed to create GM plants cells from which GM crops can be generated. Because Agrobacterium is a first-class pathogen, it has a natural talent for infecting plant cells without otherwise doing much harm.Several vectorless DNA insertion techniques have been developed. For an operator with exceptional manipulative skills and lots of time, DNA constructs can be injected directly into a cell nucleus through a hollow micro-needle. However, DNA can be coaxed into cells without going to this extreme. If a cell is bathed in the DNA constructs to be inserted, and holes punched in the host cells with electricity (microporation) or needles (micropricking), the engineered DNA will tend to be taken up by the cell just because it's there.An extension of these methods is to impale the plant cells on 'whiskers' of, for example, silicon carbide. The transforming DNA can either be surface-bound to the whisker (as in biolistic bombardment) or added to the medium to be taken up by any cell ruptured by a whisker (as in microporation and micropricking).Recent research is developing DNA sequences which will insert in predetermined locations in the genome in place of the random attacks which host cells have been subject to so far. However, the DNA insertion itself is an invasion of living matter which can't ever be without disruption to the wider genome and cell, and its side-effects can never be assume benign.To go back to the original concepts of 'science' above. How much truth, beauty or grasp of the harmonious order of the parts of the cell is demonstrated by the use of missiles, pathogenic microbes, electrocution, spears and arrows to breach the living cell and install a man-made chemical tyrant in the heart of the cell's living intelligence?The quest for truth with which to impress the world seems to have been genetically transformed into a quest for $ and . The beauty of nature as a motivation for science seems to have been replaced by a twisted satisfaction in the bending of life to human will, and in the wanton destruction of life's inconvenient natural harmony.For a bigger picture, check outthe Institute of Science in Society - articles on Beauty and Truth in Science and Art.Joseph F. Petolino, Whiskers-Mediated Maize Transformation, Methods in Molecular Biology, 526, 26.12.08EipMark Kit, Patent 7259016 issued 21.08.07, Mae-Wan Ho, Beauty and Truth in Science and Art, Institute of Science in Society Report 2.02.11Translation of the First Charter, granted to the President, Council, and Fellows of the Royal Society of London, by King Charles the Second, A.D. 1662, Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8180 


UK Policy on genetic modification
The Coalition Government in Westminster has released its first policy statement on Genetic Modification (GM) (see Below).
Its overriding priorities are the protection of human health and the environment.  
To ensure these priorities are met, the government will only agree to the release of GMOs (crops and others) and to the marketing of GM food and feed providing:a robust risk assessment indicates it is safefull account has been taken of the scientific evidenceclear labelling and suitable information are provided to enable consumer choicein the event of commercial GM crops being grown in England, economic interests of conventional and organic farming are appropriately protected.In addition, GM technology has been relegated to the longer term challenges, and developing countries are to be allowed to make their own informed decisions regarding (GM) use, while at home the government will listen to public views about the development and use of the technology.
Needless to say, there's a get-out clause: regulations of (GM) technology must be proportionate.Genetic modification (GM)  UK Government policyThe protection of human health and the environment are our overriding priorities.The Government will only agree to the planting of GM crops, the release of other types of GM organism, or the marketing of GM food or feed products, if a robust risk assessment indicates that it is safe for people and the environment.  GM product applications should be assessed for safety on a case-by-case basis, taking full account of the scientific evidence.The Government will ensure consumers are able to exercise choice through clear GM labelling rules and the provision of suitable information, and will listen to public views about the development and use of the technology.The Government supports farmers having access to developments in new technology and being able to choose whether or not to adopt them.  If and when GM crops are grown in England commercially, we will implement pragmatic and proportionate measures to segregate these from conventional and organic crops, so that choice can be exercised and economic interests appropriately protected.The Government recognises that GM technology could deliver benefits providing it is used safely and responsibly, in particular as one of a range of tools to address the longer term challenges of global food security, climate change, and the need for more sustainable agricultural production.  Developing countries should have fair access to such technology and make their own informed decisions regarding its use.To encourage innovation, fair market access for safe products and economic growth, the Government believes that regulation of this technology must b proportionate.www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/There's no indication in the Policy that the present Westminster government has the same enthusiasm for GM crops as all the previous ones during the GM era.  AsThis is a tepid response from the Coalition Government that falls miles short of a ringing endorsement of GM crops.  There may be scope in the language used to back GM crops in the future, but the biotech industry have not been given a green light for now.You might like to test whether the coalition government really means to implement its policy of listening to public views.If the over-riding priority is protection of health, why is the precautionary principle not mentioned in the policy?Does the Policy on taking full account of the scientific evidence now mean that the UK will stop its practice of supporting GM approvals in Europe when doubts about the scope of the science are being raised by fellow member states?The recent report, 'Roundup and birth defects: is the public being kept in the dark' questions the robustness of the risk assessment of Roundup Ready crops.  It reveals that the current GM risk assessment excludes up-to-date test methods which can give early warnings of chronic disease, and cherry-picks the science (see ROUNDUP AND BIRTH DEFECTS  A NEW REPORT  June 2011).  Does the over-riding priority to protect human health and the specified need for a robust risk assessment mean that the issues raised in this report will be addressed before we are expected to consume any more Roundup?Point out that GM labelling cannot be clear (nor honest) unless it includes GM-fed meat and dairy products, GM-derived additives, and GM processing aids.Ask what is meant by appropriate protection of the economic interests of non-GM farms in the event of GM crops being grown in England.  You can cite: .  A recent study headed by a Swiss agri-economist found that protecting crops from GMOs could cost up to 20 percent of the productions costs.  (Note. Switzerland has a moratorium on GMOs until 2013).  Is a cost amounting to up to one-fifth of productions costs appropriate?  Is any cost appropriate? .  US rice growers have suffered repeated damage to their crops (death, altered growth , malformation and low yield) from spraying of nearby GM herbicide-tolerant crops.  How much such collateral damage is appropriate?  Is any such collateral damage appropriate? .  Gene-pollution affects crops and the soil, and is cumulative; it may never be eradicated and could cause economic damage forever.  Is there any appropriate level of protection which can be employed under these circumstances?Does the application of GM to longer-term challenges mean business as usual, but avoiding the herbicide-tolerant and Bt-insecticidal GM crops which haven't gone down well.Developing countries can only take charge of their own future GM use if British overseas development initiatives are helping them along their own desired course, not  joining the American and Gates' Foundation pressure to adopt foreign agricultural models (especially GM)To what is the regulation of GM to be proportionate?  Number of deaths?  Number of people made sick?  US regulations?  Profit? Your MP should be happy to represent you in putting these questions to the Westminster Government.  If not, don't vote for him/her and make sure everyone in your constituency knows why.New Coalition Government GM Policy  Westminster realising GM doesn't deliver? GM Freeze Press Release, 21.06.11Shielding crops from GMOs proves costly, World Radio Switzerland, 16.05.11Mike Wagner, Glyphosate drift to rice a problem for all of us, Farm Press, 12.05.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3792 

ARCHIVE NEWS (September 2007). Please note: links may not be active.
Science watchdog, Econexus, has prepared a petition calling for a moratorium on all EU promotion of agrofuels.
In its supporting document, Econexus details the unresolved concerns surrounding the use of agrofuels as an alternative source of energy. In particular, the exploitation of southern developing lands whose local livelihoods, water supplies and environment are threatened by spreading soil damage and desertification, promoted by intensive agriculture and GM crops.
Econexus also points out the weaknesses of plans to replace 'first generation' biofuels from dedicated crops with 'second generation' ones using GM woody plants and GM microbes.
So far, the main initiatives put forward to 'ensure' that environmental benefits accrue from the production of biofuels have involved 'sustainability certification schemes'. A number of reasons are presented by Econexus as to why the present schemes, whether voluntary or mandatory, can't effectively address the problems:
First and foremost, the fact that agrofuel crop production has been shifted to foreign lands. Many developing countries do not have the infrastructure to implement safeguards, to monitor the effects, nor to implement accountability. The local communities affected by agrofuel crop production are not being considered nor consulted.
One report from the Netherlands pointed out the shaky practicalities of such schemes. Some of the impacts of biomass production are difficult to assess on the individual company level, and only become apparent on the regional, national and sometimes even on the supranational level ... in particular the impacts caused by indirect changes in land use
Finally, the development of agrofuels is proceeding far too quickly for certification procedures to keep pace.
Of particular concern is that the EU and US have been introducing incentives for agrofuels, including mandatory targets, publicly funded subsidies, and tax breaks. Billions of dollars have been invested in agrofuel plantations, refineries and the extensive associate infrastructure. The damage to the environment and the people is proceeding without any proof that it will actually supply our energy needs, nor that it can ever mitigate global warming, and is proceeding at breakneck speed. The risks of a 'wait and see' approach are far too high.
Econexus' petition does not include a moratorium on biofuels from true waste, such as vegetable-oil, manure or sewage. It does ask for a halt to any expansion of monoculture biofuel crops and trees to allow time for a comprehensive assessment of all consequences, including environmental and socio-economic implications. The EU must stop all incentives for agrofuels, stop all imports of agrofuels and stop all agro-energy monoculture.
If you have an executive role an any organisation, consider adding its name to the petition. This can be done by e-mail to  And tell you friends about it.
Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9493 


US consumers demand GM labelling
America is very fond of selling itself around the world: it sells its model agriculture plus chemicals plus GMOs; it sells its model business plus globalisation plus 'voluntary' self-regulation; and especially, it sells its democracy.
Paradoxically, regarding the 'home' agriculture and 'home' market, it seems that US consumers are going in one direction while its administration, hand-in-hand with industry, is going in another.
This sounds a strange sort of a democracy.  And, there are signs it's about to crack.
For example, there has never been labelling of GM products in America: but that's because the government and industry don't want it, not because the people don't.  In 1995 a US Department of Agriculture (USDA) survey found 84% of respondents in New Jersey wanted GM foods to be labelled.  In 1997 a biotech company (Novartis) survey found 93% in favour of GM labelling, and a Time Magazine poll that same year found 81%.  In 2001 the Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology noted a majority of consumers in the United States desire GM foods to be labelled.  In 2003 a part-USDA-funded university poll found 85% of respondents wanted GM labelling.  In 2011 a CBS/New York Times poll found 87% want labelling, and a few weeks later, an MSNBC (cable news) poll recorded 96% of respondents strongly in favour of GM food labelling.  (It's noteworthy that the backdrop to these responses is one in which 74 per cent of the people don't realise they're eating GM foods on a daily basis [Pew, 2006].)
The latest poll results prompted one food columnist to declare he finds it unbelievable that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) and USDA will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labelled as genetically engineered.... The reason is that the FDA and USDA, hand-in-hand with the biotech industry don't want to 'suggest or imply' that these foods are 'different'.
But GM foods are different.  Consumers know they are different, and consumers want to go in a different, non-GM, direction.Consumer interest in the issue has magnified in the past five years, along with interest in eating locally grown and organic foods ...  Young, educated consumers who are driving much of the organic market have no interest in eating crops derived from a laboratory (Organic Valley, organic farming co-operative)Even the US Agricultural Secretary, right in the thick of all the GM promotion, has noticed something wrong: The rapid adoption of GE crops has clashed with the rapid expansion of demand for organic and other non-GM products. (Vilsack)Early warnings from European anti-GM campaigners that the biotech industry was trying to flood us with artificial genes so that we could no longer say NO, have been vindicated by a recent event in America.   One of the best known US purveyors of natural food, 'Whole Foods', has thrown in the towel.  It has admitted it can't keep GM off its shelves: the realities of the market-place have forced a shift in the company's previous no-GMOs policy.
These 'realities' are the lack of federal government mandated labelling.  Without this, Whole Foods has had to fall into line with US administration's favourite ploy to avoid regulation: encourage suppliers to voluntarily avoid GM ingredients.
Even more bizarre in this US-style 'democracy' is the USDA's promotion of GM crops which benefit only the biotech industry, not the consumer, nor the farmer, nor the environment, nor the economy.  The Obama administration is in the process of approving the world's first GM drought-tolerant maize.  This can only be a PR stunt because even the USDA notes that Equally comparable varieties produced through conventional breeding techniques are readily available in irrigated corn production regions, and Monsanto's rival, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, is already offering a conventionally bred, drought-resistant (consumer-friendly) maize in four States with no need for government approval.The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) in America has concluded that labelling of GMOs there will only be achieved if voters bypass the Federal Government.  This is because of the overwhelming level of control which the biotech industry exerts by its relentless lobbying activities (Monsanto, for example, spends more than $8 million per year on lobbying the US administration).  To win the battle for GMO labelling, the Association points out that achieving mandatory labelling in just one big state would be enough: the practice would soon spread nationwide.If you have friends or relatives in America, suggest they do some lobbying of their own, and  demand GM-labelling in their own state.  A good place to start is checking out the Organic Consumers Association campaignRady Ananda, Nothing new in 20 years: Nearly everyone still wants genetically modified food labeled, www.thepeoplesvoice.org, 5.03.11Mary Clare Jalonick, Genetically altered foods a major part of our diets, www.msnbc.msn.com, 25.2.11Tara Green, Whole Foods admits its organic foods contain genetically modified ingredients, Natural News, 7.06.11Paul Voosen, USDA Looks to Approve Monsanto's Drought-Tolerant Corn, New York Times, 11.05.11Alexis Baden-Mayer and Ronnie Cummins, Labels on Genetically Modified Foods: Let the Voters Decide! Organic Consumers Association, 6.07.11Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 3503 


Vatican take-over bid, round II

Just in case you didn't read it at the time ...
In April 2010, GM-free Scotland told the curious tale of how pro-GM agencies were 
For some years the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, a body which debates scientific subjects so as to inform the Vatican on current science, seems to have been infiltrated by pushy individuals with a vested interest in promoting GM. After a number of unsuccessful attempts to manipulate the debate, some particularly pro-GM members of the Academy arranged a 'study week', entitled Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development' which took place in May 2009 in Rome. The attendees invited to the study week were limited to well-known biotech promoters who could be counted on to reach the right conclusions. According to the organisers, the 'study' week was not standard science nor a balanced meeting ... (seeking) some kind of idiotic consensus.Without 'debate', 'balance' or 'standard science', the study week was clearly not a Pontifical Academy event. However at the time, the foregone pro-GM conclusion of the 'study' was successfully fed to the media as Vatican support for GM. This was done so cleverly that even the highly respected scientific journal, 'Nature Biotechnology', announced it, two months before the study week took place.
The misinformation was immediately corrected in the Catholic press, and things went quiet for over a year.
However, after all that trouble (and presumably expense) engineering the 'right' conclusions and attaching them to the Vatican, the organisers of the 'study week' have made another bid to capitalise on it.
In November 2010, 18 months after the study week in Rome, an 11-page final statement emerged.
The statement (predictably) recommended the easing of the excessive, unscientific restrictions on GM crops, and the promotion of such crops, especially in poorer nations. (COMMENT This conclusion is, of course, what the study week's organiser has been saying for years as he's tried unsuccessfully to persuade the developing world to save themselves with his GM vitamin-A-rich 'golden' rice: questions of the safety, acceptability and practicality of his invention are ignored as he blames over-regulation)
Apparently not learning from Nature Biotechnology's earlier gaff, the final statement was so successfully fed to the media, that another respected science magazine, New Scientist, reported the 'news' that Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops.
Even without knowing about the previous PR effort, sharp eyes would notice some odd inconsistencies the New Scientist version of events. The statement condemning opposition to GM crops in rich countries as unjustified is first described as coming from scientific advisers to the Vatican (the scientific advisers to the Vatican are the collective members of the Pontifical Academy). The statement is then described as coming from a group of scientists including leading members of the Pontifical Academy (so, it didn't come from the Academy after all, but from something else with an undefined number of its members). It's then described as coming from 40 international scientists (clearly not the Pontifical Academy, which has some 80 members). Then, it's described as having been approved by the seven Pontifical Academy members who were at the study week (that's 12 percent of the 80 members of the Academy), and finally it's mentioned that the Academy has yet to officially endorse the statement (i.e. the Academy hasn't actually anything to say about it, and may never).
The same day, an award-winning reporter for New Scientist magazine posted an article on Nature's blog. The piece repeated all the some mis-information about a meeting of the Pontifical Academy
having thrown its blessing behind GM. As one blog commentator pointed out, the article was wrong in almost every particular. Also mentioned was the fact that the report in question wasn't published by the Vatican, but by the European Federation of Biotechnology (EFB), an organisation which describes itself as an association of academia and companies interested in the promotion of Biotechnology throughout Europe and beyond, and is clearly a biotech lobby organisation. The EFB official journal is 'New Biotechnology'. This journal somehow contrives to take a scientific approach to non-scientific issues, seemingly giving it a free hand to say anything about anything, including advising to the Pope on how to interpret God's Word (see Information Box below). The award-winning scientific journalist seemed surprisingly unaware of the nature of his source material, and at the same time uncommonly keen to put the pro-GM story in a place where it will be read by scientists.Excerpt from the study week final statement:As an example of how far the study week's final statement deviated from the Pontifical Academy's scientific advice, it advises on the interpretation of God's word: God apparently made us all stewards charged with altering the beings around our for our own nourishment using GM. Part of this particular 'finding' is reproduced below.Faith, Scientific Reason and EthicsFor a believer, the point of departure for the Christian vision is the upholding of the divine origin of man, above all because of his soul, which explains the commission that God gives to human beings to govern the whole world of living creatures on earth through the work to which they dedicate the strength of their bodies guided by the light of the spirit. In this way human beings become the stewards of God by developing and modifying natural beings from which they can draw nourishment through the application of the methods of improvement. Thus ... they ... participate in the power of God and are able to build their world, that is to say an environment suited to their dual corporeal and spiritual life, their subsistence and their well-being. Thus new human forms of intervention in the natural world should not be seen as contrary to the natural law that God has given to the Creation ...Note this insinuations that GM is method of improvement and genetic engineering can be used to make our food suited to our spiritual life as well as what you'd expect your food to do for you.
Like the previous attempt to spread news of the non-existent papal blessing on GM, the Catholic News Service immediately denied it. The Academy chancellor who was one of the seven Pontifical Academy members at the study week clarified the whole situation: This statement is not a statement of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences because the Pontifical Academy of Sciences as such  80 members  wasn't consulted about it.
The appearance of an 11-page report 18 months after a conference, feeding the same mis-information to the media which had already appeared (and already been denied) at the time of the conference, can only be described as a PR stunt.
Whereas the stunt has been shown up for what it is in Europe, in American it continues to be milked.
Two weeks after the New Scientists article was trotted out, Iowa's Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier ran the headline Iowan visits Vatican to share ag expertise. It recounts how when leaders of the Catholic Church sought information about GM crops and their impact in developing countries, they turned to an Iowan for help. The Iowan in question was one Andrew Apel. Apel was one of the 40 attendees at the May 2009 study week, invited by the organisers because of a shared vested interest in GM. His topic at the study week was Financial Support of Anti-GM Lobby Groups and seems to have been a disingenuous effort to lay the blame for the lack of GM-enthusiasm on government and private enterprise payments to green groups.
The Iowan described himself as an independent source of objective information upon which the Holy See and its various bodies can draw, and he informed Farmers who grow GMO crops (that they) can now look at the proceeding (of the pro-GM stitched-up study week) and know they are in line with humanitarian efforts and the teachings of the church  in the opinion of 40 people. He doesn't of course add that the Holy See and its various bodies haven't drawn on his 'independent' and 'objective' information, and indeed never asked for it. Neither does he mention how many of the 40 people whose opinion it is that GM crops are part of 'humanitarian efforts' and in line with 'the teachings of the church' were actually inventors of GM crops or had close ties to biotech companies.
Interestingly, just after Apel had fed his GM spin into the US press, Wikileaks came up with a related cable from the US Embassy in Rome. It reveals that in 2008 the Vatican's most prominent cheerleader of GM, Cardinal Renato Martino, was suddenly through pushing the (GM) issue. Apparently the good Cardinal's reason for promoting GM in the first place was nothing to do with moral imperative, but everything to do with diplomacy: he was only advocating GM crops to smooth relations with the American government after his vocal, and presumably embarrassing, disapproval of the war in Iraq.The most interesting lessons here, all of which have been mentioned before but are worth repeating because they're bound to keep on happening, are:Beware pro-GM 'news'. It might not be new at all. Real news happens only once, after which it is no longer news. PR-based 'news' gets trotted out repeatedly at intervals in such a way as to give the impression the event is happening repeatedly.Beware headlines which are not supported by the article that follows (a.k.a. bad journalism, bad editing, and bad science)Be aware that, even in respected scientific publications, the reporters may not know their subject but may simply be regurgitating a plausible-sounding press-release which someone with vested interests has fed them . Note that, when this happens, the same information tends to appear in a very similar format (i.e. that of the original press release) in several publications.Don't be fooled by fancy names which suggest authority. For example the journal, New Biotechnology (easily confused with Nature Biotechnology, Biotechnology Journal, Plant Biotechnology etc) is published by a pro-GM lobby group and is a channel for pro-GM propaganda.If you want to know how to get paid for your anti-GM lobbying, you'd better ask the Iowan because we've no idea. On the other hand, you might be content to continue your campaign just for the sake of your health and for the future well-being of the world your children will inherit.Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development, New Biotechnology 27, Issue 5, November 2010Unbiased global expert helps Vatican on GM crops, Andrew Apel Powerbase Profile, Andy Coghlan,Vatican scientists urge support for engineered crops, New Scientists, 30 11.10Carol Glatz, Vatican has not endorsed genetically modified food, official says, Catholic News Service 1.12.10Ewen Callaway, GM crops gets (sic) blessing of Pontifical Academy of Science members, http//blogs.nature.com, 1.12.10Ewen Callaway named 2009 APS Plant Pathology Journalism awardee, Cable 05VATICAN514, Vatican:looking ahead on biotech, Wikileak, Ref. ROME 2543, 8.05.05Anna Meldolesi, Vatican cheers GM, Nature Biotechnology 27, March 2009Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 4155 


Almost every GM crop ever created has included of a useful little piece of DNA copied from the 'Cauliflower Mosaic Virus' (CaMV). This chunk of DNA is referred to as 'CaMV 35S', and as its name suggests, it is part of the DNA found in a virus which commonly infects cauliflower and related vegetables. In infected plants, its normal function is to switch on the genes needed for the virus to replicate itself. In GM plants its function is to switch on the engineered DNA attached to it which otherwise would likely remain dormant: effectively it overpowers the host cell's own self-regulatory mechanisms to permanently turn on the inserted genes which then generate huge amounts of the transgenic proteins. The value of the CaMV 35S 'promoter' to genetic engineers lies in its promiscuity: it acts on all types of DNA in the genome of all types of plants.
Any suggestion that problems could arise from putting millions of copies of an aggressive viral promoter into every mouthful of our food have been reasoned out of existence by the biotech industry and regulators. Their argument goes something like: humanity has been eating such DNA in its natural form forever, besides which it won't survive processing, cooking and digestion, and, even if it did survive, it is plant-specific and so can't turn on the genes in mammals including humans, or gut bacteria, and, even if it did survive and get into such cells, it will only activate the gene to which it is attached ...
The Institute for Science in Society and other scientists have been warning of the inherent risk in using CaMV 35S in GM food for a decade (see references below). The scientific questions which GM proponents have reasoned they don't need to ask include can intact, functional CaMV 35S end up inside our cells and our intestinal flora, and if it gets there can it cause harm?
As industry and regulators look determinedly in the opposite direction, answers to these questions are gradually seeping out of the laboratory, and they are not reassuring.
Large chunks of DNA can and do survive digestion and enter animal cells (including human) and can end up in many vital organs; they can also enter microbial cells in the digestive tract. The CaMV 35S promoter can drive genes in any cell it ends up in, not only in plants but also microbes and animals. Engineered genes attached to a universal promoter can be taken up by all manner of living cells and can be functional.
The possibility of CaMV 35S promoters incorporated into the human genome raises all sorts of concerns:CaMV 35S is known to create a 'hotspot' of instability, meaning it can promote breakage and rearrangement of the DNA around itCaMV 35S has been found to activate not only the engineered gene to which it has been attached, but host genes elsewhere in the genome, even on other chromosomes; it has also been found to be able to switch on the host's own organ- and tissue-specific promoters, meaning it could drive gene expression in the wrong cells or at the wrong time.CaMV 35S promotes the biochemical mechanism in cells which viruses hijack to replicate themselves; parts of this mechanism are the same or similar in plants and humans.The cauliflower mosaic virus is related to certain serious human pathogenic viruses such as the 'human immune deficiency virus' (HIV) implicated in AIDS, and hepatitis B virus implicated in liver failure.Such genomic disruptions could set the scene for a host of diseases, including cancers caused by the DNA damage, floods of toxic or allergenic proteins caused by inappropriate gene expression, and dormant viruses (especially related ones) being reactivated by the switching on of replication mechanisms. At least three experiments have now found signs of cell proliferation in animals fed GM chow; these have lead to speculation that the CaMV 35S promoter might well be stimulating the production of the animal's own growth factors which could lead to diseases such as cancer.
Other suggestions which have not yet been explored involve the unnatural genetic connections being forged by genetic engineers: a powerful piece of pathogenic viral DNA is being linked to engineered DNA copied from plants, bacteria, other viruses and animals. The copied DNA could act as a Trojan horse to take the CaMV 35S promoter into all manner of living cells. There are real concerns that the CaMV 35S promoter taken up by microbes in the gut could alter them permanently so as to disrupt the digestion with very serious consequences. Similarly, the CaMV 35S promoter taken up by microbes in the soil could alter them permanently so as to disrupt soil fertility with catastrophic consequences. The ultimate effect on an environment flooded with DNA constructs designed to 'mix-and-match' with all forms of organism living there and which include an 'on-switch' ensuring the genes can't lie inactive and the recipient can't control its own genes, may be devastating.
If you want to catch some really interesting new disease in future, you may not need to look any further than your dinner plate.
You can add your voice anytime to the Institute for Science in Society's world-wide lobbying against GM foods on the grounds that they are intrinsically dangerous.Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter  A Recipe for Disaster (1999), Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter (2000), CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed, and it is active in animals (2000) New Evidence Links CaMV 35S Promoter to HIV Transcription (2009). Available from Terje Traavik, New research on survival of CaMV promoter in rat tissues, February 2004Michail Antoniou, Updated comments on The Newcastle Feeding Trial, 23.09.03Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 8723 


Artificial DNA copied from viruses is in most GM plants.
Almost every GM crop ever created has included of a useful little piece of DNA copied from the 'Cauliflower Mosaic Virus' (CaMV). This chunk of DNA is referred to as 'CaMV 35S', and as its name suggests, it is part of the DNA found in a virus which commonly infects cauliflower and related vegetables. In infected plants, its normal function is to switch on the genes needed for the virus to replicate itself. In GM plants its function is to switch on the engineered DNA attached to it which otherwise would likely remain dormant: effectively it overpowers the host cell's own self-regulatory mechanisms to permanently turn on the inserted genes which then generate huge amounts of the transgenic proteins. The value of the CaMV 35S 'promoter' to genetic engineers lies in its promiscuity: it acts on all types of DNA in the genome of all types of plants.Any suggestion that problems could arise from putting millions of copies of an aggressive viral promoter into every mouthful of our food have been reasoned out of existence by the biotech industry and regulators. Their argument goes something like: humanity has been eating such DNA in its natural form forever, besides which it won't survive processing, cooking and digestion, and, even if it did survive, it is plant-specific and so can't turn on the genes in mammals including humans, or gut bacteria, and, even if it did survive and get into such cells, it will only activate the gene to which it is attached ...Institute for Science in Society and other scientists have been warning of the inherent risk in using CaMV 35S in GM food for a decade (see references below). The scientific questions which GM proponents have reasoned they don't need to ask include can intact, functional CaMV 35S end up inside our cells and our intestinal flora, and if it gets there can it cause harm?As industry and regulators look determinedly in the opposite direction, answers to these questions are gradually seeping out of the laboratory, and they are not reassuring.Large chunks of DNA can and do survive digestion and enter animal cells (including human) and can end up in many vital organs; they can also enter microbial cells in the digestive tract. The CaMV 35S promoter can drive genes in any cell it ends up in, not only in plants but also microbes and animals. Engineered genes attached to a universal promoter can be taken up by all manner of living cells and can be functional.The possibility of CaMV 35S promoters incorporated into the human genome raises all sorts of concerns:CaMV 35S is known to create a 'hotspot' of instability, meaning it can promote breakage and rearrangement of the DNA around itCaMV 35S has been found to activate not only the engineered gene to which it has been attached, but host genes elsewhere in the genome, even on other chromosomes; it has also been found to be able to switch on the host's own organ- and tissue-specific promoters, meaning it could drive gene expression in the wrong cells or at the wrong time.CaMV 35S promotes the biochemical mechanism in cells which viruses hijack to replicate themselves; parts of this mechanism are the same or similar in plants and humans.The cauliflower mosaic virus is related to certain serious human pathogenic viruses such as the 'human immune deficiency virus' (HIV) implicated in AIDS, and hepatitis B virus implicated in liver failure.Such genomic disruptions could set the scene for a host of diseases, including cancers caused by the DNA damage, floods of toxic or allergenic proteins caused by inappropriate gene expression, and dormant viruses (especially related ones) being reactivated by the switching on of replication mechanisms. At least three experiments have now found signs of cell proliferation in animals fed GM chow; these have lead to speculation that the CaMV 35S promoter might well be stimulating the production of the animal's own growth factors which could lead to diseases such as cancer.Other suggestions which have not yet been explored involve the unnatural genetic connections being forged by genetic engineers: a powerful piece of pathogenic viral DNA is being linked to engineered DNA copied from plants, bacteria, other viruses and animals. The copied DNA could act as a Trojan horse to take the CaMV 35S promoter into all manner of living cells. There are real concerns that the CaMV 35S promoter taken up by microbes in the gut could alter them permanently so as to disrupt the digestion with very serious consequences. Similarly, the CaMV 35S promoter taken up by microbes in the soil could alter them permanently so as to disrupt soil fertility with catastrophic consequences. The ultimate effect on an environment flooded with DNA constructs designed to 'mix-and-match' with all forms of organism living there and which include an 'on-switch' ensuring the genes can't lie inactive and the recipient can't control its own genes, may be devastating.If you want to catch some really interesting new disease in future, you may not need to look any further than your dinner plate.(This article is adapted from an article which first appeared GM-free Scotland in June 2009. View an archivedcopy of the article Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter  A Recipe for Disaster (1999), Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Hazards of Transgenic Plants Containing the Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter (2000), Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed, and it is active in animals (2000), Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/New Evidence Links CaMV 35S Promoter to HIV Transcription (2009), Institute of Science in Society, http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Terje Traavik, New research on survival of CaMV promoter in rat tissues, February 2004Michail Antoniou, Updated comments on The Newcastle Feeding Trial, 23.09.03Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 5073 


A land-mark federal court case in the US in 2010 has, at last, formally recognised the existence of real dangers from gene pollution, and at the same time highlighted the irresponsible attitude of regulators and industry.
The case ended with an order from the Judge for the immediate destruction of hundreds of acres of GM sugar-beet which he declared had been planted in violation of federal law.
In the court, the many ways in which GM sugar beets could harm the environment and consumers were outlined.  It was also noted that containment efforts are currently insufficient and that past contamination incidents were too numerous to allow the illegal beet crop to remain in the ground.  In his court order, the Judge ruled that farmers and consumers would likely suffer harm from cross-contamination between GM sugar beets and normal crops.  He continued the legality of Defendants' conduct does not even appear to be a close question, and noted that the government regulators and Monsanto had tried to circumvent his prior ruling which had made the GM beet illegal to grow.
The problem is that artificial gene constructs can't be contained.  Insect-pollinators, wind, water, farm and transport equipment, GM weeds and crop volunteers all can and do play their part in spreading man-made DNA far and wide.  This has never been more obvious than in the waves of genetic pollution seen in 2010.
In areas where GM crops are being legally grown, waves of artificial DNA will stream in from neighbouring GM crops. 
One Australian organic canola (oilseed rape) farmer has lost his vital organic certification after two-thirds of his arable land was found to be contaminated by GM plants.  Since rape seed can persist in the soil for more than 10 years, the farmer is acutely aware that Our livelihood is at stake as we  ... rely on the premium that comes with selling guaranteed GM-free organic food in Australia and in overseas markets ... Governments that allow GM canola to be grown must ensure whatever a farmer does within their boundary does not impact on neighbouring farms ... clearly, the technology can't be contained.  Gene Ethics Cropwatch pointed out that:A majority of people will not buy GM contaminated food products and are flocking to organics, but this incident puts that trust under a cloud.  European and Japanese grain buyers have threatened to cancel Australian contracts over fears of contaminated canola.
The Australian organic farmer is considering suing his neighbour, but as Monsanto pointed out, the GM grower had complied with all his legal obligations (a laughable 5-metre buffer zone).  The Australian Agricultural Minister responsible for allowing the GM canola to be grown in the first place professes to be confident the incident is a 'one-off'.  However, this problem could be the beginning of a new backlash against GM crops, because Monsanto has determined to back the offending GM neighbour if it comes to a lawsuit.  This will inevitably rally conventional farmers world-wide to support the organic farmer, and generate a lot of biotech-unfriendly PR.
Several waves of DNA pollution have come from the importing of contaminated seeds from areas where the GM contaminant is legal or is under development.
Conventional maize seed planted in seven states in Germany and in Ireland was found to be contaminated with NK603 GM (herbicide-tolerant) maize.  The Saxony Environment Minister said the 2000-hectare problem came from two rogue sacks of seed.  Gene pollution can spread from maize at a rate of up to 1200 metres a year, however in this case both countries took action to destroy the offending crops before the outward march of genes could begin.  Of more concern here is that the imported maize was accompanied by a certificate of analysis 'assuring' it GM-free.
Similarly, a new non-GM soya imported into Europe for trials was found to be contaminated by an unauthorised GM variety.  The French authorities caught it before it was planted, and the UK Department of Environment and Rural Affairs, less on-the-ball, discovered it after it was in the ground in Sussex.
The latest GM crop to be commercialised in Europe, the Amflora potato for industrial starch and animal feed got off to a bad start when some of the first batch was found to be another, quite different and illegal, GM spud, 'Amadea'.  The mix-up was spotted in Sweden, and raised an alarm in Germany and the Czech Republic where Amflora planting was also taking place.  Greenpeace described the discovery of Amadea as a deplorable lapse of bio-security.
Of course, the wave of gene contamination not spotted in the fields will make its way into the stores.
Illegal Bt 63 genes for insect-resistance flowed all the way onto Chinese supermarket shelves in rice products.  Ironically, the offending grains originated in strategic stores intended for emergency relief following natural disasters.  In this case, the 'relief' was  the disaster.  These incidents were only uncovered due to testing by Greenpeace.  The Chinese rice-contamination seems to derive from earlier experimental field-tests of the GM strain. 
The big question is, once out there, can genetic contamination ever be purged?
Previous field tests of a GM grass in America are threatening to become a significant environmental problem.  A herbicide-tolerant strain of GM creeping bent-grass is spreading uncontrollably on field margins and irrigation canals in Oregon.  The glyphosate-resistant GM seed intended for golf-courses was trialled in 2005 in neighbouring Idaho.  After 5 years, the GM weeds are well-established and spreading rapidly as all grasses do.  The catch-22 difficulty in controlling such a glyphosate-tolerant plant is that this same weedkiller is the only one deemed 'safe' enough to use in the waterways through which the GM grass is spreading.
Besides these new gene contamination waves of 2010, Triffid flax continues to pop up around the world (most recently in Finland).  It seems the illegal gene has now been found in seed stocks in Russia, Turkey, China, the USA and Moldova  in addition to its site of origin in Canada (See 
All of the above incidents could have, or did, became global problems, and the price of picking up the pieces is staggering.  The costs include testing, administration, oversight, market recalls, crop destruction, cleaning up the environment, and re-establishing the market once trust has been eroded.  These costs have, so far, been overwhelmingly born by the public and by farmers.  Readers will be aware of the on-going US court-cases, in which biotech giant Bayer is being successfully sued for very large sums by US rice farmers (see ? - News, March 2010).  The most recent award was nearly $50 million to 12 Arkansas farmers damaged by the escape of the company's experimental LL601 rice. Time will tell whether these payments set a precedent for future compensation.
None of these gene contamination waves would have happened if, to paraphrase Greenpeace, the regulators hadn't said 'no' to public opinion, 'no' to the health and safety concerns of scientists, 'no' to biodiversity, ' no' to farmers' livelihoods and 'no' to food security.  The only things they say 'yes' to seem to be the demands of the biotech companies.
Each of these incidents has been characterised by delays on the part of regulators and industry, including unwarranted slowness to publicise the problem, buck-passing, trivialisation denial and concealment:The US Department of Agriculture and Monsanto seemed to have pretended not to understand the court ruling that the GM beet was illegalThe Australian Agriculture Minister curiously changed his tune from 'trials proved GM and non-GM canola can be segregated and marketed separately' when he ended the ban on growing GM in March to ... zero per cent thresholds are unrealistic in biological systems six-months (and one serious organic crop contamination) later.Officials in Germany took 2 months to warn farmers of the GM maize contaminationIreland was alerted of the GM maize contamination 3 months after the German discovery and long after the seed had been sown.Many of the details of GM contaminations, such as Triffid flax, have only been revealed through freedom-of-information requests. The Chinese province of Hubei, which was quick to try out experimental GM rice has been the slowest province to implement essential screening of it's rice supplies for genetic contamination. Oregon Department of Agriculture insisted the creeping bent-grass was a federal problem, and all it had to do was find a new weed-killer  to get rid of the GM weeds.The company which caused the creeping bent-grass problem had already been fined once for a escape of the same GM plants in 2003, but seemed to shrug it off with you likely are going to have situations where you have seed spills here, pollen flows there. Bayer knew about the LL601 rice contamination in January 2006, but the USDA failed to alert farmers until their crops were almost ready for harvesting. Bayer's attitude to the bankrupt and struggling US rice farmers was that their damages were minimal and didn't last long.The next gene contamination might just be the one that kills or cripples, and if it's not the next one, the perhaps the next again?  At the rate the waves of contamination are circulating around the world, a genetic tsunami could be just round the corner.We have much better, safer, more efficient and sustainable techniques for developing crops to suit our needs.  You have the power to promote sensible use of science: just refuse to eat GM.Errors spread GM contamination despite 'rigorous' controls, Thin Ice, Issue 19, October 2010Jonathan Watts, Greenpeace finds evidence of GM rice contamination in China's emergency grain stores, Guardian, 20.07.10International Round Up, Thin Ice, Issue 17, April 2010Sean Pratt, Flax tests show GM contamination widespread, The Producer, 19.08.10Mitch Lies, GMO bentgrass found in Eastern Oregon, Capital Press, 9.11.10Mitch Lies, Agencies refused to publicize spread of biotech bentgrass, Capital Press, 11.11.10Dominique Patton, GM rape seeds last at least 10 years, say researchers, Jury tells Bayer to pay Ark rice farmers $48 (Previous Judgements - $4.5 million), www.google.com/hostednews, 16.04.10Scientists Uncover Bees Potential to Mediate Genetically Engineered Material Over Several Kilometres, Citizens' Biotechnology Information Center, 22.09.08Victory!  Court Orders Destruction of Monsanto's Sugar Beets, Organic Consumers Association Bytes, 2.12.10Monsanto to back Kojonup GM grower, WA Government hides GM canola test results,  Natasha Bita, GM strain blows organic status away, The Australian, 23.12.10Natasha Bita, Europe, Japan GM canola threat, The Australian, 27.12.10State government tests confirm GM contamination, GM canola contaminates organic farm, GeneEthics, 3.12.10Banned GM maize sown in Germany, BBC News, 7.06.10Banned GM maize (NK603) sown in Germany, Illegal GM maize grown in Ireland, GM-free Ireland Press Release, 23.07.10Simon Taylor, Illegal GM potato variety found in Sweden, European Voice, 6.09.10Illegal GM potato discovered growing in Sweden, Greenpeace, 4.09.10Myrto Pispini, Genetically engineered potato?  We have a bad peeling about this,  Greenpeace, 2.09.10Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 1028 


What glyphosate does to plants

Weed-killers kill weeds. Just how they kill the weeds doesn't matter too much, so long as they do it efficiently.
During the many years that glyphosate (the active ingredient in Roundup brand weed-killer) could only be used to clear fields before planting began, or for paths and roadsides, little research was carried out to find out what it actually did to the weeds, besides kill them.
When GM Roundup Ready plants resistant to glyphosate appeared on the scene, we were presented with a clever technological trick which seemed to be based on the science of how the weed-killer worked. Glyphosate, we were told, kills by reacting with and inactivating an enzyme vital for the manufacture of many essential proteins in plants. The GM plants get round this by generating their own novel version of this enzyme which can't be knocked out by glyphosate. So we have weeding made easy: the GM seedlings survive spraying with Roundup while the weeds around them die.
But, are the life-processes really so simple?
Some varieties of Roundup Ready soya have a disturbing habit of turning yellow after being sprayed with Roundup. They recover, but it can take up to two weeks. This wasn't meant to happen.
When university crop scientists began belatedly to investigate the effects and side-effects of glyphosate on GM plants, what they found amounted to significant disruptions throughout the plants' physiology.
Roundup Ready plants can't get rid of the Roundup they absorb: glyphosate remains there until the plant is fully mature. Very little of the chemical stays bound to the enzyme it de-activates. Most glyphosate ends up being translocated to active growing areas, while a small amount is degraded to AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is toxic to the plant. There's lots of scope here for the weed-killer to perpetrate wider metabolic mischief.
One major mischief comes from the fact that glyphosate reacts, directly and indirectly, with plenty of other vital substances in the plant besides the one enzyme replaced by genetic engineers. Foremost amongst these are the essential mineral micro-nutrients (such as magnesium and calcium) which glyphosate binds to and makes unavailable to the plant. After spraying, glyphosate can interfere with these micro-nutrients at all stages: in the soil, during root uptake and transportation to the leaves and growing points, and in all the plant's tissues.
The metabolic pathway glyphosate disrupts is a very major one: one-fifth of the carbon fixed by green plants (from carbon dioxide in the air using photosynthesis) is channeled into this pathway. The function of the pathway includes the production of a huge range of proteins (such as enzymes and structural materials), besides lignin, plant hormones and the plants' immune mechanisms. Glyphosate can potentially create mischief in all of these.
Recently published studies have revealed that glyphosate-treated GM plants have:low leaf chlorophyll (i.e. the green colour which carries out photosynthesis)low water-use efficiency (i.e. an attribute that enables the plant to cope with drought)reduced biomass of the shoot and rootsreduced amino acid content (i.e. the building blocks for all proteins)reduced micro-nutrient content, with the exception of nitrogenreduced lignin content (lignin is an important structural component providing mechanical support and compression strength to the plant, especially its vascular system, and contributing to protection of the seed coat)These parameters are all part of the intricate physiological processes essential to life. How much any one of these disruptions causes, is caused by, or exacerbates the others can't be unravelled. For example, reduced photosynthesis must result in less energy being available to drive everything else, while low micro-nutrient availability will impair the enzyme activity needed for many life processes. Other interacting factors are now coming to light in glyphosate-treated areas, such as a higher incidence of plant disease and disturbances to beneficial soil microbes.
In summary, the metabolic pathway which is broken by glyphosate and allegedly mended by a GM elastoplast enzyme is clearly not made entirely whole. The picture emerging is that Roundup Ready plants are chronically sick.
First generation Roundup Ready soya was hyped as having provided about 5% more crop than conventional soya. In the event, it proved to yield more than 5% less. This is hardly surprising considering the fundamental physiological impairments wrought by the glyphosate it absorbs. Now, we have a second GM generation, Roundup Ready 2 Yield, again hyped as having improved yield. This new Roundup Ready soya has been manufactured using a less disruptive gene insertion technique, an improved DNA construct, and an elite soya cultivar. The studies found that it does, indeed, have less impairment of photosynthesis and respiration compared with its prototype, but these are cancelled out by an even greater reduction in leaf area and biomass (resulting in a reduced level of functional chlorophyll). Also, Roundup Ready 2 Yield doesn't seem to be yielding terribly well.
In West Virginia, officials are investigating Monsanto for unfair or deceptive practices in the marketing of its latest GM soya. Farmers there have relied on advertising claims by the Company that its Roundup Ready 2 Yield soyabeans would yield 7-11 percent more than the original GM ones. It seems the yields do not live up to these claims and do not justify the increased prices charged for them.
Monsanto described this allegation as a 'misunderstanding. The Company's response was that it could provide data demonstrating the performance of Roundup Ready 2 Yield, based on 40,000 soybean yield records collected between 2007 and 2009. These data apparently give a rolling average yield benefit of more than 7 percent compared to competitors' seeds also engineered to tolerate Monsanto's Roundup herbicide.This last statement has been emphasised because, typically, the Company has generated a huge amount of data based on comparisons with different (possibly irrelevant) seed varieties. It hasn't compared like-with-like. This trick can be used to statistically 'prove' just about anything you want. It may be good sales-talk, but it's bad statistics and it's certainly not science.The science is telling us that all glyphosate-tolerant plants are sick, and sick plants are vulnerable to stress and disease. Expecting a good yield from sick plants is scientifically implausible.Most GM crops in the pipeline seem to consist of elite varieties bred by traditional methods, with a herbicide-tolerance gene added in to allow them to be patented and sold at a premium, along with the herbicide. If we are going to 'feed the world', science tells us that these GM glyphosate-resistant (and probably other herbicide-tolerant) crops are definitely, and intrinsically, NOT the answer. Don't let anyone try to tell you otherwise.Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects lignin content and amino acid production in glyphosate-resistant soybean, Acta Physiologiae Plantarium 32Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil, 328Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects photosynthesis in first and second generation of glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil article published on-line 2.07.10Carey Gillam, West Virginia investigating Monsanto for consumer fraud, Reuters 25.06.10Monsanto 1997 Report on Sustainable Development including Environmental, safety and Health PerformanceTsuioshi Yamada, 2009, Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability?, European Journal of AgronomyThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 6921 


If you visited GM-free Scotland in October 2010, you'll have discovered that 
A shocking report, commissioned by one State Government in Argentina, documented what had been happening there in the ten years (2000 to 2009) since Roundup Ready crops were introduced. It found a four-fold increase in both cancers and birth defects in the villagers living near where the GM crops were sprayed with Roundup.
Besides such observations from South America, other relevant and corroborating laboratory-based evidence of the dangers of Roundup has been slowly emerging. For example: interference in early embryo development, disruption of a placental enzyme vital for hormone balance, impairment of mitochondrial function (i.e. the cell's energy source), cell toxicity and death, and DNA instability which could lead to cancer.
Annually, 41 million tons of soya are imported into the EU: most of it is GM and most of it is for feeding livestock. The human cost of providing us with this cheap meat, eggs and dairy is described in graphic detail in a short (8-minute) programme which appeared recently on German TV and is available on You Tube. (In German with English subtitles). You may find some of the pictures distressing.Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2039 


Where does the GM go... after you've eaten it?
What happens to the artificial DNA, novel proteins and by-products inside once they've been eaten?
After a New Zealand poultry producer claimed in advertising that its products contained No ... GM ingredients, the question was raised: do products made from chickens given a 13% GM soya diet really have no GM content?Canterbury University's Professor of Genetics and Molecular Biology, Jack Heinemann, was engaged by the New Zealand Commerce Commission to to investigate and comment. His remit was to include:The transfer of DNA from GM plants into animalsThe transfer of GM proteins into animalsThe ability of GM feed to alter the metabolites in the animal productThe ability of GM feed to cause physiological or immunological responses in the animalThe presence of GM ingredients incorporated into the final animal product.Specifically, he was not asked to evaluate food safety claims, biological significance, nor animal welfare issues.Professor Heinemann found substantial and credible literature which detected DNA and proteins unique to GM plants within animals and animal products. The possible sources of such GM material were identified as coming, not only from feed, but from proximity to other animals fed GM, and from subsequent processing. He found:compelling evidence that animals provided with feed containing GM ingredients can react in a way that is unique to an exposure to GM plants. This is revealed through metabolic, physiological or immunological responses in exposed animals ... The cumulative strength of the positive detections reviewed ... leave me no reasonable uncertainty that GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environments, and that there can be a residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM feed.The overview of the study stressed that the focus of the investigation was on the parameters described above. In regard to the total citations on GM-fed animals, Prof. Heinemann noted There is a moderately larger pool of published studies that report no effect of GM feed on animals. However, regarding the much smaller number of studies which looked specifically at the parameters of interest, he emphasised that the number of research studies that report no detection of physiological, immunological or metabolic effects, or absence of DNA or protein, is about the same as the number that report detection. In the relatively small literature which measures these particular parameters, there is a large proportion that reports significantly different effects of GM and conventional feed on animals or the presence in animals of DNA and protein unique to GM plants. (COMMENT Does this last indicate how easy it is for 'science' to find only what it's looking for, and so bury bad news?)It's interesting to view Prof. Heinemann's evidence from the stand-point of animals, such a pigs and rodents, which are used as models for human nutritional studies. In these, it's clear that some DNA and protein certainly survive digestion.In pigs fed 63% GM maize, identifiable engineered DNA was detected in all areas of the gastro-intestinal tract, and in one study GM maize DNA, but not conventional DNA, was found in the pigs' blood. Identifiable GM protein fragments in the order of half the size of the original protein were detected in all areas of the gut.Similarly, GM-fed rats were found to maintain a transgene in multiple copies throughout the gastro-intestinal tract, while the evidence on GM proteins was variable. A number of immunological responses have been observed in rats fed Bt proteins and lectins (both favourite constructs for genetic engineering). One study on GM rice found antibodies against a Bt-toxin and lectin in the control (non-GM-fed) animals which had been housed in the same facility as the test (GM-fed) animals. The authors commented:As the nasal and bronchial mucosal sites are potent sites for induction of an immune response, the results may be explained by inhalation of particles from the powder-like non-pelleted diet containing (lectin or Bt) toxin, thereby inducing an (anti-lectin and anti-Bt) response ... These results support our assumption that the induction of the ... antibody response in the control groups occurred after inhalation.Physiological effects of GM-chow in rats and mice include pancreatic malfunction and signs of cellular responses to toxins in the liver and male reproductive system, and immune reactions in the gut. Lots more questions arise from that first question on the chicken with No GM content. For example, engineered DNA routinely includes sections from pathogenic viruses and bacteria. If these don't get digested, where do they end up?Protein fragments which resist digestion can stimulate immune-system responses which can generate cross-reactivity, especially to other (non-GM) proteins present in the same meal. Global immune-reactions to staples such as rice and maize would not do the people of the developing or developed worlds any favours.Just think what could happen inside YOU after a meal (hypothetical in Europe, reality in America) with multiple versions of engineered DNA and protein in it?As Arpad Pusztai said whatever our animals eat, we shall also get back indirectly.(This article is adapted from an article which first appearedon GM-free Scotland in December 2009. The article is archived Jack Heinemann, Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed, Report prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July 2009Inghams warned over GM free chicken claims, Commerce Commission (NZ) Release No. 50, 18.11.09Letter from Arpad Pusztai to GM Watch on the 10th anniversary of his television interview on the effect of GM potatoes on rats, 10th August 1998, www.spinprofiles.org/index.php/Arpad_PusztaiThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 9541 

There's a very valid question surrounding GM soya: all the soya we eat is so heavily processed and artificial anyway, is it really any different in GM form?Consider that soya beans themselves are rarely eaten as beans: they don't taste very nice and both animals and humans find them difficult to digest. They're routinely processed into a host of food-like substances (Pollan). Before they get anywhere near your plate, soya beans will have received some or all of the following treatments: multiple heat-treatments, pressure, cracking and crushing, chemical extractions, treatment with acids, alkalis and enzymes, bleaching, addition of preservatives, supplements, colouring and flavouring, and finally molding into some shape to make it seem to be something it's not. All this doesn't sound a very good way to produce wholesome food.
As you might expect, soya indeed presents several health issues. However, add in GM soya and these health concerns are raised to a whole new level.
In animal feeding experiments comparing GM-soya with non-GM-soya, seven out of twelve studies have so far indicated problems in the GM-fed group.
Classic 90-day feeding trials, which are the standard safety test for foods, do not reveal any problems. However, the more sophisticated measurement techniques now available to scientists are increasingly demonstrating promisis of chronic toxicity.
Vulnerable individuals such as the young, the elderly, or those whose diet or health is poor are especially at risk.Heavy processing of conventional soya is necessary to remove the phytate and other anti-nutrients which interfere with our absorption of dietary iron. Soya also exerts a pronounced inhibitory effect on our calcium and zinc absorption.
GM soya may have residues of Roundup weed-killer in it because the plants have been specially designed to absorb and accumulate this herbicide. This makes the problem worse: Roundup binds minerals such as magnesium and calcium; it makes them unavailable to the plant and unavailable to the consumer of the plant.Hormone disruption and cancer (the two are intimately connected)Conventional soya contains a host of biologically active plant substances, including phyto-oestrogens (isoflavones) which can interfere with human hormone balance and the regulation of our physiology. This has special implications for embryonic and child development, and in the promotion of cancer.
Soya intake has been linked with cognitive impairment and infant leukemia.
Men given soya protein supplements exhibited significant increase in blood 'insulin-like growth factor-1' which is linked to cancer.
Soya has been linked to bladder cancer. The bladder, being the main route of excretion, is exposed to high concentrations of the many biologically active substances found in less-processed forms of soya.
The perception of soya as a healthy choice is not supported by the science. An American Heart Association review of 22 investigations into soya's ability improve blood cholesterol, blood pressure, and post-menopausal bone loss, and into the efficacy and safety of soya isoflavones in preventing or treating cancer concluded earlier research indicating that soy protein has clinically important favorable effects as compared with other proteins has not been confirmed.
GM soya may have residues of Roundup weed-killer because the plants have been specially designed to absorb and accumulate this herbicide. This makes the problem worse: Roundup is being increasingly linked to cell toxicity, and to embryo and DNA damage.Studies have found that conventional soya crops readily absorb common pollutants (such as triclosan disinfectant) from the human manure and recycled water used on fields. These chemicals make their way into the beans themselves and may well accumulate through our food chain. This will add to the glyphosate, surfactants and other commercially confidential adjuvants absorbed and accumulated in Roundup Ready GM soya.
And if all that isn't bad enough: there's the safety question of high levels of glutamates in soya; glutamates have been linked to nerve-cell destruction and to obesity through stimulation of insulin cells.there's the (untested) safety question of the residues of petroleum-based solvent used to extract the protein in non-organic soya products.there's the (untested) safety question of how your fat digestion, your fat absorption and your liver are affected by the modern very extensive exposure to artificial fat emulsifiers (mainly soya lecithin) in just about every processed food you can imagine.Sometimes the presence of soya in your food isn't all that obvious: check out SHOP SMART  'Schwartz bacon-flavour bits and other Javiera Rulli, Editor, United Soy Republics: The Truth about Soya Production in Latin AmericaRachel A. Zurer, Crops Absorb Pharmaceuticals From Treated Sewage, Chemical & Engineering News, 2.08.10Can-Lan Sun et al., 2002, Dietary Soy and Increased Risk of Bladder Cancer: the Singapore Chinese Health Study, Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 11Sacks et al., 2006, Soy protein, isoflavones, and cardiovascular health: an American Heart Association Science Advisory for professionals from the Nutrition Committee, Cook, et al., 1981, The inhibitory effect of soy products on non-heme iron absorption in man, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 34(12)Hurrell, et al., 1992, Soy protein, phytate, and iron absorption in humans, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 56(3)Heaney, et al., 2000, Bioavailability of the calcium in fortified soy imitation milk, with some observations on method, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 71(5)Zhao, et al., 2003, A study on absorption and utilization of calcium, iron and zinc in mineral-fortified and dephytinized soy milk powder consumed by boys aged 12 to 14 years, Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi, 37(1)Meyer, et al., 2003, Limited lipid-lowering effects of regular consumption of whole soybean foods, Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 48(2)Michael Pollan, In Defence of Food, 2008, ISBN 978-1-846-14096-9Mike Adams, Soy Protein Used in Natural Foods Bathed in Toxic Solvent Hexane, NaturalNews.com, 20.05.09Behind the Bean  The Heroes and Charlatans of the Natural and Organic Soy Foods Industry, The Cornucopia Institute Report, June 2009Maurice Hanssen, E for Additives, 1987 Edition, ISBN 0-7225-1562-6Victoria Inness-Brown, May Aspartame Experiment, 2010, ISBN 9781439210468Jeffrey Smith, Monsanto's Roundup triggers over 40 plant diseases and endangers human and animal health, www.responsibletechnology.org/blog/664Hammond et al. (1996) The feeding value of soybeans fed to rats, chickens, catfish and dairy cattle is not altered by genetic incorporation of glyphosate tolerance, Journal of Nutrition 126Tutel'ian et al. (1999) Medical and biological evaluation of safety of protein concentrate from genetically-modified soybeans, Teshima et al. (2000) Effect of GM and non-GM soybeans on the immune system of BN rats and B10A mice, Journal of Food Hygiene Society Japan 41:3Malatesta et al. (2002) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Cell Structure and Function 27Malatesta et al. (2002) Ultrastructural analysis of pancreatic acinar cells from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Journal of Anatomy 201(5)Malatesta et al. (2003) Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, Letter to the Editor, European Journal of Histochemistry 47:4Brake and Evenson (2004) A generational study of glyphosate-tolerant soybeans on mouse fetal, postnatal, pubertal and adult testicular development, Food and Chemical Toxicology 42Zhu et al. (2004) Nutritional assessment and fate of DNA of soybean meal from Roundup Ready or conventional soybeans using rats, Archives of Animal Nutrition 58:4Vecchio et al. (2004) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean, European Journal of Histochemistry 48:4Malatesta et al. (2008) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing, Histochemical Cell Biology 130Maga?a-Gmez (2008) Pancreatic response of rats feed genetically modified soybean, Journal of Applied Toxicology 28Ermakova (2009) Influence of soy with th4e gene EPSPS CP4 on the physiological state and reproductive functions of rats in the first two generations, Russian Academy of Natural SciencesRichard et al. (2005) Differential effects of glyphosate and Roundup on human placental cells and aromatase, Environmental Health Perspectives 113:6Peizoto (2005) Comparative effects of the Roundup and glyphosate on mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation, Chemosphere 61:8Benachour et al. (2007) Time- and Dose-Dependent effects of Roundup on human embryonic and placental cells, Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 53:1Malatesta et al. (2008) Hepatoma tissue culture (HTC) cells as a model for investigating the effects of low concentrations of herbicide on cell structure and function, Toxicology in Vitro 22Sralini et al. (2009) How subchronic and chronic Health effects can be neglected for GMOs, pesticides or chemicals, International Journal of Biological Sciences 5(5)Benachour and Sralini (2009) Glyphosate formulations induce apoptosis and necrosis in human umbilical, embryonic and placental cells, Chemical Research in Toxicology22(1)Gasnier et al. (2009) Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines, ToxicologyThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2706 


Yet more health risks from GM food (on top of those we already know about)

One of the earliest concerns raised about GM foods was that a disturbed genome would generate strange proteins to which our bodies would react.
Regulators 'addressed' this concern by assessing the potential toxicity and allergenicity of the novel protein produced by the inserted gene. This neatly side-steps a fundamental safety problem with GMOs: it ignores the potential for the production of toxins or inflammatory agents due to changes in the wider genome and the metabolism it governs.
Two unique scientific studies have been published which suggest our concerns about unexpected allergens are very valid.  An early warning was sounded when a nut allergen turned up in soya which had been genetically transformed with a Brazil nut gene not known to be part of any allergen in its native form.  More recently, an apparently innocuous bean gene inserted into peas not only generated an allergen, but induced cross-reactivity with other common proteins.
Whether or not similar or worse problems are present in the GM in our food chain is unknown: none have been appropriately tested pre-marketing, and post-marketing monitoring is impossible in a supply chain flooded with variable amounts of different, untracked, GM crops.  Unless people develop very unusual symptoms, as happened in the case of GM tryptophan poisoning in 1989, it's unlikely that GM toxins or allergens will ever be identified except as 'more of the same' upward spiral of modern  chronic disease.  (See 'GM food allergies are escalating' in SCIENCE  Are there dangers in genetic modification?
However, toxins and allergens in GM foods may not the the biggest threat to our health ...
The biggest health risk from GM food might well derive from the trillions of micro-organisms resident in our guts.  These bugs will be living off a GM diet too.  The only attention paid to them so far has been the consideration of antibiotic resistance genes in GM foods which might be taken up by pathogens and compromise the treatment of infectious disease.  This absurdly narrow view entirely ignores the contribution of digestive tract microbes to our health.
One researcher in the field of nutrition describes the mass of microbes inside our gut as an essential organ.  This 'organ' is reckoned to weigh two to three pounds, and plays a vital part in digestion, in protection against disease, and in gastro-intestinal tract development.
There's an increasing awareness amongst scientists of the complexity of the interactions between what we eat, the products of our digestion, the composition of our gut microbes, and our health.  Think about it like this:- Our health affects our digestion.  Our digestion interacts with our diet to form the products of digestion which determine our health.  Our gut microbes, interacting with our diet and with the products of digestion, determine the products of digestion which in turn determine the composition of our gut microbes.  The balance of good and pathogenic gut microbes supported by our diet and digeston helps or hinders health and disease.  The microbe-induced products of digestion interact with our cells to help or hinder the inflammatory processes and their key role in health and disease.  And around and around it goes.
It seems that an 'old-fashioned' diet of seasonal vegetables, cereals, nuts and beans provides the right conditions to promote the good little guys which aid digestion, fight off the bad little guys, and protect us from inflammatory reactions.
A diet of processed foods, whose products of digestion lack both variety and micro-nutrients also lack the ability to support a health-promoting microbial mix.  The measured effects of this are an increase in inflammatory reactions such as asthma and eczema.  As our diet has become increasingly processed, autoimmune disorders and inflammatory bowel disease have also increased.  Obesity coupled to nutritional deficiencies is emerging as a clear part of this scenario.
The role of current commercial GM crops (soya, maize, oilseed rape, sugar beet and cotton) has always been to support an unhealthy diet.  These crops are designed to feed us with too much meat, and with an infinity of uniformly processed, 'pre-digested', junk foods and additives.
Add GM foods with a host of strange proteins and other metabolic products into the above health-diet-digesta-microbe-pathogen-inflammation equation and you might well arrive at a vision of a global epidemic of chronic disease.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is pouring billions of dollars into GM crop research with the goal of developing the world's first 'superfood': a single plant which contains all the vitamins, minerals and nutrients necessary for life, needs minimal water and generates its own pest-control. 
The prototype Gates 'superfood' is a GM sorghum for Africa which is easier to digest than its natural counterpart, has higher protein levels, and more essential amino acids, zinc and vitamin A. Someone needs to explain to the Gates that 'superfoods' are a fairy tale: we don't know all the nutrients necessary for life, and never will because what's necessary depends on whatever other nutrients are present in our diet, on our digestive system, on whatever gut microbes are present, and on the health of the individual.The novel sorghum sounds suspiciously like self-processing, self-supplementing junk food whose effect on the African gut microbes and the health of the African people could be catastrophic.Another little something to worry about in the microbe-health-GM equation is the staggering speed at which the bugs inside you might evolve in their novel environment: the adaptive processes might not be at all to your advantage. P.S.  In case you're swallowing the latest fashion in probiotic foods with bugs added in the factory, remember that eating these along with a pile of sterile junk won't make the junk (or you) healthy.  Eat whole, fresh, organic food, and the bugs in your gut will love you forever.Mayeno and Gleich, 1994, Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: cautionary tale, TIBTECH 12Nordlee et al., 1996, Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans, New England Journal of Medicine, March 14Junk food linked to allergy risk, Telegraph 3.08.10Mark Harris, Gates joins quest to create world's first superfood, Sunday Times, 8.08.10De Fillippo et al, 2010, Impact of diet in shaping gut microbiiota revealed by a comparative study in children in 'Europe and rural Africa, www.pnas.org 30.06.10Do it like they do in your intestinal channel, Metro, 14.03.10Good Intestinal Health becomes Crucial in Promoting Your Overall Health, Mercola Advanced Nutrition, March 2008Thanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              


 




Document Number: 2417 

What happen if you eat unintelligent food?
You are what you eat. How could it be any other way?
The statement sounds simple and obvious, but think of the implications.
Food is living matter, formed under the guidance of the intelligence of Nature. The soil from which our food grows is made by a vast array of living organisms, organised by Nature's intelligence to work in concert. Our bodies, too, are living matter and are a unique product of the intelligence of Nature. You are what you eat: to maintain the intelligence in your body, you need to eat intelligent food grown in intelligent soil.Michael Pollan describes most of what we now eat as 'food-like substances'. You are what you eat, so presumably eating these gives you a body-like body. An intelligent body is a stable, coherent whole. Can a body-like body run itself intelligently, or does it fall apart?
Food-like substances are made in a factory. Some of their constituents may once have been 'food' but after the machines and added chemicals have done their bit, the results may say 'food' on the label, and may even look like 'food', but they are nothing like what your body recognises as food. The number of added E-numbers, artificial vitamins and things with long chemical names, all disguising the lack of food actually present, should give you a clue: food-like substances have lost their intelligence. Can a body made of them maintain its own intelligence?
Pollan's disturbing views on 'food' have plenty of scientific and documentary evidence to back them up.
Replacing the work of the intelligent life in the soil with lifeless, man-made fertilizers has measurably eroded the nutritional value of the crops grown in it. Poor diet can lead to early aging. But then it gets worse: the crops whose intelligence is already compromised are processed into food-like substances and fed to ourselves and to our livestock. 
Processed foods, it seems, produce processed brains which are too dull to function and become depressed, or go into an uncontrolled spin and get hyperactive, get aggressive, can't sleep, and can't think straight.
Processed fats produce processed blood which is too dull to flow: it drains the energy and clogs the heart. Processed fats also produce processed brain cells which can't remember things, and get moody. Do unintelligent fats, it seems, produce unintelligent blood and unintelligent brains.
And processed sugar? Processed sugar is pure fuel, and a body made from pure fuel is unimaginable. The body doesn't know what to do with all that fuel but is stuck with it. In desperation, the body stores it up and stores it up and stores it up ... until the whole system drowns in a sea of sugar. One in ten UK adults are obese, and the figure is rising year-on-year. Scotland is ranked fifth in Europe for obesity. Not surprisingly, obesity is strongly linked to diabetes.
One person in Scotland is diagnosed with diabetes every 40 minutes: over 4 percent of the population has been diagnosed diabetic and a further 60,000 are thought to have the disease but be unaware of it. (The picture in the USA is even worse. The Center for Disease Control and Protection predicts that within 40 years the prevalence of diabetes could increase to as much as one in three adults.) Side-effects of the disease include blindness, amputation, heart disease, kidney failure, and stroke: these are crippling and life-threatening. Processed energy-rich sugar even makes you tired: no question about it, it's not intelligent.
The cost to the UK Health Service in picking up the pieces of these bodies full of unintelligent chemicals, unintelligent fats and unintelligent sugars, which swell them up but can't hold them together, is 9 billion a year or 1 million an hour, that's 10 percent of its entire budget.
In your digestive tract, the microbes vital to maintain health, are being forced to eat unintelligent food too. The last thing your body needs is unintelligent bugs inside it.
Food-like substances are calorie-dense, nutrient-deficient, addictive-additive laden, pre-digested chemical substitutes for the real thing. You are what you eat: an overweight, protein- and micro-nutrient-deficient, prematurely aging, brain-damaged, chemical-addict. Whatever goes in at your mouth is absorbed in a sieve-like fashion, because your digestive system, which is what you eat too, has lost its intelligence.
Now, guess what is the major source of all this food-like junk fat, junk sugar and chemicals? Yes, GM maize, GM soya and the intensively-reared livestock fed on the same junk. You are what you eat: the biotech industry is not only busy redesigning food-crops, it's redesigning your body too. 
The source of life's intelligence is manifest in its DNA. Artificial DNA is not intelligent DNA. Plants whose DNA has been messed with are stressed, and science has shown the stress is permanent, you can't breed the stress out of them. You are what you eat: stressed.
GM herbicide-tolerant plants are made chronically sick by the weed-killer they absorb. You are what you eat: chronically sick.
And don't forget that GM plants are specially designed to be part of our modern intensive farming system dependent on unintelligent chemical fertility. 
Recent estimates suggest that junk food claims 30,000 lives a year in the UK. Unintelligent food is a killer. 
And what is the Government doing to get the 'food-like junk' out of our diet? Banning junk food on the grounds of health and safety seems the obvious choice, but in a land of junk-food addicts plus an economy dependent on exporting junk food to addicts overseas, this would be political suicide. So our regulators have hatched a plan to 'nudge' people into choosing a better diet. 
The 'team' chosen to draft their new policy on diet-related disease includes McDonalds, KFC, PepsiCo, Kellogg's, Unilever, and Mars UK, the biggest manufacturers of unintelligent food on the planet, plus a bunch of advertising industry lobby groups to make sure the spin's right. 
A Department of Health spokesman explained the idea was that our behaviour could be changed most quickly using collective voluntary efforts. 
The Children's Food Campaign group described it differently The easy ministerial access given to giant food companies is nothing less than a corporate takeover of public health policy. It pointed out too that the food industry is a very powerful lobbying force with a history of blocking progressive public health initiatives.
So, those with everything to gain by making us sick and nothing to gain by the advent of intelligent behavioural changes on our part, are expected to volunteer to nudge us into intelligent eating, and nudge themselves into oblivion at the same time. How intelligent is that?
Here's another, more intelligent, plan. Ditch the junk. Buy fresh food, local if possible, organic if possible, and prepare it, intelligently, yourself. Your body will love you for it.(This article is adapted from an article which first appeared onGM-free Scotland in December 2010. View an archived copy of that article Michael Pollan, 2008, In Defence of Food, ISBN 978-1-846-14096-9Depression link to processed food, BBC News, 2.11.09Tristan Stewart-Robertson, Junk food diet blamed as diabetes rates soar, Scotsman, 25.10.10Helen Carter, Diabetes and obesity soar to 'shocking' rates, Guardian, 25.10.10Stephen Deal, Scotland is fifth fattest nation in EU, Metro, 15.12.10Felicity Lawrence, McDonald's and PepsiCo to help write UK health policy, Guardian 13.11.10Felicity Lawrence, Health policy: extent of corporate influence revealed, Guardian 9.12.10Jane Kirby, Healthy diet could 33,000 lives every year, Scotsman, 16.12.10'You Are What You Eat ' - The Impact of Diet on Behaviour, BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/, 18.07.03Diet and Children, http://www.diet.co.uk/Hayden Smith, Vitamin pills 'can damage your health', Metro, 20.12.10Eat it up and be a good boy, The Economist, 31.01.08Rita Batista et al., 2008, Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion, PNAS 105B. S. Ahloowalia and M. Maluszynski, 2001, Induced mutations  A new paradigm in plant breeding, Euphytica 118Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects lignin content and amino acid production in glyphosate-resistant soybean, Acta Physiologiae Plantarium 32Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate reduces shoot concentrations of mineral nutrients in glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil, 328Zobiole et al., 2010, Glyphosate affects photosynthesis in first and second generation of glyphosate-resistant soybeans, Plant Soil article published on-line 2.07.10Tsuioshi Yamada, 2009, Glyphosate interactions with physiology, nutrition, and diseases of plants: Threat to agricultural sustainability?, European Journal of AgronomyThanks for your comment. All comments are moderated before they are published.Welcome to the new website - it's still the place to find out all about the , all the latest news and how to Glasgow, Scotland, United KingdomFormerly known as the Scottish Consumers Association for Natural Food, Pro-natural Food Scotland was formed in 1996 by a group of concerned Scottish individuals in Glasgow. We are funded entirely by donation and run by vounteers. We network with, and support, all like-minded groups and individuals. Our objective is to empower by raising awareness.
               
              
               
              





Document Number: 5680
GMO Risks

The first risk of genetic engineering  the theory underlying its science and resulting methods  was not created by propaganda organizations, conspiracy freaks or orthorexic foodies.

Instead, its been brought to light by the United States National Human Genome Research Institute.

All along, genetic modification has been based on a theory called the CentralDogma, which asserts that one gene will express one protein, and thus an organisms genome  its total complement of DNA genes  should fully account for its unique pattern of inherited traits.

However, the Human Genome Research Project determined that this theory was not true.

Instead, they found that genes operate in a complex network in ways that are still not fully understood. There are far too few human genes to account for the complexity of our inherited traits or for the vast inherited differences between plants  and particularly the animals or bacteria or viruses with which they are being genetically manipulated.

At worst case, the Human Genome Research Project undermines the support for genetic engineering, and its claims that methods of genetically modifying food crops are specific, precise, and predictable. At best case, it illustrates the enormous amount of time, expense, effort and ultimate uncertainty involved in attempting to genetically engineer food.



Most of all it clearly illustrates the inherent risk borne by humans consuming genetically altered foods without any prior safety testing, as well as the multitude of risks to the environment  through the creation of superweeds, the uncontrolled extinction of insects, and the observed self-proliferation of genetically altered plants by cross-pollination and wind seeding (with enough frequency to cause the GM seed manufacturer, Monsanto, to sue farmers on the assertion that they were finding secret sources to plant their GM seeds without paying the associated licensing, royalty, and usage fees).

In short, the most dramatic achievement to date of the $3 billion Human Genome Project is the refutation of its own scientific rationale.  Barry Commoner, American biologist, college professor, author, and former Editor of Science Illustrated, excerpted from an article in Harpers Magazine

As Barry says, biotechnology companies are not in the habit of publicizing studies that question the efficacy of their miraculous products.  Yet after only two decades of genetic engineering, were already beginning to see the unexpected nature and resulting outcomes of genetic experimentation.

Aside from the underlying scientific risks, the most common concerns about genetically engineered foods fall into three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, and economic concerns.



I.    ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS

Unintended harm to other organisms - Over a decade ago, a laboratory study published in Nature1 showed that pollen from corn that was genetically modified to produce its own insecticide caused high mortality rates in monarch butterfly caterpillars (article abstract here); the data was recently corroborated in another study, as cited in a July 2011 article in the NY Times. And its not just butterflies experts believe the dramatically decreasing populations of bees both in the United States and abroad are directly related to genetically engineered plants and their pollen too.

Another study showed that the corns insecticidal toxins leached into nearby streams, causing increased mortality and reduced growth of caddisflies, an aquatic insect related to the pests targeted by the toxin in GMO corn. Further, because caddisflies are a food resource for fish and amphibians, contamination spreads further when these insects are consumed by its natural predators.

It is not possible to design a B.t. toxin to be genetically engineered into corn that would only kill crop-damaging pests while remaining harmless to all other insects.

Reduced effectiveness of pesticides and herbicides - Just as some populations of mosquitoes developed resistance to the now-banned Monsanto pesticide DDT, insects are already becoming resistant to crops that have been genetically modified by Monsanto to produce their own pesticides.

The same is true of herbicides: genetically modified canola (engineered to withstand Round-Up) is now spreading as an uncontrollable, invasive weed in California.

And its not just beneficial crops that are spreading. More and more varieties of superweeds are becoming increasingly resistant to any known weedkillers, while driving up the cost of food in direct proportion.

As of July 2011, these superweeds have become so powerful that farmers are being forced to use older, more toxic chemical sprays, in heavier volumes and more frequently, or spend extra money hiring day laborers to literally chop out the plants some of which have stems as thick as 4 inches in diameter, grow three inches a day, and damage conventional farm machinery.

Uncontrolled biological pollution - The Center for Food Safety (CFS) states the environmental impacts of GMOs will include an uncontrolled biological pollution, threatening numerous microbial, plant and animal species with extinction, and a potential contamination of all non-genetically engineered life forms with novel and possibly hazardous genetic material. Read more here, and here, and here.

GMO Canola is spreading via migratory birds, who eat the plants in one area, then fly and deliver fertilized seeds to the fields of another area. Monsantos telling farmers they must pull these weeds by hand, since none of their sprays are killing their own spray-resistant plants.

Recent studies have shown that soil biology is negatively impacted when its used to grow GMO crops.

Another recent study published in the Journal of Bioscience showed that long-term effects of genetic engineering is in the plant itself: resulting in developmental defects, growth retardation and sterility.

Last but not least, the increased use of herbicides (including older, more toxic chemical cocktails to combat superweeds) is leaching through the soil into the groundwater supplies beneath Americas breadbasket, where its drawn back up as drinking water and crop irrigation via wells.

Gene transfer to non-target species - Another concern is the natural cross-breeding of crops in adjacent fields, resulting in the transfer of the herbicide resistance genes into non genetically-engineered crops.

Sadly, farmers who become the victim of natural crop cross over are often subject to lawsuits: Monsanto has repeatedly filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers who may have inadvertently harvested GM crops mixed into their non-GM crops. Farmers insist these crops are the result of cross-pollination from GM crops planted a field or two away; Monsanto claims the farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds from an unknown source, and mixed them into their seed sources without paying royalties to Monsanto.



Never fear, Monsanto has a solution for cross-breeding: terminator seeds. These seeds are genetically engineered to only survive for one season, thus preventing cross-contamination from one season to the next (unless the plants cross-pollinate neighboring non-GM plants prior to harvest), and forcing farmers to purchase seeds from Monsanto every year, rather than following the age-old practice of saving seeds from one harvest to plant the next.

Another solution posed by Monsanto are buffer zones to inhibit cross-over by GM crops5, 6, 7. By planting a buffer of non-GM, non-harvestable corn around a field of GM corn, they suggest that beneficial or harmless insects would have a refuge in the non-GM corn and could destroy the non-GM corn without develop resistance to the GM corns inherent pesticides (provided of course that the insects understand which zone is which, and restrict their activities to the non-GM zone.).

Monsanto further postulates that buffer zones ranging from 6 to 30 meters or more8 would likewise inhibit gene transfer to weeds and other crops because the wind-blown pollen would not travel beyond the buffer zone (provided there are no strong winds or tornadoes).

However buffer zones would still not address genetically engineered plants being transferred by migratory birds eating the seeds. And to date, few farmers have been willing to lose valuable production yields to non-usable buffer zones.

II.   HUMAN HEALTH RISKS

Increase in Food Allergies - While there have been no direct studies of the relationship between GMO crops and allergies, it is significant to note the sudden rise in food allergies during the same time period that GMO crops ingredients have become widely used in the majority of our food. (According to a 2005 estimate by the Grocery Manufacturers of America, 75% of all processed foods in the U.S. contain at least one genetically modified ingredient.)

The statistics are sobering: the majority of children in the US now have life-threatening allergies to corn, milk, peanuts or other related GM foods; peanut allergies alone doubled from 1997 to 2002: 1 out of every 50 children is allergic to peanuts in the United States.

Over the last 10 years (during which GMOs have become widespread in the U.S.), 1 out of every 17 children in the U.S. developed a food allergy, and hospital emergency rooms across the nation experienced a 265% increase in food allergy emergencies.

As of 2011, the statistics continue to climb: its now 1 out of every 12 children.

Scientists are speculating that by introducing a foreign gene into a plant, it may be creating a new allergen or allergic response in susceptible individuals.

Unfortunately, testing of GM foods to avoid the possibility of harm to consumers with food allergies has not been done. Labeling of GM foods and food that contains GM products has likewise not been done.

Parallel Increase in Autism  In addition to allergies, another insidious problem is on the rise in our nations children: autism.

During the same time period corresponding to the prevalence of GMOs in our processed food  from 1997 to 2008  the Pediatrics Journal reports a 250% increase in the prevalence of autism in American children  one out of 91 children are now diagnosed with autism.

Once again, there have been no studies linking GMOs to developmental diseases (since studies of GMOs are not happening in the U.S.; see Emerging Health Risks in Human Studies below).

However, there have been multiple reports from doctors, several food-related studies, countless autism websites, specific autism diet websites and Facebook pages, a number of books, as well as widespread reports from parents  all of which link diet to autism as suggested evidence that a dietary theory may be true.

Coincidentally (or not), the main dietary culprits reported for autism include soy (the #1 GMO crop), milk (much of which still contains rBGH hormone), food starches (most of which are made from GMO corn), and gluten in all of its forms. Despite the mounting reports, one recent study claims there is no such diet corollary. More studies are now underway.

Documented Health Risks in Animal Studies  - Multiple animal studies9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16  indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption.

A June 2011 report assembled by an international team of highly respected scientists revealed that studies done as early as the 1980s by biotech and ag-industry corporations (including Monsanto) all showed that Roundups active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals sometimes at very low exposures. Read a related article here.

No matter what the study, the results in laboratory animals are consistent: infertility, immune dysregulation (including upregulation of cytokines associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation); accelerated aging; dysregulation of genes; altered structure and function of organs including the liver (altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes), kidney, pancreas, spleen and gastrointestinal system; stillbirths and birth defects; sterility; and cancer.

These studies represent more than just a coincidental association between GM foods and adverse health effects: causation exists in multiple areas including strength of association, consistency, specificity, biological gradient, and biological plausibility10 as defined by Hills Criteria.

Specificity of the association of GM foods and specific disease processes is also supported. A 2008 study linked GM corn with infertility, showing a significant decrease in offspring over time and significantly lower litter weight in mice fed GM corn.13 This same study found that over 400 genes were found to be expressed differently in the mice fed GM corn. These are genes known to control protein synthesis and modification, cell signaling, cholesterol synthesis, and insulin regulation.

Studies also show intestinal damage in animals fed GM foods, including proliferative cell growth9 and disruption of the intestinal immune system.11 

Because of the mounting data in animal studies, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.



Emerging Health Risks in Human Studies  Nearly two decades after genetic engineered crops have been in your grocery store, human studies are only now starting to be performed  but not in the United States.

Why is no research being done on the potential human health risks of GMOs in our country?

Scientific American magazine explains it this way: Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. Scientists must literally ask these corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. (Source: Scientific American Magazine, August 13, 2009)

Not surprisingly, no such permission has been granted in the last twenty years, except for studies that are crafted to put GMOs in a positive context.

In fact the scientific journal Science Direct published a study in April 2011 in which they found significant conflict of interest in research done on the health risks and nutritional assessment of genetically modified products. Where there was a conflict of interest, 100% of the studies (41 out of 41) made a favourable GM safety finding.

One study, which was not directly related to GMOs and thus made it through research without hindrance, was UCSFs report about the percent of pesticides present in pregnant women in the United States including chemicals that have been banned in our country since 1972. How does a toxic pesticide residue study relate to GMOs?

Over 80% of GMO crops are engineered with herbicide and/or pesticide inside of them, which helps them withstand a lifetime of sprayed pesticide saturation during their growth period, in an effort to control the (super)weeds growing in the same fields.

In short, GMOs represent a double pesticide dose delivered directly to your dinner table. (Or triple, if you count sprayed pesticides leaching into soil and groundwater).

Outside of the U.S. however, real human studies are finally starting to appear. A February 2011 study has linked the insecticidal toxin found in genetically modified crops to the blood of pregnant women, their fetuses, and non-pregnant women in Canada. View the original study document here (online viewable pdf).

Another study done in the U.K. points to the release of genetically altered DNA in human digestive tracts: the possibility of functional DNA release from plant GMOs cannot be excluded. The extent of the ability to natural transformation among intestinal bacterial species and strains is not known, although as a phenomenon natural bacterial transformation seems to be more frequent than hitherto recognised, and also intestinal pathogens might be transformable. (Source: European Commission on Health and Consumer Protection; studying the effects of genetically engineered Brassica Napus or rape used in the production of rapeseed oil.)

When you compare these findings to our national health statistics, theres a disturbing parallel between the health of our nation, compared to other nations where GMOs are outlawed: the U.S. has the highest rate of cancer of any other country on the planet  1 out of 2 men, and 1 out of 3 women are expected to get cancer in their lifetime. 1 out of 8 women has breast cancer, but only 1 in 10 of those breast cancers are genetic, which means 9 out of 10 incidences of breast cancers are environmentally triggered.

The United States national healthcare costs are likewise far higher than any other developed nation: 16% of our GDP goes towards managing disease.

III.     ECONOMIC CONCERNS

Agriculture Subsidies for Food That Makes us Sick  More than 60 percent of all deaths in the U.S. are from diseases linked to unhealthful saturated fat and a cholesterol laden diet: heart disease, cancer, stroke, liver disease, and high blood pressure.

The annual medical cost of obesity reached $147 billion in 2008. The Medicare and Medicaid spending for obesity-related conditions now totals $61 billion per year. Heart disease costs $189.4 billion per year and that cost is expected to triple by 2030. Cancer costs $102.8 billion per year. Diabetes costs $128.1 billion annually.

So why is Congress delegating billions of taxpayer dollars to boost the production of the most unhealthy food  GMO meat, hormone-laced dairy, and sweeteners for processed food  while fruits and vegetables receive almost none?

Especially when the beneficiaries of agricultural subsidies (creatively named The Farm Bill) are the very same corporations that promote GMO crops and convert these crops into high fructose corn syrup, and GMO feed for the cows and pigs who end up in a McDonalds wrapper, rather than the organic farmers who are raising more healthy food, healthy soil, and a healthier environment.

Corporate Profits Outweigh Public Health  Bringing a GM food to market is a lengthy and costly process. Agri-biotech companies (and their shareholders) have a vested interest in maximizing profits on their investment by conserving expenses. Without any requirements from the FDA, they have no reason to invest money on pre-market human health safety studies.

Corporate Patents Control Farming  All of the new genetically engineered plant technologies and resulting GM plants and seeds have been patented. Patented seeds cost more, and these costs are controlled by corporations focused on maximizing profits.

As a result, farmers in the US who agreed to a better future through GMO crops and signed contracts with Monsanto must pay royalty fees, licensing fees, and trade fees in addition to the higher cost of GMO seeds they are then required to plant on their farm.

And its not a one-time cost. The generations-old practice of cleaning and saving a portion of seeds from this years crop to be replanted next year? No longer possible thats considered illegal patent infringement in Monsantos contract.

Farmers are required to buy fresh seed every single year, and new laws against seed cleaning businesses are causing these service providers to go out of business  but not before Monsanto obtains their account records in order to track down farmers who are still cleaning and saving seeds.

And if Monsanto seeds happen to contaminate a neighboring farmers field? The farmer pays for clean up. Its not Monsantos fault. Ever.

Corporate Patents Control Nations  The higher cost of genetically modified super seeds is typically out of the range of what small farmers and third world countries are able to afford, thus widening the gap between wealthy and poor, well-fed and hungry.

Unless of course Monsanto, the Rockefeller Foundation, and Bill and Melinda Gates step in to gift GMO seeds to poor nations (via non-profit organization called AGRA) in order to establish that countrys dependence on Monsantos drug and thus effectively take control of a poorer regions economic future (not to mention the future of the populations health).

Lawsuits Force Non-GMO Farmers Out of Business - Farmers who dont currently use Monsantos patented GMO seeds may face unexpected costs when their crops are cross-pollinated from neighboring GMO fields and Monsanto takes them to court for patent infringement (since Monsanto cant sue the bees and butterflies actually doing the job).

To date, only one farmer in Canada has been able to prevail against Monsanto in the lawsuit they filed against him, however a recent turn of the tables  involving farmers suing Monsanto  is currently underway; the original March 2011 lawsuit has been recently amplified on June 1, 2011 when additional concerned organizations, farmers, and seed growers joined the action. Scroll down to the bottom of this article for a complete list of plaintiffs filing against Monsanto.

Even if it succeeds at doing nothing more than raising the publics awareness, this lawsuit represents a monumental step for farmers to begin taking control over sustainable farming methods and the resulting healthier food.

Additional Sources:

1 Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae (Nature, Vol 399, No 6733, p 214, May 20, 1999)

2 New tools for chloroplast genetic engineering (Nature Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 855-856, Sep 1999)

3 Tandem constructs: preventing the rise of superweeds (Trends in Biotechnology, Vol 17, No 9, pp 361-366, Sep 1999)

4 Containment of herbicide resistance through genetic engineering of the chloroplast genome (Nature Biotechnology, Vol 16, No 4, pp 345-348, Apr 1998)

5 Efforts to bioengineer intrinsic resistance to insect pests into crop plants have made use of a natural bacterial toxin, Bt, from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner (Science, Vol 284, No 5416, p 873, May 1999)

6 Inheritance of Resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Toxin (Dipel ES) in the European Corn Borer (Science, Vol 284, No 5416, pp 965-967, May 1999)

7 Buffers urged around Bt corn fields (Environmental News Network http://www.enn.com/enn-news-archive/1999/07/071499/btbuffer_4342.asp)

8 GM crops: public perception and scientific solutions (Trends in Plant Science, Vol 4, No 12, pp 467-469, Dec 1999)

9 Smith, JM. Genetic Roulette. Fairfield: Yes Books.2007. p.10

10 Hill, AB. The environment and disease: association or causation? Proceeding of the Royal Society of Medicine 1965; 58:295-300.

11 Finamore A, Roselli M, Britti S, et al. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON 810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric. Food Chem. 2008; 56(23):11533-11539.

12 Malatesta M, Boraldi F, Annovi G, et al. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean:effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol. 2008; 130:967-977.

13 Velimirov A, Binter C, Zentek J. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Report-Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth. 2008.

14 Ewen S, Pustzai A. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine.Lancet. 354:1353-1354.

15 Kilic A, Aday M. A three generational study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2008; 46(3):1164-1170.

16 Kroghsbo S, Madsen C, Poulsen M, et al. Immunotoxicological studies of genetically modified rice expression PHA-E lectin or Bt toxin in Wistar rats. Toxicology. 2008; 245:24-34.






Document Number: 262

GMO and the FDA

From the website of Beth H. Harrison, PhD and author of Shedding Light on Genetically Engineered Food:

In its 1992 Statement of Food Policy, the FDA asserted:

Ultimately, it is the food producer who is responsible for assuring safety.

But wait! According to biotech-giant Monsantos former director of corporate communications,

Monsanto should not have to vouchsafe the safety of biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible. Assuring its safety is the FDAs job.

So, if neither the U.S. government nor the U.S. food producers are responsible for the safety of genetically modified food, who is?

The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health. By failing to require testing and labeling of genetically engineered foods, the agency has made consumers unknowing guinea pigs for potentially harmful, unregulated food substances.
- Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety

The leading scientific journal Science Direct recently published a study showing significant conflict of interest in so-called research done on the health risks and nutritional assessment of genetically modified products.

Yet in April 2011, the FDA moved to allow Monsanto to perform their own environmental impact study on the very GMOs it has been responsible for developing. Who is the FDA protecting?

From the Institute of Responsible Technology websites GMO Basics page:

Q. Hasnt the FDA said that GM foods are safe?

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions.

Q. Didnt the scientists at the FDA study GM foods themselves?

No. The FDA relies solely on information supplied by the biotech companies.

Q. What kind of information did the companies provide?

Calgene, the makers of the first GM crop, the FlavrSavr tomato, was the only company to submit detailed raw data from animal feeding studies to the FDA. The rest provide only summaries and conclusions. Industry research can be rigged; data often is omitted or distorted.

In the FlavrSavr tests, lab rats refused to eat the tomatoes and had to be force-fed. Several developed stomach lesions, and seven of forty died within two weeks. Still, the tomato was approved, but has since been taken off the market.

Q. Based on the information that was supplied, did the FDA scientist have concerns?

Agency scientists and even independent scientists did warn that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. Internal FDA memos reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.

Q. What did the FDA do about these concerns?

Nothing was done that would protect consumers. In fact, in the case of genetically modified bovine growth hormone, some FDA scientists who expressed concerns were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. The remaining whistleblowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency

Q. How could the government approve dangerous foods?

A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion  not sound science  was the driving force.

The FDA official in charge ignored all warnings of the FDA staff scientists. The official, a former outside attorney for Monsanto, was a political appointee specifically to a new FDA post on GM policy, and left shortly after to become vice president at Monsanto.

Q. Why arent foods with GMOs at least labeled here?

The same political influence and money that got them past the FDA has prevented any labeling laws from being passed. Although President Obama had indicated support for labeling laws during his campaign, he has allowed a whole host of genetically engineered crops to come to market in just this year alone, including RoundUp resistant Alfalfa (the fourth most widely grown crop in the US, inherent in livestock feed for industrial and sustainable farming alike), Kentucky Bluegrass, and sugar beets.

Q. So do the biotech companies always get everything they want?

Up until recently the biotech companies have fallen far short of their goals due to consumer resistance. The GM potatoes and tomatoes were taken off the market, and other GM crops, although approved, were never commercialized.

Concerned consumers in Europe were able to get major companies to commit to eliminate GMOs within one week. This was done with only a small percentage of the overall population. Businesses do not want to lose even a portion of their customer base. Everyone can vote with his or her pocketbook!

As early as 1998, the biotech industry tried to get the USDA to let GM products pass as organic. During the public comment period, the Department received over 275,000 irate letters of protest from citizens, a public response unprecedented in the USDAs history. Thanks to this public protest, GM products cannot be labeled organic in the USA.

Update:

Perhaps the biotech companies eventually DO get everything they want. Up until now, what little regulation existed was based on the fact that genetic engineering used a bacteria or virus to artificially insert the genetic code for RoundUp into a plant. The FDAs point of control was tied to the use of that virus or bacteria.

But science has found a sobering loophole recently: RoundUp can now be inserted into the plants DNA using metal particles. Without the bacteria or virus present, the FDA has lost what little ground it had to regulate the plant.

The result? Kentucky Bluegrass is already a naturally invasive grass. Now its got RoundUp genetically engineered inside, which makes it even more resistant to control. And because it was developed using this new technology, its parent company, Scotts Miracle-Gro, has likewise become resistant to control.

Meanwhile, Monsantos similarly regulation-free process for genetically modified soybeans is waiting in the wings







Document Number: 2375
5 Easy Things

All this information about GMOs can get overwhelming. But please dont get discouraged. Start simple. As Robyn OBrien says, just do one thing. Heres a list of five you can choose from:

1. Dont Drink High Fructose Corn Syrup
Soda is loaded with high fructose corn syrup, which is a GMO. Dont drink the stuff. If you really need to consume 17 teaspoons of sugar, at least switch to soda made from cane sugar.

2. Choose Organic
Whenever you can afford to, buy organic food:  100% / USDA Certified Organic-labeled products are non-GMO.

3. Learn More
Watch a movie or read a book (see all the links in the right column of this blog).

4. Talk
Tell a friend. Tell your mom. Print out this document from the American Academy of Environmental Medicine and give it to your doctor. Every open mind adds up.

5. Stay Aware
Keep abreast of news about GMO, either by subscribing to a newsletter (like the one from GM Watch that chronicles genetic engineering studies from around the world, or another great one from Institute for Responsible Technology), and/or liking the MillionsAgainstMonsanto Facebook page (an excellent source of GMO-related food information and updates).








Document Number: 1822
15 Ways to take a stand against Monsanto and avoid GMO food

Continue reading on Examiner.com 15 Ways to take a stand against Monsanto and avoid GMO foods - 
What can consumers do to stop Monsanto and avoid genetically modified foods?  Plenty.  Here's a start:

Only purchase corn and soy products that are labeled as either organic or GMO-free.
Write or call companies and ask them if they use GM products.  The more companies hear that consumers are unwilling to buy products with genetically modified ingredients, the more they will seek out conventional food ingredients.
Ask your local supermarket to carry more non-GMO products.  Give them specific brands to make it easier for them to meet your needs and follow through.  When the Worthington Walmart stopped carrying organic tofu, I asked the manager of the produce department to bring it back.  The next week, it was back on the shelves.
Rent Food Inc. and invite some friends over to view it.  The award-winning documentary does an excellent job of illustrating how Monsanto operates and why it matters.  Also check out the film's 10 Simple things you can do to change our food system.
Visit the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association's Millions Against Monsanto and educate yourself about the issues.
Sign the Millions Against Monsanto petition.
Limit your consumption of fast food and factory farm meats and eggs, all of which are huge consumers of GM corn feeds (not to mention lots of other health and environmental hazards).
Consume whole foods and cook from scratch.  GMO ingredients are in an estimated 80% of grocery store products.
Grow an organic garden.
Shop at farmers' markets and health food stores like the St. Peter Food Co-op.
Write or call your legislators and tell them you want GM foods to be labeled and new GM crops restricted.
Speak out when Monsanto buys off organizations like NPR with false PR campaigns.
Follow Millions Against Monsanto on Facebook to stay current on GM news.
Follow the Organic and Non-GMO Report on Facebook for more GM news or visit them online.
Speak out against GM foods and forward information to friends and family.






Document Number: 1950
The Roots of My Wake Up Call
by GMO Awareness on April 27, 2011
It seems this first post should probably answer the underlying why.

Why did I suddenly feel compelled to start a blog about GMO (genetically modified organisms) food? What sparked my sudden awareness and eventual concern over genetically engineered products?


As a teenager, I worked in the restaurant industry, where it was standard procedure to fill a huge metal sink with water, dump in a packet of bleach chemicals, and submerge heads of lettuce to soak in the solution. My manager said it helped freshen the lettuce and remove brown spots, which made our salad mix last longer.

So I became aware early on that our food was not always what it seemed. But, better living through chemicals, right? Thats what Ive grown up believing.

As an adult, I began to notice that the food at certain restaurants caused me stomach distress  typically Chinese and steak house restaurants. When someone suggested I might be allergic to the seasoning salt used during the cooking process, I began to ask my waitstaff to hold the stuff. Sure enough, that reduced the problem, but not completely. When I learned that seasoning salts often contained MSG, I chose Chinese restaurants that touted no msg in their food.

But every once in a while, no matter how careful I was, the problem would crop up. I came to accept it as part of the vagaries of the restaurant business, remembering full well what it was like to have worked in one. It certainly didnt stop me from eating out. 

Then there was that trip to Italy.

My traveling companion had been lactose intolerant all his life. After several days of watching me slurp gelato, cappuccinos and cream sauces, he ventured a taste, knowing the danger but willing to endure the price. Strangely, he had no reaction.

So he took another risk the following day with a big plate of truffle ravioli in cream sauce. And suffered no ill consequences.

The next several weeks of the trip were filled with any and all forms of dairy he could possibly get his fork into. Nothing seemed to bother him. He was blissfully
baffled.

When we returned to the states, his tolerance to dairy immediately evaporated. A naturopathic doctor friend explained it: Our FDA requires milk to be pasturized at a higher temperature than the rest of the world, which causes the proteins to denature, rendering them indigestible for a large portion of our population. Which made sense until he tried raw milk and still had the problem.

At that point in time, few of us knew about rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) in milk in the United States.

Fast forward to last year. There I was, enjoying life in the south of France, when something startled me during my morning shower.

All my life Id grown accustomed to having a minor skin condition on my forehead and back. My dermatologist had repeatedly assured me that it was no big deal, some people just have skin like that, youre not doing anything wrong, and theres nothing you should be doing, or can do, to change it.

So imagine my surprise when my soapy hands slipped across perfectly smooth skin.

Of course I took it as a sure sign I was meant to live in France  but aside from that, I began to think carefully about just what might have changed during the two weeks Id been there thus far  water, food, environment, lower stress  that might make my skin suddenly become smooth.

Food? I ate reasonably well back home erring on the side of organics when possible, avoiding processed food for the most part, seldom drinking sodas, never any smoking, a bit of wine with dinner from time to time certainly nothing dramatically different from how I was eating in France

Water? I did notice the taste of water wherever I dined in France somehow seemed better to my palate  more mineraly, less chlorine smell, and typically bottled. But I live in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, an area blessed by some of the nations best mountain water. And Ive been using a Brita water pitcher for years. Was our water treatment process different? Fluoride levels? Chlorine? The citys piping?

Stress didnt seem a likely cause either, though certainly one tends to relax more on vacation, it wasnt the first relaxing vacation Id had in my life, though it was the first time my skin became smooth.

Nor did the air or environment seem any more or less polluted than my region.

So I came home and did the simplest thing, sort of as an experiment: I started buying water from my local organics co-op, and requesting bottled water when I went out to eat. Meanwhile I began reading all I could about water and food processing methods here in our country.

During my reading, I kept coming across more and more information about GMOs.

While Id heard about genetically modified food before, and generally assumed I knew what it was, I always assumed ingredients like that were only in fast food or Twinkies or processed stuff like pizza pockets.

What I didnt know was that they were far more widespread, and I was being exposed to them far more frequently in my home country than I had any idea. France was just one of the 40 civilized countries in the world whose government had adamantly refused to permit genetically modified food.

So I started to think about all these little food-related things Id observed throughout my life, and wondering, and puzzling

The tipping point for me was a video talk by a woman named Robyn OBrian.

I dont have children, but the way she described the moment when she realized that shed been filling countless sippy-cups with hormone-laced milk for her children gave me chills. Particularly since my skin problems had slowly returned  despite my increased efforts to be more aware of my water and food  by the time I was watching Robyns video.

At first I didnt want to believe what I was hearing   I dont subscribe to conspiracies, I dont take kindly to hype. But her background as a Wall Street food industry analyst, not to mention her data and sources, were compelling. So I started doing even more digging. And the more I found, the more shocked, overwhelmed, and eventually determined I became.

Heres what I know: all propaganda aside, there are too many scientists calling genetic engineering into question. There are ever-growing numbers of studies showing some rather frightening results of the past two decades of using an entirely untested, unproven, expensive, and risk-laden technology. Im all about feeding the hungry, but not if a full belly gives them cancer. And Im not against chemicals or science making our lives better, as long as we use both with good care and human safety above profits.

So heres what I plan to do about it: I can make small changes. I can choose different products. And I can tell others.

I started this blog as a way to collect all of the information I tracked down (and continue to find), because somehow seeing it all organized together has given me the courage to begin sharing what Ive found.

I hope the lightbulb goes on for you too.





Document Number: 7074
The Argument in Favor of GMOs
by GMO Awareness on May 1, 2011
GMOs Will End World Hunger!
GMOs Will Make Food Better!
GMOs Are Safe!
GMOs Promote Agrictultural Diversity!
GMOs Help Support the Herbicide Industry!
GMOs Dont Need Testing!
GMOs Are Backed by the FDA!
GMOs Dont Need Labeling!

Heres the complete story about the wonders of GMOs


GMOs Will End World Hunger!

When GMOs (genetically modified organisms) were first promoted back in the early nineties, it sounded like the world would soon be saved from famine.

Indeed, the original intent was positive: GMOs would make food better tasting, more nutritious, and longer lasting. Scientists and leaders of third world countries hoped that genetically engineered food would help feed the hungry and the worlds growing population with wonder products like Golden Rice.

GMOs Will Make Food Better!

Biotech companies proudly announced that genetically altered crops would produce much higher yields and the hungry could finally be fed. For regions of the planet where there was little rainfall, plants could be made drought resistant. Vitamins could be introduced, making genetically modified produce more nutritious. Crops would be made resilient to pests and could grow in spite of them.

Without GM foods, warned Dr. Alan McHughen, a biotechnologist at the University of Saskatchewan who spoke at a conference on agricultural biotechnology at Cornell University, the earth would not be able to feed the ever-growing billions of people who inhabit it.

(Never mind the 2008 study done by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, in which 400 experts worked for 4.5 years to explore the most efficient, productive, and sustainable strategy for feeding the world. Their conclusion, in no uncertain terms, was that countries must move away from chemical- and fossil[-fuel]-dependent agriculture, including genetically modified crops.)

GMOs Are Safe!

And the best part of the rainbow: there would be virtually no difference between GMO crops and the conventionally grown crops that came before them, and no negative impact to our environment.

As per the biotech industry, scientists at nonprofit institutions have been working for more than two decades to genetically engineer seeds that could benefit farmers struggling with ever-pervasive dry spells and old and novel pests  including drought-tolerant cassava, insect-resistant cowpeas, fungus-resistant bananas, virus-resistant sweet potatoes and high-yielding pearl millet, which are just a few examples of genetically engineered foods that could improve the lives of the poor around the globe.

Yet after two decades, NONE of these crops exist. Note the words could improve?

GMOs Promote Agricultural Biodiversity!

The same article goes on to claim that genetic engineering will enable farming to become productive, diverse and sustainable. Yet Monsanto is currently developing seeds with a built-in terminator gene that causes the seeds to be sterile after the first generation. Perhaps the definition of sustain refers more to Monsantos profits?

Certainly the spread of a sterile plant gene through the already observed cross-polllination that occurs between GMO plants and non-GMO plants would certainly not render our planets crops diverse.

Says Senator John Tester from Montana, who has farmed land thats been in his family for more than 100 years, our current industrial farm programs have weakened agricultural diversity and made it harder for family farms to stay afloat. The majority of farmers have off-farm jobs just to make ends meet.

The rise in GMOs and who controls seeds is particularly disturbing, Tester says. A hundred years ago, we had crop diversity, because it was essential to profitability. Farmers knew a diverse rotation is good for insect and pest control, to help manage plant disease, to improve plant vigor, and soil health. But over the last 100 years, he says, Weve seen far less diversity in crop rotations, as well as in marketing our crops, and in the U.S. farm programs themselves.

Tester went on to say, if you look at the last 50 years of farm programs, youd be hard-pressed to say they have encouraged diversity, because payments go to a select few crops. Youd also be hard-pressed to say they have saved rural America or promoted family farm agriculture. With GMOs, farmers dont control their farms, multi-national agribusiness does.

The full article can be read here.

GMOs Help Support the Herbicide Industry!

Its true: over 80 percent of all genetically engineered crops in the U.S. and around the world are designed to do one thing: withstand large applications of herbicides (which are made by the same company whos making the seeds that withstand herbicides). Yet the weeds keep becoming resistant, after which larger / stronger volumes of herbicides are required.

According to the 2010 Agricultural Chemical Use Report released in May 2011 by the U.S. Department of Agricultures (USDA) National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), use of the herbicide glyphosate (the key ingredient in Monsantos RoundUp herbicide which is directly associated with genetically engineered crops), has dramatically increased over the last several years.

Contrary to common claims from chemical manufacturers and proponents of GMO technology that the proliferation of herbicide tolerant GMO crops would lower pesticide use, the data shows that overall use of pesticides has remained relatively steady (even more toxic chemicals such as atrazine has not declined), and glyphosate (RoundUp) use has skyrocketed to more than double the amount used just five years ago.

Pity the underground aquifer where all these toxic herbicide residues eventually wind up

According to Farm Industry News, the health of the top six crop protection companies (aka GMO manufacturers) may depend on new blockbuster chemicals to handle evolving weed and insect challenges. Which means shareholders like it when weeds become resistant to their herbicides its a new product development opportunity.

GMOs Dont Need Testing!

Human testing has only recently begun on GMOs  but only in other countries. The handful of independent safety tests conducted in the U.S. never once proved the safety of GMO food for human consumption. Meanwhile nearly every independent animal feeding study on GMO food shows adverse effects ranging from birth defects, still births, and developmental growth, t0 damaged immune systems, damaged organs, and increased cancer and death rates.

No surprise, biotechnology companies call these studies propaganda or faulty reasoning.  Science Direct magazine explains why here.

(Though that doesnt stop them from creating their own propaganda in the form of countless websites with names like Alliance for Abundant Food and Energy  backed by Monsanto and DuPont to promote the use of their GMO corn as biofuel  since global awareness about the dangers of GMO is reducing worldwide demand for any other uses of their GMO corn).

GMOs Are Backed by the FDA!

So despite the overwhelming evidence, despite scientists warning the FDA over a decade ago, and demanding adequate safety testing procedures, the FDA still does not regulate or control GMOs, nor do they require GMO manufacturers to do so, because theyve deemed the genetically engineered food to be substantially equivalent to naturally grown food.

In fact theyre so confident about GMOs, theyve granted Monsanto permission to do their own environmental impact studies.

GMOs Dont Need Labeling!

While top government officials continue to debate the issue and allow genetically modified crops to be grown for both human and animal consumption, unknowing American consumers purchase and eat GMOs, because the FDA wont allow GMOs to be labeled.

Apparently when labeling was allowed in the European Union, GMO product sales plummeted. It seems our profit-driven corporate model doesnt allow consumers to know the truth here in the United States.

GMOs Dont Require Consumer Awareness!

Sadly, the average American consumer has no idea that any of this is taking place. Few consumers have knowledge about genetic engineering or its use in agriculture (source: Brown & Ping, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103, 208-214).

Surveys by the International Food Information Council have shown that Americans are sadly in the dark about what GMOs are; the latest survey records found that only 26% of Americans had any idea they were eating GMOs almost all of the time.

GMOs Fuel Employment and Cars!

In trying to come up with an argument in favor of GMOs, here are the best two I can think of:

1.) If consumers are aware of the risks of GMOs, product demand will slip even further and people employed by the top GMO companies (Monsanto, DuPont, Bayer, Dow, Syngenta and BASF) could potentially lose their jobs.

2.) GMO corn is being made into biofuel (since the rest of the world wants nothing to do with GMO corn, the supply currently outweighs demand), and could potentially reduce our dependence on oil (just be sure to ignore all the studies that have already proven this corn-based ethanol is an inefficient and highly costly option).

Additional Reading:

Although the following article is now over a decade old, its an interesting insight into the initial pro and con thinking about GMOs, and how solutions for problems already being seen were being explored. I wish the author was around today to give us an updated perspective, however she passed away in 2004 at the age of 49.
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/gmfood/overview.php

Here is a more moderated stance on the use of GMOs (comparing it to the benefits of nuclear energy, prior to the Japan meltdown of course):
http://www.aaenvironment.com/GM.htm

Heres a great article that looks openly at both the pros and the cons of genetic engineering:
http://www.brighthub.com/science/genetics/articles/15678.aspx

And another outstanding article, Gene Altered Food  A Case Against Panic:
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Case-Against-Panic-BRODY.htm







Document Number: 4370
Gene Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic  


Ask American consumers whether they support the use of biotechnology in food and agriculture and nearly 70 percent say they do. But ask the question another way, "Do you approve of genetically engineered (or genetically modified) foods?" and two- thirds say they do not.

Yet there is no difference between them. The techniques involved and the products that result are identical. Rather, the words "genetic" and "engineer" seem to provoke alarm among millions of consumers.

The situation recalls the introduction of the M.R.I. (for magnetic resonance imaging), which was originally called an N.M.R., for nuclear magnetic resonance. The word nuclear, which in this case referred only to the nucleus of an atom, caused such public concern, it threatened to stymie the growth of this valuable medical tool.

The idea of genetically modified foods, known as GM foods, is particularly frightening to those who know little about how foods are now produced and how modern genetic technology, if properly regulated, could result in significant improvements by reducing environmental hazards, improving the nutritional value of foods, enhancing agricultural productivity and fostering the survival worldwide of small farms and the rural landscape.

Without GM foods, Dr. Alan McHughen, a biotechnologist at the University of Saskatchewan, told a recent conference on agricultural biotechnology at Cornell, the earth will not be able to feed the ever-growing billions of people who inhabit it.

"Without GM foods we will not be able to feed the ever-growing billions of people..." - GM Industry Mantra
But. . .There are only 6 billion at present and the UN has estimated that, if distributed equitably, the present world output could feed 9 billion. 

We need to concentrate on the root causes of starvation and malnutrician rather than building on the misconceptions of the Green Revolution.

Still, there are good reasons for concern about a powerful technology that is currently imperfectly regulated and could, if inadequately tested or misapplied, bring on both nutritional and environmental havoc. To render a rational opinion on the subject and make reasoned choices in the marketplace, it is essential to understand what genetic engineering of foods and crops involves and its potential benefits and risks.

Genetics in Agriculture

People have been genetically modifying foods and crops for tens of thousands of years.1 The most commonly used method has involved crossing two parents with different desirable characteristics in an effort to produce offspring that express the best of both of them. That and another approach, inducing mutations, are time-consuming and hit-or-miss and can result in good and bad characteristics.

Genetic engineering, on the other hand, involves the introduction into a plant or animal or micro-organism of a single gene or group of genes that are known quantities2, genes that dictate the production of one or more desired elements, for example, the ability to resist the attack of insects, withstand herbicide treatments or produce foods with higher levels of essential nutrients.

Since all organisms use the same genetic material (DNA), the power of the technique includes the ability to transfer genes between organisms that normally would never interbreed.3

Thus, an antifreeze gene from Arctic flounder has been introduced into strawberries to extend their growing season in northern climates. But contrary to what many people think, this does not make the strawberries "fishy" any more than the use of porcine insulin turned people into pigs.

Dr. Steven Kresovich, a plant breeder at Cornell, said, "Genes should be characterized by function, not origin.  It's not a flounder gene but a cold tolerance gene that was introduced into strawberries." 4

As Dr. McHughen points out in his new book, "Pandora's Picnic Basket: The Potential and Hazards of Genetically Modified Foods" (Oxford, $25), people share about 7,000 genes with a worm called C. elegans. The main difference between organisms lies in the total number of genes their cells contain, how the genes are arranged and which ones are turned on or off in different cells at different times.

Current and Potential Benefits

An insecticidal toxin from a bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) has been genetically introduced into two major field crops, corn and cotton, resulting in increased productivity and decreased use of pesticides, which means less environmental contamination and greater profits for farmers. For example, by growing Bt cotton, farmers could reduce spraying for bollworm and budworm from seven times a season to none. Bt corn also contains much lower levels of fungal toxins, which are potentially carcinogenic.

The genetic introduction of herbicide tolerance into soybeans is saving farmers about $200 million a year by reducing the number of applications of herbicide needed to control weed growth, said Leonard Gianessi, a pesticide analyst at the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, a research organization in Washington.

Genetically engineered pharmaceuticals are already widely used, with more than 150 products on the market. Since 1978, genetically modified bacteria have been producing human insulin, which is used by 3.3 million people with diabetes.

Future food benefits are likely to accrue directly to the consumer. For example, genetic engineers have developed golden rice, a yellow rice rich in beta carotene (which the body converts to vitamin A) and iron.

If farmers in developing countries accept this crop and if the millions of people who suffer from nutrient deficiencies will eat it, golden rice could prevent widespread anemia and blindness in half a million children a year and the deaths of one million to two million children who succumb each year to the consequences of vitamin A deficiency.

Future possibilities include peanuts or shrimp lacking proteins that can cause life- threatening food allergies, fruits and vegetables with longer shelf lives, foods with fewer toxicants and antinutrients, meat and dairy products and oils with heart-healthier fats and foods that deliver vaccines.

Real and Potential Risks

GM foods and crops arrived without adequate mechanisms in place to regulate them. Three agencies are responsible for monitoring their safety for consumers, farmers and the environment: the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Agency. But the drug agency says its law does not allow it to require premarket testing of GM foods unless they contain a new substance that is not "generally recognized as safe."

For most products, safety tests are done voluntarily by producers. The recent recall of taco shells containing GM corn that had not been approved for human consumption was done voluntarily by the producer. The agency is now formulating new guidelines to test GM products and to label foods as "GM-free" but says it lacks a legal basis to require labeling of GM foods.

"In the current environment, such a label would be almost a kiss of death on a product," said Dr. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a nonprofit consumer group. "But it may be that the public is simply not going to have confidence in transgenic ingredients if their presence is kept secret."

The introduction of possible food allergens through genetic engineering is a major concern. If the most common sources of food allergens  peanuts, shellfish, celery, nuts, milk or eggs  had to pass through an approval process today, they would never make it to market.

But consumers could be taken unaware if an otherwise safe food was genetically endowed with an allergen, as almost happened with an allergenic protein from Brazil nuts. Even if known allergenic proteins are avoided in GM foods, it is hard to predict allergenicity of new proteins.

A potentially serious environmental risk involves the "escape" of GM genes from crops into the environment, where they may harm innocent organisms or contaminate crops that are meant to be GM-free.

Dr. Jacobson concluded, "Now is the time, while agricultural biotechnology is still young, for Congress and regulatory agencies to create the framework that will maximize the safe use of these products, bolster public confidence in them and allow all of humankind to benefit from their enormous potential." Two Congressional bills now under discussion can do much to assure safer use of agricultural biotechnology, he said.






Document Number: 1144
Letters: When Food Is Modified

Letters to the Editor / New York Times 12dec00

To the Editor:

The column "Gene Altered Foods: A Case Against Panic" (Dec. 5) tried to make the case that unease about medical and agricultural uses of technology is often due to inaccurate terminology and poor understanding of science.

Unfortunately, it adds to the confusion by mischaracterizing the nature and role of genes. A plant breeder is quoted on the introduction of a gene from the Arctic flounder into strawberries and cites his interpretation: it is "not a flounder gene but a cold tolerance gene."

But there is no such thing as a cold tolerance gene independent of the organism in which it acts. Biologists agree that genes are context- dependent and may do different things in different cells and tissues of the same organism, not to mention in organisms as different as flounders and strawberries.

I suggest that inaccuracies in scientific terminology and concepts are often due to promoters of new technologies.

DR. STUART A. NEWMAN
Valhalla, N.Y.
The writer is a professor at New York Medical College.

To the Editor:

The Personal Health column on genetically modified foods promotes the misconceptions it warns of. The portrayal of current genetic "engineering" as precise and well defined is inappropriate today.

Few genes are "known quantities" and the process of introducing a foreign gene into an organism produces uncertainty about both the gene's function and the function of the DNA into which it is inserted.

Genetic engineering techniques are abysmally primitive, akin to swapping random parts between random cars to produce a better car. Yet our ignorance will fade; biological engineering will become a reality relatively soon.

But it is difficult to discuss this impending development when the public believes that the details are already understood, especially when mistakes are so publicly discussed. The conflation of "engineering" and such failures can only suggest a subtext that the problem is beyond hope and that further work will produce dire consequences.   

ROB CARLSON
Berkeley, Calif.
The writer is a research fellow at the Molecular Sciences Institute.

To the Editor:

The Personal Health column on Dec. 5 correctly notes the potential of genetically improved food to help feed the world and reduce the need for pesticides. But many are needlessly concerned about negligible risks posed by this technology. Genetically engineered food is thoroughly regulated by at least three federal agencies.

Superstition and fear should not interfere with this technology, which has so much to offer those who suffer from hunger and malnutrition. Unfounded concerns about hypothetical risks are far outweighed by the real benefits that will soon be realized, if scientific research and development of genetically modified agriculture is allowed to proceed unhindered.

DR. GILBERT ROSS
New York
The writer is the medical director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), a group financed by foundations, trade associations, companies and individuals. (see notes below)






Document Number: 5058
Is Organic Always GMO Free?
by GMO Awareness on May 5, 2011
Organic is Usually GMO Free

Buying 100% Organic, Certified Organic, and USDA Organic-labeled products is usually the easiest way to avoid genetically modified ingredients.

The United States and Canadian governments do NOT allow companies to label products 100% / Certified Organic if they contain genetically modified foods.

To put it in more detail:

100% Organic: Must contain 100 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt). This is the only label that certifies a completely organic product AND completely GMO-free ingredients.

Certified Organic / USDA Organic / Organic: At least 95 percent of content is organic by weight (excluding water and salt). The <5% remaining ingredients must consist of substances approved on the USDAs National List. GMOs are NOT on this list, so these products are also GMO-free.

Made with Organic: Up to 70% of the ingredients are organic. These products can NOT carry a USDA organic label and are NOT typically GMO-free.

But lately, even organic products are at risk.


What Does the Organic Label Certify?

To have a product certified as organic, a producer/manufacturer/farmer must undergo third party verification to ensure that the requirements of USDA National Organic Program are met. These requirements certify the process of growing the crop (they do not test the resulting crops/food). Processes that are reviewed include:

 All production methods  which must be free from most synthetic chemicals (e.g. pesticides, herbicides & fertilizers, antibiotics & hormones), genetically modified organisms, irradiation, and use of biosolids;

 All farmlands  which must be free from synthetic chemicals for generally 3 or more years;

 Storage procedures  producers must keep strict physical separation of organic products and non-certified products

 On-site inspections  producers are subject to initial (and sometimes subsequent) inspections.

Want to read an even more detailed description about organic certification? click here.

So Why Say Usually?

Despite these rigid organic certification procedures, organic certification is about the *process* of growing food, not about the actual resulting food. There is no testing process for organic ingredients, so there is a chance that GMO contamination could occur. And sadly, GMO contamination is growing steadily, year after year. Just look at this recent response from the USDA regarding a series of questions raised by organic farmers, after GMO alfalfa was approved.

Even more sobering is the impending contamination from genetically engineered Kentucky Bluegrass. This grass is one of the primary crops in animal forage  particularly organic, grass-fed animals. Now that its been genetically engineered with RoundUp inside, not only does it carry pesticides in every bite, but it spreads rapidly and wont be able to be destroyed, thanks to its new weedkiller resistance.

Between cross-pollination and wind-borne seeds, organic pastures all around our nation are soon going to be contaminated. Its already happening in Australia a farmer just lost his organic certification due to wind-borne contamination from a neighboring GMO crop.

How Does Contamination Occur?

Contamination can happen any number of natural ways: 1.) via cross-pollination between GMO and non-GMO crops, 2.) from trace amounts of GMO ingredients found in animal feed (as per the alfalfa/bluegrass section above), 3.) from seeds traveling by wind or by migratory birds that take root in the soil of an organic farm, and 4.) from ingredient suppliers that co-mingle various sources.

It can also happen when it takes nearly three years for a manufacturer who illegally uses the term organic in their labeling to be noticed, reported, investigated, and forced to amend their label. The oversight of organic manufacturers falls far short of assuring standards are met.

Remember too: products not labeled as 100% organic are allowed to contain a small percentage of non-organic ingredients. Ive read that cornstarch is often a tiny, sneaky culprit.

Remember three: the most common GMO crops are corn, soy, canola and cotton/seed. Some people prefer to avoid products made with these ingredients when the labeling seems questionable.

Is there a Certification Process for Being GMO Free?

Yes. When you see this label on a product, it means the producer took the time to go through a certification program similar to the one used to obtain organic certification, only its designed to focus on GMO-free processes.

Started initially by retailers, the Non-GMO Projects Product Verification Program (PVP)s core requirements include traceability, segregation, and testing at critical control points. Compliant products bear the Non-GMO Project Seal shown above (explained in detail here), indicating that the product has been produced in accordance with the best practices of the Non-GMO Project Standard.

Sadly however, just like organic certification, the word usually once again comes into play.

The Non-GMO Project says directly that its label does not guarantee that a product is 100% GMO-free, because contamination is an ever-growing threat in this country (and abroad: on July 28, 2011, a lawsuit was filed by a Western Australia farmer who lost his organic certification due to wind-borne contamination from a nearby GMO canola field).

Read a great article about the reasons why this program was started, despite similar process testing procedures for organic products.

GMO Free Labels

When you see a GMO free label on an organic product, how does it compare to certified organic or certified Non-GMO Project standards? Hard to say.

Because there is no certification program associated with this label, it is simply the producers word that all fields, ingredients, processes, and storage avoid contact with, and contain no genetically modified ingredients.

This doesnt mean this label isnt valid; sometimes producers cant afford the cost of becoming certified organic or certified through the Non-GMO Project, and thus use this label as a sign of good faith.

And because so many consumers dont know that Certified Organic = GMO free (I didnt, until I did the research), it can be a more obvious and affordable way of letting customers know.

No label in sight? Sometimes you need to read the fine print: some manufacturers dont include a little GMO free icon, but they do include the words we dont use genetically engineered ingredients (or similar wording) on the back of their labeling (hope you brought your reading glasses to the grocery store). 

Organic versus Certified Naturally Grown

When the USDA Organic program started in 2002, many small farms were forced to make a difficult choice: either pay high certification fees and complete mounds of paperwork to become Certified Organic, or give up using the word organic to describe their produce and/or livestock.

Believing that neither choice was very attractive, a group of farmers created Certified Naturally Grown (CNG), to provide an alternative way to assure their customers that they observed strict growing practices. Their methods include using natural biological cycles  incorporating a careful balance of micro-organisms, soil flora and fauna, natural pollinators, plants and animals  to create a sustainable farming system.

The resulting products meet and in some cases exceed the USDA standards but do not carry any of the official government approved organic seals. CNG now consists of more than 500 member farms in 47 states and growing.

Note: the majority of the CNG farm listings that I perused included the words GMO free in their product descriptions.

Other Natural Product Labeling Terms

Additional labeling terms  such as Natural, Cage Free, Free Range, Certified Humane (raised and handled), Vegetarian Diet, Fair Trade, and Locally Grown  have no direct relevance to whether a product is GMO free (genetically modified vegetables can and do get used in animal feed sometimes particularly corn fed to pigs, cows and chickens).

For a helpful description about each of these, click here.

For a helpful ranking chart about egg labeling in particular, click here.

The Even Longer Story Behind GMOs and Organics
(Excerpted from The Organic and Non GMO Report website)

Organic certifiers want to ensure that GMOs are not used in organic products, but getting 100 percent verification that all substances are non-GMO may not be possible. Apparently the effort is significant, and requiring 100 percent verification could grind a processors operation to a halt.

Due to a lack of guidance from US National Organic Program (NOP), organic certifiers have developed their own methods to address GMO challenges posed by non-organic ingredients (for that <5% of non-organic ingredients allowed in foods labeled organic).

Oregon Tilth Certified Organic and CCOF developed flowcharts or decision trees to evaluate the GM status of ingredients. Quality Assurance International (QAI) developed a GMO Declaration that it asks clients to submit to verify the non-GMO status of ingredients.

Says Gwendolyn Wyard, Oregon Tilths processing program reviewer, The problem is that organic is a process certification. Were asking whether they use GMOs, not whether there is GM DNA or protein in the final product.

Verifying the non-GM status of some ingredients can be challenging. For example, the supply of the ingredient tocopherol/Vitamin E has been controlled by one or two companies who collected soybean oil from many co-mingled sources. Oregon Tilth requires that tocopherols come from an identity preserved, non-GM source, but Quality Assurance International (QAI) does not require an IP (identity preserved) tocopherol, says Jessica Walden, QAI technical specialist.

Instead, QAI developed a GMO Declaration to address questions raised by the NOPs rule on genetic engineering. The declaration describes QAIs policy toward GMOs focusing on three categories:

When a product is a non-organic agricultural ingredient such as cornstarch, in order to qualify as non-GMO in Organic and Made with Organic categories, the original organism that produced the ingredient must be non-Genetically Modified. When a product is a non-organic non-agricultural ingredient, such as flavors and colors, the product must be free from Genetically Modified DNA or proteins. Lastly, if microorganisms such as citric acid are used, the microorganism must be a non-GMO.

On the declaration, the supplier must highlight measures taken to verify their non-GMO claim, such as traceability/identity preservation, GMO testing, and independent audits.

QAIs GMO declaration has streamlined the response from suppliers for GMO documentation. Instead of receiving various GMO statements, QAI has its clients submit the GMO declaration.

Reading all of this, you gain a new respect for farmers who not only buck the industrial farming system by going organic, but by their perseverance in navigating the volumes and diverse methods of certification!

So what does this all boil down to, when youre trying to choose a product?

Just this week I was looking for mayonnaise at my local natural foods co-op. They had a fairly broad selection of various organic mayonnaises from different manufacturers.

All of the mayo labels said organic somewhere on the label. Two of them said USDA Certified Organic. But only one had GMO free in addition to organic on the label. Coincidentally, it was the only mayonnaise that was not made from one the Big Four GMO crops (corn, soy, canola or cotton/seed).

Does that mean it was the only mayo that was GMO free? No. The others were labeled organic, which technically means they couldnt be GMO. Yet they didnt have a non-GMO label, and they were sourced from crops with high incidences of GMO farming (soy and canola).

I tried consulting my two non GMO shopping list iphone apps, but none of the mayo brands on the shelf were mentioned (either as a pro or a con).

So I ended up playing it uber safe and buying the safflower-based mayo with the Non-GMO label.

What would you have done?






Document Number: 2373
Eight Ways Monsanto is Destroying Our Health
by GMO Awareness on May 12, 2011


By Delia Quigley  Thu Mar 31, 2011, 12:52 pm ET


Lots of talk these days about the bullying of young boys and girls in school by more aggressive students. This brings to my mind the biggest bully of all: the biotech company, Monsanto Corporation.

Taken in context, Monsantos list of corporate crimes should have been enough to pull their corporate charter years ago. And yet we allow them to continue to destroy our food supply, our health and the planet. Take a look at the companys track record and decide for yourself


The following are eight ways that Monsanto has already done lasting damage

1. Agent Orange
Monsanto was the major financial beneficiary of this herbicide used to defoliate the jungles of Vietnam and destroy the health of American troops and their offspring. It also allowed Monsanto and other chemical companies to appeal for and receive protection from veterans seeking damages for their exposure to Agent Orange and any future biotech creations.

2. Aspartame (aka NutraSweet / Equal)
As far back as 1994, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a report listing 94 health issues caused by aspartame. It has been shown to cause slow but serious damage to the human body and yet it is used extensively in many commercial products. (Watch a quick video here.)

3. Saccharin
Studies have shown that saccharin caused cancer in test rats and mice; and in six human studies, including one done by the National Cancer Institute, that consuming artificial sweeteners, such as saccharin and cyclamate, resulted in bladder cancer.



4. Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
A genetically modified hormone injected into dairy cows to produce more milk, despite the fact that more milk was needed. The cows suffer excruciating pain due to swollen udders and mastitis. The pus from the infection enters the milk supply requiring more antibiotics to be given to the cows. BST milk may also cause breast cancer, colon cancer, and prostate cancer in humans.

5. RoundUp
The worlds most commonly used herbicide and weed killer has been linked to non-Hodgkins lymphoma, in a study by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson of Sweden. Used on genetically modified crops resistant to RoundUps active ingredient glyphosate, environmentalists and health professionals are concerned that far from reducing herbicide use, glyphosate-resistant crops may result in increased residues in food to which consumers will be exposed.



6. Genetically Modified Crops (GMO)
Monsanto created Frankenfoods by gene-splicing corn, cotton, soy, and canola with DNA from a foreign source. Consequently these crops are resistant to massive doses of the herbicide, RoundUp, but in turn herbicide-resistant superweeds are taking over. After running into resistance in the west, Monsanto is pushing GMO crops in third-world countries.

According to physicist, ecologist, and activist Dr. Vandana Shiva, Syugenta and Monsanto are rushing ahead with the mapping and patenting of the rice genome. If they could, they would own rice and its genes, even though the 200,000 rice varieties that give us diverse traits have been bred and evolved by rice farmers of Asia collectively over millennia. Their claim to inventing rice is a violence against the integrity of biodiversity and life forms; it is a violence against the knowledge of third-world farmers.

7. Terminator Seeds
A technology that produces sterile grains unable to germinate, forcing farmers to buy seeds from Monsanto rather than save and reuse the seeds from their harvest. Terminators can cross-pollinate and contaminate local non-sterile crops putting in danger the future seed supply and eventually giving control of the worlds food supply to Monsanto and the GM industry.



8. Standard American Diet
According to the Organic Consumers Association, There is a direct correlation between our genetically engineered food supply and the $2 trillion the U.S. spends annually on medical care, namely an epidemic of diet-related chronic diseases.

Instead of healthy fruits, vegetables, grains, and grass-fed animal products, U.S. factory farms and food processors produce a glut of genetically engineered junk foods that generate heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer. Low fruit and vegetable consumption is directly costing the United States $56 billion a year in diet-related chronic diseases.

The above has been reposted from the original article here.

Blog Posters Note: Dont forget #9, PCBs:

Back in 2003, Monsanto paid out over $600 million to residents of Anniston, Alabama, who experienced severe health problems including liver disease, neurological disorders and cancer after being exposed to Monsantos industrial chemicals known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)  more than double the payoff that was awarded in the case against Pacific Gas & Electric made famous by the movie Erin Brockovich.

Nearly 30 years after PCBs have been banned from the U.S., they are still showing up in the blood of pregnant women, as reported in a 2011 study by the University of California San Francisco.





Document Number: 3929
Why We Need GMO Labeling (and how to get it)
by GMO Awareness on June 3, 2011
America: land of inalienable rights.

Except for your right to choose the most healthy food.

Sure, you can waltz into your local grocery store and buy organic lettuce. Its easy because you can see the difference: its labeled organic.

Unfortunately, GMOs are not labeled. Which means you have no idea if youre choosing food with genetically modified ingredients.

And believe me, you are. About 70% of the time.

If something is that prevalent in our food, why isnt it on the label?


Walk down the next aisle in that same grocery store and put a six pack of soda in your cart. Theres nothing on the label telling you that each can is packed with roughly 13 teaspoons of genetically modified corn in the form of high fructose corn syrup. But you dont drink that stuff, right?

Okay, head over to the energy bars  a healthy option for busy mornings when you dont have time for breakfast and you know better than to subject your body to McBrekkie. Better, right? Wrong. The majority of those healthy energy bars are loaded with corn starch, fillers, protein powder, and sweeteners  all of which are genetically modified.

Whew. Lets get some all natural yogurt. Sorry, thats from cows injected with rBGH (recombinant bovine growth hormone) and its flavored with high fructose corn syrup. But didnt it say all natural? (Yes it did, but natural is a labeling term that means absolutely nothing).

The same is true of non-organic infant formula, enriched flour, veggie burgers, hamburger, tofu, milk, bread, cereal, chips, ketchup, and far more routine food purchases than you ever imagined. If theyre not organic, they all contain GMOs.

But once again, you had no clue because GMOs arent labeled.

In fact the latest survey records found that only 26% of Americans had any idea they were eating GMOs almost all of the time.



Its time to wake up, America

Currently, up to 85 percent of U.S. corn, 91 percent of soybeans and 88 percent of cotton (cottonseed oil is frequently used in food products) is genetically engineered. And were not talking genetic engineering that adds vitamins, nutrition value, increases crop yield or drought resistance (because after nearly 20 years of genetic engineering, none of those crops exist yet).

Were talking herbicide and pesticide genetically engineered into the plant seeds, so that it grows its own toxins from the inside out, in order to fight off insects and withstand heavy spraying with weedkillers.

If the FDA and biotech companies truly believed their genetically engineered products were vastly superior, wouldnt they go out of their way to include that in their marketing, and emblazon it all over the food label? Now made with powerful GMO ingredients! They dont, because they know better.


Members of European Parliament in Strasbourg France on March 9, 2010, protesting the European Commissions stance to re-admit GMOs after ongoing pressure from the U.S. government

In fact labeling is the main reason why GMO products are no longer sold in most civilized countries (including all of the European Union, Greece, Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Brazil, Paraguay, Perus capital city of Lima, China, Japan, Thailand, the Philippines, Fiji, Sri Lanka, American Samoa, Cook Islands, Kiribati, Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu).



The minute the words GMO appeared on the label in these countries, sales of GMO-laced products plummeted. None of these countries would tolerate selling food that hadnt had a single long-term human study done to evaluate its safety. Pity the same protection isnt in place for selling non-tested GMO products here in the U.S

The Food and Drug Administration has never declared that GMOs are entirely safe for human consumption  instead, they claim that if the food manufacturers / biotech companies who developed the products believe they are safe for human consumption, then its good enough.

And yet these manufacturers / biotech companies have never done a single scientifically unbiased, long-term human or animal study on the health and safety of GMOs in human consumption, while at the same time blocking all efforts to perform such studies (or worse, blocking the study results) unless they can oversee and/or underwrite the study.

(And we wont even go into the primary purpose of corporations to protect and improve profit margins  no shareholder wants to see a study result that says GMOs arent safe, it wouldnt be in the companys best interest.)



You might recognize one of the leading GMO companies: Monsanto  the manufacturer of DDT, Agent Orange, Aspartame, and Round Up  the very same Round Up being genetically engineered into seeds so the resulting crops can withstand heavy doses of pesticide and herbicide sprays  all of which they sell exclusively.



GMO crops now comprise the majority of crops grown in the U.S. (click the above image to enlarge)

Dont you think youve got a right to see GMO ingredients labeled until we have some proof, one way or the other?

Dont you think your opinion about your health matters more than the opinion of the company selling the GMO seeds and weedkillers and pesticides?

GMOs Need to be Labeled

Ever-increasing evidence points to a host of alarming health risks associated with GMOs. Animal studies show everything from infant mortality and underweight birth, to deformities, infertility, and cancer. Click here and scroll down to Documented Health Risks in Animal Studies to see just a few of the reports.

Human studies happening in other countries are finding herbicide and pesticide toxins directly related to GMO crops in the blood of pregnant women and their fetuses (studies still arent happening in the United States; read why here and here).

So why doesnt the U.S. require GMOs to be labeled? 

The GMO industry has four reasons:

1.) labels arent necessary because the food is equivalent;
2.) labels arent wanted by consumers because it would cost more;
3.) labels would be confusing (as if natural isnt already?); and
4.) consumers already know that organic = no GMOs (actually, most of us dont but more on that topic here).

By contrast, a large number of consumer, policy and scientific groups say that the reason foods arent labeled as containing genetically modified ingredients is two-fold:

1.) First, if Americans knew how much of their foods were genetically modified, they wouldnt buy them. Just like what happened in Europe.

2.) Second, big food and bio-agritech corporations know that. And theyre doing whatever they can to block labeling efforts spending $1.4 million in lobbying in just the first three months of 2011.

One such approach used by Big Farma (pun intended) is to infiltrate pro-labeling movements and organizations such as the Organic Trade Association (OTA). By joining the group under the name of the small organic divisions of their companies, they can work from the inside to keep efforts under control. Some policy groups claim this is the reason why the OTA has consistently worked for lowest-common-denominator organic standards.

Every one of these small organic divisions is owned by the very same corporations that have joined together to form the Coalition Against the Costly Labeling Law  including General Mills (currently represented on the OTA board by Craig Weakly of Small Planet Foods), H.J. Heinz Co. (invested in the Hain-Celestial organics group), PepsiCo (Tropicana and Quaker produce a few organic products), and Kelloggs (owns Kashi).

Who else is a member of this anti-labeling Coalition? None other than chemical makers Monsanto and DuPont, agribusiness ConAgra, food processor Sara Lee, the pesticide lobbying group CropLife, and the lobbying group Grocery Manufacturers Association  representing a combined investment of more than $5.5 million to date to defeat mandatory GMO labels.



How to Demand GMO Labeling in the U.S.

Dont let large corporations decide this critical issue for you. There are four ways you can join in the growing movement for GMO labeling: at a local government / state level, at a store level, at a manufacturer level, and at a federal government level:

Local States:
Fourteen states have introduced legislation that would require labels on genetically engineered salmon, milk, or other GMO foods. If you live in one of the following states, heres how you can take action:

Alaska HB 99 (description)
California AB 88 (description; article; additional website)
Connecticut HB 5868 (description; additional website)
Hawaii HB 1534 (description)
Illinois HB 1249 (description)
Iowa HF 375 (description)
Maryland HB 1261 (description)
New York A01367 (description)
North Carolina HB 446 (description)
Oregon HB 3346 (description)
Rhode Island H 5796 (description)
Tennessee HB 1928 (description)
Vermont H 123 (description)
West Virginia HB 2178 (description)
If you dont see your state listed above, take heart there may be early efforts underway. Simply click on this URL, and in the upper left corner, under the header Get Local, choose your state from the drop-down menu to see what sort of measures, discussions, and actions are taking place.

If your state hasnt introduced a bill yet, this website has an editable form, with a drop-down menu to choose your state legislator, to ask them to introduce legislation making GMO labels mandatory in your state.


Photo by Alex Garcia of the Chicago Tribune

Grocery Stores:
Recently theres been a lot of press about Non-GMO groups protesting at places like Whole Foods Market and Trader Joes. Since both of these national grocery chains are known for healthy, organic food choices, and both maintain their own branded line of foods that are GMO free and labeled GMO free, targeting these two national chains may seem a bit strange.

According to these non-GMO groups however, it was all about targeting a demographic with a two-fold message:

First, they wanted to let consumers know that just because these two national store chains focus on healthy food, not all of the products they sell are GMO free  a fact that not many consumers are aware of. As reported in the Chicago Tribune, the majority [of shoppers] said they were surprised to find [the store] did [carry GMO food].

Secondly, the GMO-free groups knew these stores are frequented by people who already want to shop healthy and thus are more likely to support GMO labeling. In essence, it was a great location to raise awareness among a willing demographic.



Manufacturers:
Huge food manufacturers cant possibly grasp the depth of consumer opinion if we dont take the time to tell them whether by email or regular postal mail. Think it doesnt matter? Think again

Kraft, Campbell Foods, Nestle, Phillip Morris, Kellogg, Heinz, Coca Cola and Pepsi Cola  are already making (and labeling) GMO free foods. They just sell it in Europe, not here. McDonalds is starting to use sustainable fish in every fish sandwich sold in Europe (but not in the U.S.) Why? Because Europeans made their opinions heard! They didnt take the gee what can we possibly do against a situation so overwhelming attitude. And clearly their letters (and purchase choices) did not fall on deaf ears.

So dont worry, you wont be asking these manufacturers to incur all new expense to completely refit their manufacturing plants or come up with new labeling schemes. Its already been done. All they have to do is just what we ask them: label it! (Better yet, give us the GMO-free food too, please!)



Federal Government:
GMO Labeling is not a new issue. Bills have been initiated as far back as 1999, just three years after GMO crops began being planted in this country. But the lobbying power of Monsanto and other big ag-industry corporations continues to block the effort. As a result, the issue has never been voted on in Congress.

In just this year alone, President Obama has just passed laws permitting GMO alfalfa, GMO sugar beets, and a GMO corn seed slated for the production of ethanol (a process that requires far more energy than it produces). If youd like to express your opinion about these matters, you can contact him by writing an online letter, or your own letter, or you can contact the First Lady, who has shown some interest in healthy food choices.

Additional efforts to voice your opinion at a federal government level include writing letters to your state senator and state representative, signing national pro-labeling petitions, anti-GMO petitions (there are quite a few in every demographic), as well as various petitions on related GMO issues, and/or getting involved with a local chapter of a national food safety, environmental, or consumer advocacy group such as Earthjustice, Food Democracy Now, or the Center for Food Safety.

Wanna go totally grass roots? Start your own petition drive. Every statistic shows that Americans want GMOs to be labeled. Even the publishers of Consumers Report magazine have demanded it!

A word of warning: if you do your own research like I did, youre going to find a few blogs and websites from what appears to be concerned consumer and industry organizations that claim labeling is difficult, or at best their favorite catch phrase: isnt so black and white (apparently neither is organic farming, the dangers of pesticides, and the veracity of research done outside of Monsantos control).

Ill agree. Labeling is never black and white. Just look at the words all natural. But if organics can get labeled, so can GMOs. If Europe can do it, so can America. If Kraft and Nestle and other major U.S. food manufacturers are already doing it, they can do it for us.

Start simple. Pick one thing that you can do. If youve got the time, pick another.

Its time we take our health (not to mention the health of our family and the environment) into our own hands.

Good News Update as of July 2011:

While its only a first step, the Codex Alimentarius Commission, made up of the worlds food safety regulatory agencies, has finally agreed on a guidance document regarding the labelling of genetically modified food, as reported during the recent annual Codex summit in Geneva, Switzerland.

What does this mean? There is now no legal opposition to the labeling of GMO-laced foods. Any country wishing to adopt GM food labeling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO), because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade.

What took so long? The United States delegation was the largest opposition to the GM labelling guidance document. Without their sanction, the guidance document could not be adopted. Once the US delegation dropped its opposition, the document was at last able to become an official Codex text.






Document Number: 2402 
5 reasons to keep Britain [and the rest of the world] GM-free 
The Ecologist spells out the five overriding reasons why the commercialisation 
  of GM crops should never be allowed in the UK [and Mendocino County]1. GM WILL REMOVE CONSUMER CHOICE The UK government's official adviser on GM, the Agriculture and Environment 
  Biotechnology Commission (AEBC), has said it would `be difficult and in some 
  places impossible to guarantee' that any British food was GM-free if commercial 
  growing of GM crops went ahead. In North America, farmers can no longer be certain 
  the seed they plant does not contain GM genes. GM genes are often `dominant' - ie, they are inherited at the expense of non-GM 
  genes when cross-pollination occurs between GM and conventional species. With 
  the first GM crops considered for commercialisation - oilseed rape and sugar 
  beet and maize - the `gene flow' (ability to contaminate non-GM varieties) is 
  `high' and `medium to high', respectively. To prevent cross-pollination, the official advice in the UK is that there should 
  be a separation distance of just 50 metres between GM oilseed rape and non-GM 
  varieties. But pollen can travel a lot further than that. Bees, for example, 
  regularly fly for up to 10 kilometres; hence, oilseed rape pollen has been found 
  in hives 4.5 kilometres from the nearest GM crop field. Tree pollen grains have 
  been recorded in the essentially treeless Shetland Isles, which are 250 kilometres 
  from the nearest mainland. And the University of Adelaide has published research 
  into wind pollination distances that shows oilseed rape pollen can travel for 
  up to 3 kilometres. GM seed, or parts of GM root crops like sugar beet, may be shed and left in 
  a field where they may grow later. Combine harvesters move from field to field, and leftover GM seed may be spilt 
  if equipment is not cleaned properly. Lorries removing a harvested crop from a farm may spill seed near fields where 
  non-GM or organic crops are grown. For crops with very small seeds like oilseed rape spillage can be high.In May 
  2002 the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) echoed the AEBC almost 
  verbatim when it warned that if GM crops were widely adopted, preventing contamination 
  of organic food would be `very difficult and connected to high costs, or virtually 
  impossible'. The biotech industry is fully aware of this. As Don Westfall, vice president 
  of US food industry consultancy Promar International, says: `The hope of the 
  [GM] industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GM] that there's 
  nothing you can do about it. You just surrender.' Likewise, the Soil Association's investigation into the impact of GM in the 
  US concludes: `All non-GM farmers in North America are finding it very hard 
  or impossible to grow GM-free crops. Seeds have become almost completely contaminated 
  with GM organisms (GMOs), good non-GM varieties have become hard to buy, and 
  there is a high risk of crop contamination.' 
  2. HEALTH RISKS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVED Pro-GM voices claim that after six years there have been no adverse health 
  effects from eating GM foods in the US. But then, there has been no effort by 
  the US authorities to look for health impacts either. Safety data comes from the biotech firms themselves. Independent, peer-reviewed 
  research showing that GM food poses no danger to human health is not required. 
  One Monsanto director said: `[We] should not have to vouchsafe the safety of 
  biotech food. Our interest is in selling as much of it as possible.' The common methodology for government food-safety requirements in North America 
  and Europe has traditionally been a comparison between a food and a conventional 
  counterpart. The assumption is that existing foods have a long history of safe 
  use. So, if a GM crop is found to be `the same' as a non-GM counterpart, it 
  can claim this history. This is called `substantial equivalence'. But GM crops 
  are not the same, because of the random nature and uncertain consequences of 
  modification. Biotech firms acknowledge this when it suits them - stating, for 
  example, that their GM varieties are distinctive enough to warrant their own 
  patents. There have been no properly controlled clinical trials looking at the effects 
  of short- or long-term ingestion of GM foods by humans. Moreover, as Dr Arpad 
  Pusztai (who was sacked when he printed research about the effects of GM potatoes 
  on lab rats) warns: `There is increasing research to show they may actually 
  be very unsafe.' Genetic modification frequently uses proteins from organisms that have never 
  before been an integral part of the human food chain. Hence, GM food may cause 
  unforeseen allergic reactions - particularly among children. Allergens could 
  be transferred from foods to which people are allergic to foods they think are 
  safe. When a new food is introduced, it takes five to six years before any allergies 
  are recognised. In 2000 GM `StarLink' maize was found in taco shells being sold for human consumption 
  in the US - even though the maize had only been approved for animal feed. StarLink 
  is modified to contain a toxin that could be a human allergen; it is heat stable 
  and does not break down in gastric acid - characteristics shared by many allergens. 
Genetic modification could also make disease-causing bacteria resistant to 
  antibiotics. This could lead to potentially uncontrollable epidemics. Antibiotic-resistance 
  genes are used as `markers' in GM crops to identify which plant cells have successfully 
  incorporated the desired foreign genes during modification. A 2002 study commissioned by the UK's Food Standards Agency (FSA) showed that 
  antibiotic-resistance marker genes from GM foods can make their way into human 
  gut bacteria after just one meal (see box below). Two years previously, the 
  British Medical Association had warned: `The risk to human health from antibiotic 
  resistance developing in micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats 
  that will be faced in the 21st century.' Industrial and pharmaceutical crops Since 1991 over 300 open-field trials of `pharma' crops have taken place around 
  the world. In California, for example, GM rice containing human genes has been 
  grown for drug production. Pharmaceutical wheat, corn and barley are also being 
  developed in the US, France and Canada. Last year in Texas 500,000 bushels of soya destined for human consumption were 
  contaminated with genes from maize genetically modified by the US firm Prodigene 
  so as to create a vaccine for a stomach disease afflicting pigs. A major concern 
  is that GM firms are using commodity food crops for pharm-aceutical production. 
  If there were such thing as a responsible path with `pharma' GM it would be 
  to use non-food crops. 
  3. FARMERS WILL BE DESTROYED Within a few years of the introduction of GM crops in North America the following 
  occurred: Almost all of the US's $300m annual maize exports and Canada's $300m annual 
  rape exports to the EU disappeared; The trade for Canadian honey was almost completely destroyed because of GM 
  contamination; Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea - the biggest foreign buyers 
  of US maize, stopped importing North American maize; Just like domestic consumers, food companies - including Heinz, Gerber and 
  Frito-Lay - started to reject the use of GMOs in their products. Former White House agriculture expert Dr Charles Benbrook calculates that the 
  lost export trade and fall in farm prices caused by GM commercialisation led 
  to an increase in annual government subsidies of an estimated $3-5 billion. 
In December 2000 the president of Canada's National Farmers Union, Cory Ollikka, 
  said: `Farmers are really starting to question the profit-enhancing ability 
  of products that seem to be shutting them out of markets worldwide.' Farm, which represents UK farmers, has said: `Farmers are being asked by the 
  agro-biotech companies to shoulder the economic and public-image risks of their 
  new technology, for which there appear to be few or no compensating benefits. 
  The claimed cost savings are either non-existent or exaggerated. The long-term 
  health and environmental impacts are still uncertain. And consumers don't want 
  to eat GM food. So why would farmers sow something they can't sell?' The Soil Association's US investigations found that GM crops have increased 
  the cost of farming and reduced farmers' profits for the following reasons: 
1- GM varieties increase farmer seed costs by up to 40 per cent an acre; GM 
  soya and maize, which make up 83 per cent of the GM crops grown worldwide, `deliver 
  less income on average to farmers than non-GM crops'; 2- GM varieties require farmers to pay biotech firms a `technology fee'; 3- The GM companies forbid farmers to save their seeds for replanting; contrary 
  to traditional practice, farmers have to buy new seed each year; and 4- GM herbicide-tolerant crops increase farmers' use of expensive herbicides, 
  especially as new weed problems have emerged - rogue herbicide-resistant oilseed 
  rape plants being a widespread problem; contrary to the claim that only one 
  application would be needed, farmers are applying herbicides several times. 
Even a 2002 report by the US Department of Agriculture, a key ally of the biotech 
  industry, admitted that the economic benefits of cultivating GM crops were `variable' 
  and that farmers growing GM Bt corn were actually `losing money.' The University of Nebraska recorded yields for Monsanto's Roundup Ready GM 
  maize that were 6-11 per cent less than those for non-GM soya varieties. A 1998 
  study of over 8,000 field trials found that Roundup Ready soya seeds produced 
  between 6.7 and 10 per cent fewer bushels of soya than conventional varieties. 
Trials by the UK's National Institute of Agricultural Botany showed yields 
  of GM oilseed rape and sugar beet that were 5-8 per cent less than conventional 
  varieties. Adopting GM crops would place farmers and the food chain itself under the control 
  of a handful of multinational corporations such as Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer 
  and DuPont. For US farmers this has meant: 1- Legally-binding agreements that force farmers to purchase expensive new 
  seeds from the biotech corporations each season; 2- Having to buy these corporations' herbicides (at a cost considerably above 
  that of a generic equivalent) for herbicide-tolerant crops; 3- Paying the biotech firms a technology fee based on the acreage of land under 
  GM; 4- The development of so-called `traitor technology' crops on which particular 
  chemicals will have to be applied if the crops' GM characteristics (such as 
  their time of flowering or disease resistance) are to show; 5- The invention of `terminator technology' that stops GM plants producing 
  fertile seeds; thus farmers are physically prevented from sowing saved seed 
  and have to buy new seed from the biotech firms instead; and 6- Biotech firms buying up seed companies. This creates monopolies and limits 
  farmers' choices still further. DuPont and Monsanto are now the two largest 
  seed companies in the world. As a result of their control of the seed industry, 
  farmers are reporting that the availability of good non-GM seed varieties is 
  rapidly disappearing. US farmers are obliged by their contracts to allow biotech company inspectors 
  onto their farms. As with all crops, leftover seed from GM plants can germinate 
  in fields since used to grow different crops; the seeds produce so-called `volunteers'. 
  If biotech company inspectors find any such plants, they can claim - and have 
  repeatedly done so - that the farmers are growing unlicensed crops and infringing 
  patent rights. For example, David Chaney, who farms in Kentucky, had to pay 
  Monsanto $35,000; another Kentucky farmer agreed to pay the firm $25,000; and 
  three Iowa farmers are on record as having paid it $40,000 each. These and other 
  farmers have also had to sign gagging orders and agree to allow Monsanto complete 
  access to their land in subsequent years. Crops have also been destroyed and 
  seed confiscated. The biotech industry currently has legal actions pending against 
  550 farmers in North America. Internationally, the organic movement has rejected GM because of its potential 
  for genetic contamination and its continued reliance on artificial chemicals. 
  
  The Soil Association reports that in North America `many organic farmers have 
  been unable to sell their produce as organic due to contamination'. Contamination 
  has already: 1- meant the loss, at a potential cost of millions of dollars, of almost the 
  entire organic oilseed rape sector of Saskatchewan; 2- cost US organic maize growers $90m in annual income (the losses were calculated 
  by the Union of Concerned Scientists in an analysis for the US Environmental 
  Protection Agency); and 3- forced many organic farmers to give up trying to grow certain crops altogether. 
  Last month a survey by the Organic Farming Research Foundation found that one 
  in 12 US organic farmers had already suffered direct costs or damage because 
  of GM contamination. 4- If commercial planting of GM crops took place in Britain, the UK's burgeoning 
  organic sector - now worth 900m, and set to increase with (supposed) 
  government support - would perish. If, by some miracle, contamination could 
  be avoided the costs involved would inevitably lead to organic farmers going 
  bust. A study published by the JRC in May predicted that efforts to protect 
  conventional and organic crops from contamination would add 41 per cent to the 
  cost of producing non-GM oilseed rape and up to 9 per cent to the cost of producing 
  non-GM maize and potatoes. 4. THE ENVIRONMENT WILL SUFFER The proponents of GM argue that the technology will lead to a reduction in 
  the use of chemical weedkillers. But for the majority of GM crops grown so far, 
  the evidence does not bear this out. Four years worth of data from the US Department of Agriculture shows herbicide 
  use on Roundup Ready soya beans is increasing. In 1998 total herbicide use on GM soya beans in six US states was 30 per cent 
  greater on average than on conventional varieties. The Soil Association's US investigation found that `the use of GM crops is 
  resulting in a reversion to the use of older, more toxic compounds' such as 
  the herbicide paraquat. Genes modified to make crops herbicide-resistant can be transferred to related 
  weeds, which would then also become herbicide-resistant. Crops can themselves act like weeds. Because GM crops are designed to have 
  a greater ability to survive, leftover seeds can germinate in later years when 
  a different crop is growing in the same field. The leftover volunteer plants 
  would then contaminate the new crop. In Canada, where GM herbicide-tolerant 
  oilseed rape has been grown since 1998, oilseed rape weeds resistant to three 
  different herbicides have been created. These oilseed rape weeds are an example 
  of `gene-stacking' - the occurrence of several genetically-engineered traits 
  in a single plant. Gene-stacking was found in all 11 GM sites investigated in 
  a Canadian ministry of agriculture study. As professor Martin Entz of Winnipeg's 
  University of Manitoba observes, `GM oilseed rape is absolutely impossible to 
  control'. Following a review of the Canadian experience, English Nature - the UK government's 
  advisory body on biodiversity - predicted: `Herbicide-tolerant gene-stacked 
  volunteers of oilseed rape would be inevitable in practical agriculture in the 
  UK.' There has also been an increase in pesticide use by farmers attempting to cope 
  with pest resistance created by GM Bt crops. Bt crops are modified to produce 
  the insecticidal toxin Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) in all their tissues. However, the World Bank says insects can adapt to Bt within `one or two years'. 
  And scientists at China's Nanjing Institute of Environmental Sciences have concluded 
  that if it was planted continuously Bt cotton would probably lose all its resistance 
  to bollworm - the pest it is designed to control - within eight to 10 years. 
Meanwhile, pests' adaptability to pest-resistant GM crops could force farmers 
  onto a `genetic treadmill' of ever more technical biotech fixes (including new 
  varieties of pest-resistant crops) and more frequent spraying, and more toxic 
  doses, of chemical pesticides. It could also destroy the effectiveness of Bt 
  as a natural insecticide in organic agriculture. Perversely, GM pest-resistant crops could make agriculture more vulnerable 
  to pests and disease; they could end up harming beneficial soil micro-organisms 
  and insects like ladybirds and lacewings that keep certain pest populations 
  in check. The Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology found 
  in a study of four Indian states that `not only did Monsanto's Bt cotton not 
  protect plants from the American bollworm, but there was an increase of 250-300 
  per cent in attacks by non-target pests like jassids, aphids, white fly and 
  thrips'. And researchers at Cornell University in the US found that the pollen 
  from Bt corn was poisonous to the larvae of monarch butterflies. As GM `pest-resistant' crops fail to deliver, Australian farmers have been 
  advised to spray additional insecticide on Monsanto's Bt cotton by the Transgenic 
  and Insect Management Strategy Committee of the Australian Cotton Growers Research 
  Association. Overall insecticide applications on Bt maize have also increased 
  in the US. GM crops may also reduce the diversity of plant life by contaminating their 
  wild relatives and indigenous crop varieties in areas where the crops evolved. 
  Widespread GM contamination of conventional maize has already been detected 
  in Mexico. In Europe, contamination of wild relatives of oilseed rape and sugar 
  beet is considered inevitable if GM commercialisation goes ahead. The same applies 
  to wild relatives of rice in Asia. 
  If wildlife is harmed `unexpectedly' (ie, without that harm having officially 
  been predicted), and an official risk assessment had not previously decided 
  that GM crops were safe, it is the state and society that will have to pay for 
  putting things right - if this is possible. 
  5. GM CROPS WILL NOT FEED THE POOR The idea that GM will end global poverty is probably the biggest of all the 
  GM apologists' lies - the one used to accuse anti-GM campaigners in rich countries 
  of not caring about the Third World. The truth is that the introduction of GM 
  crops into the developing world will result in decreased yields, crop failures 
  and the impoverishment of literally billions of small farmers. As already statedon page 36, there is no evidence that genetic modification 
  increases yields. But, just to make the point, consider the following: 1- a US Department of Agriculture report published in May 2002 concluded that 
  net yields of herbicide-tolerant soya bean were no higher than those of non-GM 
  soya, and that yields of pest-resistant corn were actually lower than those 
  of non-GM corn; 2- in September 2001, the state court of Mississippi ruled that a Monsanto 
  subsidiary's `high-yielding' GM soya seeds were responsible for reduced yields 
  obtained by Mississippi farmer Newell Simrall; the farmer was awarded damages 
  of $165,742. But then, no commercial GM crop has ever been specifically engineered to have 
  a higher yield. Crop failures (and, therefore, drastically reduced yields) have already occurred 
  with GM soya and cotton plants in the developing world. This is largely due 
  to the unpredictable behaviour of these crops. GM soya's brittleness, for example, 
  has made it incapable of surviving heat waves. And in 2002 `massive failure' 
  of Bt cotton was reported in the southern states of India; consequently, in 
  April the Indian government denied Monsanto clearance for the cultivation of 
  its Bt cotton in India's northern states. GM would force the two billion people who manage the developing world's small 
  family farms to stop their age-old practice of saving seeds. Each year they 
  will have to buy expensive seeds and chemicals instead. The experience of North 
  American farmers shows that GM seeds cost up to 40 per cent more than non-GM 
  varieties. Inadequate yields are not the cause of hunger today. As Sergey Vasnetsov, a 
  biotech industry analyst with investment bank Lehman Brothers, says: `Let's 
  stop pretending we face food shortages. There is hunger, but not food shortages.' 
  In 1994, food production could have supplied 6.4 billion people (more than the 
  world's actual population) with an adequate 2,350 calories per day. Yet more 
  than 1 billion people do not get enough to eat. Furthermore, the types of GM crops being produced are almost exclusively for 
  the processed-food, textiles and animal-feed markets of the West. Instead of 
  being used to grow staple foods for local consumption, millions of hectares 
  of land in the developing world are being set aside to grow GM corn, for example, 
  to supply grain for pigs, chicken and cattle. In May, ActionAid published a 
  report called GM Crops: going against the grain, which revealed that `only 1 
  per cent of GM research is aimed at [developing] crops [to be] used by poor 
  farmers in poor countries'. And ActionAid calculates that those crops `stand 
  only a one in 250 chance of making it into farmers' fields'. As the UN Development 
  Programme points out, `technology is created in response to market pressures 
  - not the needs of poor people, who have little purchasing power'. Sustainable agriculture projects have led to millet yields rising by up to 
  154 per cent in India, millet and sorghum yields rising by 275 per cent in Burkina 
  Faso and maize yields increasing by 300 per cent in Honduras. Combined with 
  reforms aimed at achieving more equitable land ownership, protection from subsidised 
  food imports and the re-orientation of production away from export crops to 
  staple foods for local consumption, sustainable farming could feed the world. 
In 1998 a delegation representing every African country except South Africa 
  submitted a joint statement to a UN conference on genetic research. The delegates 
  had been inspired by a Monsanto campaign that used images of starving African 
  children to plug its technology. The statement read: `We strongly object that 
  the image of the poor and hungry from our countries is being used by giant multinational 
  corporations to push a technology that is neither safe, environmentally-friendly 
  nor economically beneficial to us. We do not believe that such companies or 
  gene technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in 
  the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity, the 
  local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have 
  developed for millennia, and that it will undermine our capacity to feed ourselves.' 
  Sources: Briefing papers by Genewatch, Friends of the Earth, the Soil Association, 
  GM Free Wales, Farm http://www.theecologist.org/article.html?article=432

 




Document Number: 5428 
GOLDEN GENES AND WORLD HUNGER: LET THEM EAT TRANSGENIC RICE?
  One of the casualties of technology-dominated life has been the tradition
  of conversation around the dinner table. Whatever words we do exchange at
  mealtime are more likely aimed at the minimal coordination of our
  centrifugally driven lives than at sustaining the richly patterned
  textures of meaning conversation can evoke.But our abandonment of conversation extends far beyond the dinner table.
  Our broader social relations, and also our dialogue with the natural
  world, have contracted toward mere informational exchange, leaving us
  bereft of larger patterns of meaning. When you lose the shifting,
  multiply-focused, metaphoric, and life-supporting qualities of
  conversation, what you have left is the attempt -- useful as far as it
  goes -- to formulate well-behaved problems susceptible to well-defined
  solutions. To do this you must employ the narrow, precisely formed
  language of manipulation and control -- a language we have come near to
  perfecting. While this language may offer little in the way of
  understanding or meaningful engagement with the other, it does bring the
  very real satisfaction of more or less effective power.If the impressive drive toward effective power has taken special hold in
  any one scientific discipline, surely it is genetic engineering. And if
  this drive can display beneficent potentials, how better to do it than by
  placing a daily bowl of genetically engineered "golden rice" on the 
  dinner
  tables of millions of Asian children, thereby saving them from immenseThis hope, many researchers believe, is now nearing fulfillment. But a
  full conversation around that envisioned bowl of rice has yet to occur.
  And until it does occur, we will have no means to assess the technical
  achievements represented by the bowl. In what follows we venture some
  preliminary contributions toward such a conversation.Transgenic golden rice does not yet fill the bowls of hungry Asian
  children. But the possibility that it will is the bright hope of
  scientists and biotech companies beaten down by the consumer backlash
  against the rapid and largely covert introduction of genetically modified
  organisms into global food supplies. The advertisement for golden rice,
  widely broadcast, is that it avoids all the pitfalls associated with the
  ill-fated "Frankenfoods" that so unsettled the buying public.What lends this new, experimental rice its golden color is the presence of
  beta-carotene within the part of the kernel -- the endosperm -- that
  remains behind (normally as "white rice") after milling and polishing 
  (Ye
  et al. 2000). Beta-carotene is a precursor of vitamin A; the human body
  can use it to form the vitamin. This is important because millions of
  children, especially in Asia, suffer from vitamin A deficiency, which canBy most accounts the virtues of golden rice are many:** It is not the product of profit-seeking biotech companies. The
  research, funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, the Swiss government, and
  the European Union, was performed at Swiss and German universities.** The researchers stressed that, once the rice proves viable in field
  plantings, it will be freely distributed. No patents will block access to
  the rice by third-world farmers. (Just recently a slightly revised
  version of this promise has emerged: the scientists announced that they
  had reached a licensing agreement with the giant pharmaceutical company
  AstraZeneca and a smaller German company, Greenovation. The companies
  will donate seeds to developing countries and sell seeds to developed
  countries. Donated seeds will be distributed to government-run centers
  that will pass the seeds on to farmers. As long as the farmers do not
  earn more than $10,000 annually from the sale of golden rice, they need
  not pay any royalties. See Financial Times, May 16, 20000; Associated** Rice naturally makes beta-carotene and other carotenoids, which are
  present throughout the plant -- except in the endosperm. The genetic
  manipulation producing golden rice is simply designed to extend this
  natural production of beta-carotene into an additional part of the plant.
  In her commentary on this research in Science, Dartmouth biologist Mary
  Lou Guerinot suggests that the fears of most opponents of genetically
  modified foods will be allayed by the new rice (Guerinot 2000). After
  all, it's a far cry from transferring fish genes into plants.** Unlike with many of the current genetically modified organisms, golden
  rice poses no risk of increased pest resistance to herbicides or** And, of course, the primary virtue of golden rice is its announced
  potential for solving problems of hunger and malnutrition in developing
  nations. Such a purpose hardly seems gratuitous or grasping. Who couldSo golden rice, as we now hear the story, looks rather like a "silver
  bullet" -- a one-shot, almost magical solution to a major problem. It
  turns out, however, that the situation is much more complex than the usualThe immediate challenge for researchers is to develop hardy strains of the
  transgenic rice, and then to convince Asian growers to plant the new
  strains. But this is barely to touch upon the conversational complexities
  the researchers must negotiate if they wish to enter constructively into
  the modern contexts of hunger and malnutrition. Here, briefly, are a few
  of the themes that need taking up.
  If You Grow the Rice, Can You Deliver It to Those Who Need It?
  --------------------------------------------------------------The sobering fact is that "nearly eighty percent of all malnourished
  children in the developing world in the early 1990s lived in coutries that
  boasted food surpluses" (Gardner and Halweil 2000, p. 17). The Green
  Revolution in Asia brought about a shift toward intensive cultivation of
  fewer crops like wheat and rice, which are often grown for export.
  Traditional diverse polycultures have yielded to large monocultures.At the same time -- and at least in part due to the Green Revolution and
  other technology-driven change -- hundreds of millions of people have
  migrated from rural to urban areas in Asia during the past few decades.
  Mostly poverty-stricken, these transplants take up residence in the ever-
  expanding slums around cities. Their problem is that they can't buy the
  food they need. Golden rice will do them no good if they can't afford it
  -- and if they can afford it, then it is not clear what the new rice
  offers that would not be offered better by a more traditional and diverseEvery green part of a plant contains beta-carotene. When Indian scientist
  and activist Vandana Shiva was asked what alternative she saw to golden
  rice, she cited "the 200 kinds of greens we grow on our farms". (See 
  also
  Shiva 2000.) Traditional cultures never subsist on rice alone. In
  addition to the many different types of greens grown in India, wheat,
  millet, and various legumes are cultivated, not to mention the wild greens
  gathered from the countryside. Such polycultures develop differently in
  each region, but all allow, as long as there is enough food, for a
  balanced, life-sustaining diet.It needs recognizing that what we in the western world embrace as export-
  driven economic growth has contributed to the problem of hunger in
  developing nations (Lappe et al. 1998). Golden rice can be seen in part
  as a one-dimensional attempt to "fix" a problem created by the Green
  Revolution -- namely the problem of diminished crop and dietary diversity.
  But the fix offers no direct help to those who have been displaced by the
  revolution and who cannot buy the food they need.There are alternative approaches that do more justice to the complex
  geographical, historical, social, political, and economic issues. In 1993
  the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, collaborating with
  nongovernmental organizations such as Helen Keller International, began a
  program to help poor people in Bangladesh grow a diverse array of plants
  to combat vitamin A deficiency (reported in Koechlin 2000). In areas
  where people have at least small plots of land, families -- usually
  mothers become the driving force of such projects -- were introduced to
  different carotene-rich varieties of fruits and vegetables and they
  learned cultivation methods. Landless families were shown how they could
  plant vines in pots on outside walls. They then planted beans and
  squashes that can grow up the vines.When women noticed the positive health effects of their new diet, news
  spread by word of mouth, and now approximately 600,000 households (about
  three million people) participate in this project. This is, relatively
  speaking, a small number, but the project is promising because it can
  become part of cultural tradition. It empowers people instead of making
  them dependent on western aid.Scientists evaluating the project found that the general health of the
  participants improved and that even small plots can provide sufficient
  vitamin A in the diet. Moreover, the more different kinds of fruits and
  vegetables people ate, the better the uptake of carotene -- an
  illustration of the inherent value of natural variety in the diet.After assessing a number of such projects, John Lupien of the Food and
  Agriculture Organization concludes: "A single-nutrient approach toward 
  a
  nutrition-related public health problem is usually, with the exception of
  perhaps iodine or selenium deficiencies, neither feasible nor desirable"
  If You Deliver the Rice, Will They Eat It?
  ------------------------------------------"We must not think", writes Jacques Ellul, "that people who 
  are the
  victims of famine will eat anything. Western people might, since they no
  longer have any beliefs or traditions or sense of the sacred. But not
  others. We have thus to destroy the whole social structure, for food is
  one of the structures of society" (Ellul 1990, p. 53).Billions of Asians subsist on rice, which they mostly consume as white
  rice. To obtain white rice you must first remove the husks from rough or
  paddy rice, leaving the brown rice kernel. Then you must remove the
  embryo and bran layers by milling and polishing. These discarded,
  nutrient-rich layers happen to contain carotene. What is left after
  polishing is the shiny white endosperm -- mainly starch.This raises the obvious question: why not solve the problem of
  nutritionally inadequate rice by getting people to eat brown rice,
  containing protein, carotene, and various micronutrients?The issues, again, are complex. Brown rice does not keep well in the
  humid South Asian climates, which is the reason scientists usually cite
  for Asians eating white rice. But while most rice is milled and sold as
  white rice, the rough rice kernel -- still enveloped by its husk -- can in
  fact be stored for long periods. The agronomist Heinz Bruecher observed
  that "the small farmer in Asia proceeds differently and avoids polishing
  by husking only as much rice as he needs at a time. In this way he always
  has a nutritious grain in storage" (Bruecher 1982, p. 58). Perhaps this
  practice could be encouraged.But we must also reckon with the cultural traditions related to white
  rice. In Asia rice is not just something that is ingested like we eat
  french fries. It is steeped in thousands of years of culture and
  tradition. Different shapes, sizes, and cooking consistencies are
  preferred, depending on the context: everyday rice, rice for special
  occasions, rice for flour, rice to accompany other specific foods, andThe whiteness of rice also has spiritual connotations: There is more to eating than merely ingesting nourishment to survive,
  more to living than merely surviving. Confucius in 500 BC knew this
  well as he preached the gospel of a virtuous, yet graceful life. He
  was a stickler for excellence and ceremony at the table and insisted on
  the pure whiteness of rice in sheer, elegant porcelain bowls as a
  background for light emerald-green vegetables picked at their succulent
  zenith, golden brown stir-fried morsel of duck, pork or fish, and deep "Come eat rice with me" is the most gracious greeting in Chinese
  hospitality. In old China, families kept two crocks of rice, a large
  one of gleaming, white polished rice for the family, a smaller one of
  coarse brown rice for seeking one more day of existence. (Gin 1975)The sensory symbolism of "pure whiteness", or "emerald-green" 
  shows how a
  religious culture judges food as a spiritual-physical reality. The diet
  Confucius recommends is, in more prosaic terms, nutritionally balanced.
  People who use white rice experience it as being lighter and easier to
  digest, and find that it allows the taste of other foods to come to the
  fore. It is prepared in many different ways. In the context of a varied
  diet, white rice is an integral part of Asian cuisine.Only the beggar receives the more nutritious brown rice -- but without
  anything else -- allowing him to eke out one more day. So it is that
  white rice can become a symbol for high social and economic status in
  Asian cultures. When the poor emulate the rich by consuming white rice,
  they are actually putting their already precarious health in greater
  danger. In this way social inequality accentuates nutritional problems.It would be reasonable to encourage the use of brown rice throughout Asia,
  but any such program must reckon with deeply rooted cultural traditions.
  Certainly the new golden rice will bump up against these traditions, and
  it is not at all clear how the resulting conversation will play itself
  out. If we wish to engage in the conversation at all, the question is
  whether it makes more sense to push the one-dimensional "solution" 
  offered
  by golden rice, or instead to cultivate the potentials of a traditional,
  diverse diet, possibly in conjunction with greater use of brown rice.
  If They Eat the Rice, Will It Do Them Any Good?
  -----------------------------------------------If golden rice replaces white rice in the Asian diet, can we be sure this
  will solve the vitamin A deficiency problem? That is, leaving the social
  issues aside, will the silver bullet at least strike its immediate, narrowNot necessarily. It is a naive understanding of nutrition -- encouraged
  by a habit of input-output thinking -- that says you can add a substance
  to food and the body will automatically use it. Beta-carotene is fat-
  soluble and its uptake by the intestines depends upon fat or oil in the
  diet (Erdman et al. 1993). White rice itself does not provide the
  necessary fats and oils, and poor, malnourished people usually do not have
  ample supplies of fat-rich or oil-rich foods. If they were to eat golden
  rice without fats or oils, much of the beta-carotene would pass undigested
  through the intestinal tract.Moreover, fats and also enzymes (which are proteins) enable carotene and
  vitamin A to move from the intestines to the liver, where they are stored.
  Proteins are bound to the vitamin in the liver, and enzymes are again
  required for transport to the different body tissues where the vitamin is
  utilized. A person who suffers protein-related malnutrition and lacks
  dietary fats and oils will have a disturbed vitamin A metabolism.In sum, carotene uptake, vitamin A synthesis, and the distribution and
  utilization of vitamin A in the body all depend on what else a person
  eats, together with his physiological state. You can't just give people
  more carotene and expect results. There is no substitute for a healthily
  Who Will Grow the Golden Rice?
  ------------------------------Of the many thousands of rice varieties grown in Asia, most are local land
  races. Despite the introduction of high-yielding varieties in the Green
  Revolution, Indian farmers still use traditional varieties in over 58
  percent of the rice acreage (Kshirsagar and Pandey 1997). These varieties
  serve their desire for different types of rice, while also providing the
  diversity needed within local ecological settings. The number of
  varieties a farmer grows tends to increase with the variability ofFor example, when they don't irrigate, farmers in Cambodia plant varieties
  with regard to early, medium, and late flowering and harvesting dates;
  eating qualities (such as aroma, softness, expansion, and shape);
  potential yield; and cultural practices (Jackson 1995). In India a farmer
  might have high, medium, and low terraces for planting. The low terraces
  are wetter and prone to flooding; they are planted with local, long-
  growing varieties. In contrast, the upper terraces dry out more rapidly
  after the rains, so farmers plant them with drought-resistant, rapidly
  maturing varieties. Altogether a farmer may plant up to ten different
  rice varieties -- a picture of diversity and dynamic relations within a
  local setting (Kshirsagar and Pandey 1997).This multiformity has evolved locally and regionally over long periods.
  Since the Green Revolution, more and more farmers plant, in addition to
  land races, high-yielding varieties. The price they pay for this progress
  is dependence on irrigation, fertilizers, and herbicides. The use of
  insecticides has become widespread, although they have been shown to be
  ineffective (Pingali et al. 1997, chapter 11). (Sometimes the highest,
  if also most mindless, recommendation for western, industrial-style
  agricultural practices in the third world is that they're "modern".)
  The locally evolved land varieties, in contrast, tend to be more drought-Imagine transgenic golden rice in this context. Currently this rice
  exists only in a laboratory variety. The next step is to make transgenic
  varieties that can do well under field conditions. Then large-scale seed
  production could begin and also interbreeding with other varieties. If
  bred into high-yielding varieties, golden rice would be grown primarily on
  large, export-oriented farms. In this case the rice would do little to
  alleviate Asia's food problems -- and, who knows, it might even end up
  being exported to America and Europe.If, on the other hand, the golden rice DNA is introduced into varieties
  that small farmers use, then these new, transgenic varieties will be
  subject to local practices and conditions. What started out as an
  isolated laboratory variety would gradually intermix and change, probably
  looking very different in different places. Whether the genetic
  alteration would prove stable in the midst of this flux is a real
  question. Although no one can say what will happen, one can say:
  things will change. It is unrealistic to think you can simply introduce a
  new plant and that it will then produce carotene on demand. Genetically
  engineered plants are not immune to context.
  What Will Rice Make of Its Golden Genes?
  ----------------------------------------The fundamental problem with genetic engineering from the very beginning
  has been the absence of anything like an ecological approach. Genes are
  not the unilateral "controllers" of the cell's "mechanisms". 
  Rather,
  genes enter into a vast and as yet scarcely monitored conversation with
  each other and with all the other parts of the cell. Who it is that
  speaks through the whole of this conversation -- what unity expresses
  itself through the entire organism -- is a question the genetic engineers
  have not yet even raised, let alone begun to answer.But without an awareness of the organism as a whole, we can hardly guess
  the consequences of the most "innocent" genetic modification. The 
  analogy
  with ecological studies is a close one. Change one element of the complex
  balance -- in an ecological setting or within an organism -- and you change
  everything. It is a notorious truth that our initial expectations of an
  altered ecological setting often prove horribly off-target. And the
  possibility of improving our discernment depends directly upon our
  intimate familiarity with the setting as a whole in all its minutia andCertain herbicides kill plants by bleaching them -- that is, by disrupting
  carotene metabolism and blocking photosynthesis. When scientists
  genetically altered tobacco plants to give them herbicide resistance, some
  of the plants indeed proved resistant to an array of herbicides (Misawa et
  al. 1994). Unexpectedly, however, leaves of the transgenic plants
  produced greater amounts of one group of carotenes and smaller amounts of
  another group, while the overall carotene production remained about
  normal. In some unknown way the genetic manipulation affected the balance
  of carotene metabolism, but the plant as a whole asserted its integrity by
  keeping the overall production of carotene constant.Such unexpected effects are typical, expressing the active, adaptive
  nature of organisms. An organism is not a passive container we can fill
  up with biotech contrivances. Even when scientists try to change the
  narrowest trait of an organism, the organism itself responds and adapts asWhen tomatoes were engineered for increased carotene production, some
  plants did make more carotene, but often in places where they wouldn't
  normally produce much of the substance -- for instance, in the seeds, the
  seed leaves, and the area where the tomato breaks off the stem (Fray et
  al. 1995). In addition, the plants produced more and different kinds of
  carotene than expected. More surprisingly still, the plants were dwarfed.
  The more carotene a plant produced, the smaller it was. Because a
  substance that normally stimulates growth in plants (giberillin A) was
  reduced thirty-fold, the scientists assume that the carotene increase
  interfered with giberillin production.This is not an isolated example of how genetic manipulations can affect
  the vitality of a plant. In the first successful alterations of rice to
  produce precursors of vitamin A, half the transgenic plants were infertile
  (Burkhardt et al. 1997). Of course, infertile or markedly dwarfed plants
  are left by the wayside, while the researchers select the most desirable
  specimens for their breeding stock. But unexpected effects are not always
  as apparent as dwarfed tomato plants.The transgenic golden rice plants were reported to be "phenotypically
  normal" (Ye et al. 2000). This statement needs to be read: "no visible
  modifications were noted". The researchers evidently didn't undertake a
  biochemical analysis of the kernels to see how their overall content might
  have changed. What doesn't a golden rice kernel produce as a result of
  the plant's breaking down excessive amounts of carotene? What new
  substances does it produce? And what are the changed balances among
  substances normally present? The more one learns about the flexible and
  dynamic nature of organisms -- demonstrated so clearly by genetic
  engineering experiments themselves -- the more one comes to expect the
  unexpected and to realize that we cannot know what subtle effects aHow many genetic engineers have pondered the remarkable fact that rice,
  despite the myriad varieties that have arisen over thousands of years,
  never produces carotene in the endosperm of the kernel? The rest of the
  above-ground plant makes carotene, and the endosperm should (according to
  prevailing conceptions) have the genes that would allow it to produce
  carotene. But it never does so. Certainly that should give us pause to
  consider what we're doing. Might the excess carotene in the seed affect
  in some way the nourishment and growth of a germinating rice plant? What
  does it mean to force upon the plant a characteristic it consistently
  avoids? Can we claim to be acting responsibly when we overpower the
  plant, coercing a performance from it before we understand the reasons forOrganisms are not mechanisms that can be altered in a clear-cut,
  determinate manner. The fact is that we simply don't know what we're
  doing when we manipulate them as if they were such mechanisms. The golden
  kernels of rice almost certainly herald much more than a novel supply of
  A Disproportionate Interest in Silver Bullets
  ---------------------------------------------We often hear that biotechnology is merely doing what high-yield breeding,
  industrial agriculture, and nutritional science have done all along -- but
  now much more efficiently. In one sense that's exactly right and also
  exactly the problem: we don't need more of the same. What we need is to
  overcome an epidemic of abstract, technological thought that conceives
  solutions in the absence of organic contexts. We need a refined ability
  to enhance life's variety rather than destroy it. And we need to realize
  that the problems of life and society are not malfunctions to be fixed;
  they are conversations to be entered into more or less deeply. The more
  deeply we participate in the conversation, the more thickly textured and
  revelatory it becomes, reacting upon all the meanings we brought to theThe engineering mindset that tries to insert individual traits into rice
  by manipulating particular genes is closely allied to the long-standing
  agricultural mindset that tries to improve crop yields in a purely
  quantitative sense by injecting the right amounts of NPK (nitrogen,
  phosphate, and potash) into the soil. On this view the soil offers little
  more than a structural support for the roots. At the same time, it is a
  kind of hydroponic medium into which we place the various "inputs" 
  that we
  can identify as requirements for plant growth.What this approach overlooks is ... well, just about everything. Fixated
  upon inputs, outputs, and uptake mechanisms, it loses sight of the
  unsurveyed, nearly infinite complexity of life in a healthy, compost-
  enriched soil. The truth of the matter is that whatever we can do to
  enhance the diverse, living processes of the soil will likely improve the
  quality of the crop, and yet an input-output mentality proceeds to destroy
  the life of the soil through simple-minded chemical applications. Our
  silver bullets, much too narrowly targeted, rip through the fabric of theSponsors of the green and genetic revolutions are not inclined to ask what
  is lost when input-intensive, high-yield monocultures replace the kind of
  local diversity that results in thousands of local rice varieties
  throughout Asia. We have never heard a biotechnologist venture the
  thought that local varieties may actually -- through their long history of
  co-evolution with the people who bred them -- be uniquely adapted to the
  nutritional needs and dietary complexities of the local population.The adaptation is not hard to imagine when you consider beta-carotene.
  Plants make many different types of carotene; beta-carotene is only one
  member of a large family of substances. Each species of green, squash, or
  brown rice produces its own unique array of carotenes, with different
  types and amounts arising in different tissues depending on changing
  conditions. Numerous species-specific carotenes have scarcely beenSimilarly, human beings need different kinds of carotenes, and, as long as
  a reasonably diversity of crops is available, each individual will draw
  out of his food what he needs. But what if, in the name of this or that
  specific "input" abstracted from the complex, nutritional matrix of 
  life,
  we proceed to destroy the matrix? The disproportionate hope placed in
  golden rice, together with its salesmen's casual disregard of biological
  and social context, suggests the likelihood of precisely such destructiveThere are no silver bullets in any profound conversation. There is only a
  progressive deepening of meaning. Or, if we prefer the satisfaction of
  unambiguous bits of information, then -- whether we conceive those bits as
  genes or NPK or the dietary inputs of Asian children -- we abandon the
  wholeness and coherence of the conversation altogether. We can, in this
  case, certainly proceed with our narrow programs of manipulation and
  control, which are what we have left when we give up on conversation. But
  the results will be no more satisfying than a diet of rice alone.(Craig Holdrege, the primary author of this paper, is director and Steve
  Talbott is senior researcher at The Nature Institute in Ghent, New York.
  The Nature Institute is dedicated to pursuing a science of nature rather
  than of mechanisms assumed to lie behind nature. This is a qualitative
  science, contextual and holistic in spirit, and ethically informed in
  immediate practice rather than in afterthought. The Nature Institute also
  promotes humane uses of technology rather than mechanical uses of humans.
  Email: nature@taconic.net. Website: www.natureinstitute.org)Related articles in NetFuture ((NF) www.netfuture.org):** "The Tyranny of the Gene" by Craig Holdrege in NF #80.** "Is Genetic Engineering `Natural'?" in NF #75.** "The Trouble with Genetic Engineering" in NF #31, a review of 
  Craig
  Holdrege's Genetics and the Manipulation of Life: The Forgotten Factor** "Finding Wholeness in a Pile of Manure" in NF #79.Bruecher, H. 1982. Die Sieben Saeulen der Welternaehrung.
  Frankfurt am Main: Waldemar Kramer.Burkhardt, P. et al. (1997). Transgenic Rice (Oryza sativa)
  Endosperm Expressing .... The Plant Journal 11:1071-1078.
  Ellul J. (1990). The Technological Bluff, translated by Geoffrey
  W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans.Erdman, J. et al. (1993). Absorption and Transport of Carotenoids, in
  Carotenoids in Human Health, edited by L. Canfield et al. New
  York: New York Academy of Sciences.Fray, R. et al. (1995). Constitutive Expression of a Fruit Phytoene
  Synthase Gene .... The Plant Journal 8:693-701.Gardner, G. and B. Halweil (2000). Underfed and Overfed: The Global
  Epidemic of Malnutrition. World Watch Paper 150. Washington, D.C.:Gin, M. (1975). Ricecraft. San Francisco: Yerba Buena Press.Guerinot, M. (2000). The Green Revolution Strikes Gold. ScienceJackson, M. (1995). Protecting the Heritage of Rice Biodiversity.Koechlin, F. (2000). `Golden Rice' -- A Big Illusion? (www.blauen-
  institut.ch.html; click "Hintergruende", then click "Vitamin 
  AKshirsagar, K.G. and S. Pandey (1997). Diversity of Rice Cultivars in a
  Rainfed Village in the Orissa State of India. International
  Development Research Centre. Ottawa, Canada.
  (www.idrc.ca/books/focus/9/833/kshirsag.html)Lappe, F. et al. (1998). Hunger: Twelve Myths. New York: GroveMisawa, N. (1994). Expression of an Erwinia Phytoene Desaturase
  Gene .... The Plant Journal 6:481-489.Pingali, P. et al. (1997). Asian Rice Bowls: The Returning
  Crisis?. New York: CAB International.Shiva, V. (2000). Genetically Engineered Vitamin A Rice: A Blind Approach
  to Blindness Control. (www.gene.ch:80/genet/2000/Feb/msg00064.html)Ye, X. et al. (2000). Engineering the Provitamin A (Beta-Carotene)
  Biosynthetic Pathway into (Carotenoid-Free) Rice Endosperm.

 




Document Number: 7722 
As Biotech Crops Multiply, Consumers Get Little ChoiceCHICAGO, June 9  Despite persistent concerns about genetically modified 
        crops, they are spreading so rapidly that it has become almost impossible 
        for consumers to avoid them, agriculture experts say. More than 100 million acres of the world's most fertile farmland were 
        planted with genetically modified crops last year, about 25 times as much 
        as just four years earlier. Wind-blown pollen, commingled seeds and black-market 
        plantings have further extended these products of biotechnology into the 
        far corners of the global food supply  perhaps irreversibly, according 
        to food experts. "The genie is already out of the bottle," said Neil E. Harl, a professor 
        of agriculture and economics at Iowa State University, speaking of genetically 
        modified organisms, or G.M.O.'s. "If the policy tomorrow was that we were 
        going to eradicate G.M.O.'s, this would be a very long process. It would 
        take years if not decades to do that."  Most of the biotech fields are soybeans and corn planted in North and 
        South America, the biggest food exporters. But biotech crops  genetically 
        altered to do things like release their own insecticide or withstand the 
        spraying of weed-killing chemicals  are being shipped or experimented 
        with in many other countries, including China, India, Australia and South 
        Africa.  They are even turning up where people least expect them: in countries 
        where they are banned but a black market has developed; in food supplies 
        where they are forbidden or shunned, like organic products; even in fields 
        that farmers believe are completely free of genetically modified crops. 
       The rapid adoption and proliferation means that even as scientists and 
        others debate the safety of altering foods' genetic codes to produce cheaper 
        and bigger supplies, a large share of the world's population has little 
        or no choice but to consume genetically modified crops.  One indication came last year when Starlink, a variety of genetically 
        modified corn not approved for human consumption, accidentally entered 
        the global food supply, leading to extensive food recalls in the United 
        States and Japan over fears it could cause allergic reactions.  Starlink has not been shown to be harmful; indeed, there is little evidence 
        that biotech foods are dangerous to humans. But the episode showed that 
        seeds planted on less than 1 percent of America's corn acreage could easily 
        spread from farm to farm, contaminate the nation's grain handling system 
        and seep into global food supplies. Seed companies, farmers, processors and food makers have spent more 
        than $1 billion in the last six months trying to eradicate Starlink. But 
        most experts agree that will take years.  In the meantime, experts say the spread of biotech crops creates an 
        entirely new set of trade, regulatory and legal problems:   Large countries with policies limiting the use of genetically modified 
        crops may soon have to change course, because they will not be able to 
        get enough nonbiotech crops to meet their import needs.   Regulators are under pressure to develop new standards to determine 
        what is and is not genetically modified  a situation complicated, as 
        the Starlink episode demonstrated, by the commingling and cross- pollination 
        of different crops.   Big food and agriculture companies are facing legal and public relations 
        challenges, because some farmers and consumers believe their products 
        have been contaminated. Gene-altered crops are already ubiquitous in the United States, where 
        the Food and Drug Administration has deemed them "entirely safe." But 
        Europe and parts of Asia remain wary of the crops, and there have been 
        moves in those regions to halt or slow their import.  Skeptics say that tampering with nature could inadvertently alter species, 
        harm wildlife and give rise to new problems, like herbicide-resistant 
        "superweeds." They also worry about the long-term health consequences 
        of eating foods that are armed with insecticides and foreign genes. And 
        the critics suspect that the industry has intentionally flooded the world 
        market with genetically altered seeds to pre-emptively settle the question 
        of whether or not to adopt biotechnology  Opponents expected Starlink to be a turning point in the fight against 
        genetically altered crops. But while the episode helped stall the advance 
        of genetically modified wheat, potatoes and sugar, it seems to have served 
        as proof, over all, of biotech's inexorable spread. Most food makers in 
        the United States continue to use biotech crops, insisting they are safe 
        and far too pervasive to avoid; meanwhile, relatively few American consumers 
        seem to care.  Perhaps more important, the bulk of American grain sold for domestic 
        and international use goes into animal feed, and thus far few farmers 
        or big companies have opposed feeding biotech grain to livestock.  Indeed, biotech industry officials believe the game is nearly won. The 
        United States, Brazil and Argentina account for about 90 percent of the 
        world's corn and soybean exports. Bulk shipments from the United States 
        and Argentina are predominantly biotech. And Brazil is widely believed 
        to have a black market in biotech soybeans.  If Brazil legalizes biotech production, Europe and Asia  the world's 
        two biggest purchasers of soy  would have almost nowhere to turn for 
        adequate supplies of nonbiotech soybeans. Environmentalists in Brazil 
        have protested biotechnology, and though the government there is split, 
        industry officials in the United States say that Brazil is leaning toward 
        allowing the use of genetically modified seeds. "We are very hopeful that last domino will fall," said Bob Callanan, 
        a spokesman for the American Soybean Association, a trade group that supports 
        the use of gene-altered crops. "That's why the environmentalists are putting 
        up a stink down there in Brazil. They know if that goes, it's all gone." 
       That would be a huge victory for biotechnology companies. Monsanto, 
        Aventis 
        and others have spent billions of dollars to create the crops, and some 
        independent groups, including the United Nations, promote them as one 
        answer to world health and hunger problems. Andrew Cash, an analyst who follows the biotechnology industry at UBS 
        Warburg, says that Europe already has little choice but to accept the 
        crops, largely because Monsanto's Roundup Ready Soybeans, the primary 
        biotech variety, are so widespread.  "Europe is learning its first lesson in the `beggars can't be choosers' 
        world of agricultural reality  it's G.M.O. beans or no beans," Mr. Cash 
        wrote last January.  Food companies are already having a hard time obtaining nongenetically 
        modified crops. Grain handlers like Archer Daniels Midland and Cargill 
        are charging extra to segregate and test crops to certify that they are 
        nonbiotech.  And that is becoming harder to do. Some agriculture experts say that 
        cross-pollination of biotech corn and seed corn, as well as poor and imperfect 
        grain-handling practices, have thoroughly scrambled crops in a global 
        food chain that for decades shipped bulk supplies of largely undifferentiated 
        products.  Food makers around the world are finding traces of gene-altered crops 
        in foods that were not supposed to be made with them; Midwestern farmers 
        are complaining that wind is blowing pollen from gene-altered crops into 
        neighboring fields planted with conventional corn.  Even organic crops labeled "G.M. Free" are testing positive for genetic 
        modification. Organic growers are now considering a class-action lawsuit 
        against the biotech industry that would seek damages for the contamination. "We have found traces in corn that has been grown organically for 10 
        to 15 years," said Arran Stephens, president of Nature's Path Foods, an 
        organic producer of breads and cereals based in Delta, British Columbia. 
        "There's no wall high enough to keep that stuff contained." Some critics of biotechnology see a sinister plot at work, with the 
        industry ignoring the implications of widespread pollen flow and perhaps 
        even encouraging a black market in biotech crops.  "They're hoping there's enough contamination so that it's a fait accompli," 
        said Jeremy Rifkin, a longtime critic of biotechnology. "But the liability will kill them," he said. "We're going to see lawsuits 
        across the Farm Belt as conventional farmers and organic farmers find 
        their product is contaminated."  The world's biggest biotech seed companies acknowledge that some pollen 
        may go astray. And they acknowledge that they cannot guarantee that even 
        the conventional seed they sell is 100 percent free of genetic modification. Agriculture, they say, is prone to mishaps.  "By and large, where there are crops grown, and where G.M. materials 
        are approved, the issue is with us," said Dean Oestreich, a vice president 
        at Pioneer Hi-Bred, the world's largest seed company. "Our basic seed 
        stocks are pure. But there's always adventitious presence, which means 
        small amounts of unintentional presence through pollen flow and physical 
        mixing."  Because of all this commingling, the companies are calling on regulators 
        in many countries to relax tolerance standards for crops, to avoid trade, 
        labeling and legal problems. Zero tolerance, said Jeanne Romero-Severson, a professor of agriculture 
        at Purdue University, is simply not realistic. "If your standard is 100 percent pure," she said, "you better stop eating 
        right now."Copyright 
        2001 The New York Times Company

 




Document Number: 924 
, 541 - 543 (2001)  Macmillan 
        Publishers Ltd.Transgenic DNA introgressed 
  into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, MexicoDAVID QUIST 
  AND IGNACIO H. CHAPELADepartment 
  of Environmental Science, Policy and Management, University of California, Berkeley, 
  California 94720-3110, USA
  Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to I.H.C. (e-mail: 
  ichapela@nature.berkeley.edu).Concerns have been raised about the potential 
  effects of transgenic introductions on the genetic diversity of crop landraces 
  and wild relatives in areas of crop origin and diversification, as this diversity 
  is considered essential for global food security. Direct effects on non-target 
  species, and the possibility of unintentionally transferring traits of ecological 
  relevance onto landraces and wild relatives have also been sources of concern. 
  The degree of genetic connectivity between industrial crops and their progenitors 
  in landraces and wild relatives is a principal determinant of the evolutionary 
  history of crops and agroecosystems throughout the world. Recent introductions 
  of transgenic DNA constructs into agricultural fields provide unique markers 
  to measure such connectivity. For these reasons, the detection of transgenic 
  DNA in crop landraces is of critical importance. Here we report the presence 
  of introgressed transgenic DNA constructs in native maize landraces grown in 
  remote mountains in Oaxaca, Mexico, part of the Mesoamerican centre of origin 
  and diversification of this crop.

 




Document Number: 2864 
(Pesticide Action Network Updates Service)Thousands 
  of Field Tests of GE Crops Across the U.S.Nearly 29,000 field tests 
of genetically engineered organisms wereauthorized 
  by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) between 1987 and2000 
  despite serious environmental threats and inadequate regulations inplace 
  to monitor their impacts, according to a new report released by theState 
  Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) and Genetically EngineeredWhen 
  the science of genetic engineering began in the 1970s, the NationalInstitutes 
  of Health (NIH) said experiments that released geneticallyengineered 
  organisms into the environment were too hazardous and should notbe performed. 
  Despite these early calls for caution, a booming agriculturebiotechnology 
  industry has developed. The report, Raising Risk: FieldTesting 
  of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S., documents the extent offield 
  testing of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. and highlights thepotential 
  risks associated with release of genetically engineered organismsinto 
  the environment. If field experiments are not properly monitored,genetic 
  pollution may result, putting farmers' livelihoods and theKey 
  findings of the report include:* USDA 
  has approved nearly 29,000 field tests through the year 2000.* More 
  than 60% of all field tests conducted in the last year contain genesclassified 
  as "Confidential Business Information."* Between 
  1987&endash;2000, Monsanto (or a now wholly-owned subsidiary)applied 
  to conduct the greatest number of field tests every year, totaling* Since 
  1995, seven of the top 10 companies seeking to conduct field testshave 
  merged into two companies: Monsanto and DuPont.* As 
  of January 2001, the ten states and territories that have hosted thegreatest 
  number of field test sites are: Hawaii (3,275), Illinois (2,832),Iowa 
  (2,820), Puerto Rico (2,296), California (1,435), Idaho (1,060),Minnesota 
  (1,055), Nebraska (971), Wisconsin (918), and Indiana (886).These 
  experimental genetically engineered crops are grown in the openenvironment 
  to test the outcome and environmental impact of certain genecombinations. 
  The groups charged that field testing genetically engineeredcrops 
  in such a widespread way poses serious threats to neighboring farms"Any 
  new technology must be tested, but there are important scientificissues 
  that must be addressed before genetically engineered foods can bereleased 
  into the environment," said Richard Caplan, U.S. PIRG. "To conductfield 
  tests before this has been done is both premature and hazardous; it islike 
  carrying out clinical trials of a drug before the laboratory tests areA goal 
  of the field tests is to obtain information about potentialecological 
  risks associated with genetically engineered organisms. However,independent 
  reviews of the data collected by the Department of Agricultudemonstrate 
  that little data has been collected. As a result, despite thelarge 
  number of field experiments that have occurred, fundamental questionsabout 
  their impact remain unanswered, including long-term impacts on thesoil 
  and non-target species.Source: Raising Risk: Field 
Testing of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S., is available at http://www.gefoodalert.org.Pesticide Action 
  Network North America (PANNA)49 Powell St., 
  Suite 500, San Francisco, CA 94102 USA

 




Document Number: 7141 
Third World Network: Doc. TWN/Biosafety/2001/FWORLDWIDE INTITIATIVES AGAINST GMOs: Ban on the import, distribution, commercialization and utilization 
  ofGE plant material, except for research purposes. : Declared not to import GE wheat.The draft Organization of African Unity (OAU) model biosafety law requiresthat all GMOs, whether classified as food, crops, pharmaceuticals, orcommodities, and products thereof must be approved before import, transit,contained use, release, and market release can take place. Any GMOs orproducts thereof must be labeled as such and there is a strict liabilityregime in place. This model law will serve as a model for nationalimplementation in African countries.: A ban on the import of all genetically modified foods, raw 
  andprocessed, went into effect on May 1, 2001. This includes GMOs and: Ban on field trials of GE crops, and the termination of ongoingfield trials of Monsantos GE cotton and corn. Ban on all commercialplanting of GE crops. Thailand will be drawing up legislation for labeling 
  of: Ban on commercial planting of GE rice, wheat, corn and soybean.: Declared not to import GE wheat. Recent legislation has set 
  zerotolerance for imports containing unapproved GE products. Imports found tocontain unapproved GMOs will be destroyed or shipped back to origin.Violators may incur penalties of up to one-year imprisonment and may befined. The legislation also seeks mandatory labeling for GMOs in food. : The community of Valencia called for a five-year moratoriumon GE food and GE crop trials and commercialization. The Philippinepresident recently announced a moratorium on GE crop research. The European Union is expected to approve very strict legislation onlabeling and traceability; products thereof will have to be labeled even iftraces of GE material cannot be found in them. : Ban on the import of six GE crops and products which containantibiotic resistance genes - two GE vaccines, GE maize, tobacco, chicory,and oil swede rape. 31 GE applications have been rejected to date.: Bans on three varieties of GE maize - Novartis, Monsanto andAgrEvo. The Federal Institute for Less-favored and Mountainous Areas ispressing for GE-free legislation and published a study on GE free zones,initiatives in the States of Vorarlberg and Salzburg to ban GE trials.: Ban of Novartis Bt maize. The initiative No GE on communalland of BUND (Friends of the Earth Germany) launched activities inseveral German communities to discuss and vote on the GE freeresolutions. Applications have been launched in: Bad Vilbel, Blauenstein,Lahr, konstanz, Hannover, Hamburg. Applications have been accepted in:Mynchen, Reutlingen, Freidrichsdorf, Blomberg, Selingenstadt, Niddatal,Maintal, Riedstadt, Adendorf, Schwebheim, Pinneberg, Schwabach,Lan-genhagen, Wyhe, Burgdorf, Neetze, District Traunstein. SeveralProtestant regional church organizations have banned GE crops from theirland: Hannover, Hessen und Nassau, Sachsen, Protestantic Church ofWestfalen, Protestantic Church in Berlin-Bradenburg, Church Province of: The Church of England has refused permission for GEcrop trials on 60,000 hectares of its land, dozens of local authorities supplyGE free school lunches, while the House of Commons has banned GEfood for its catering. The Island of Jersey has banned GE crops. : The Basque government has imposed a five-year blanketmoratorium for GMOs. The provinces of Castilla-La Mancha and Baleareshave banned GE food, while Andaluca declared a five-year moratorium on: Bans on GE crops in four regions - Tuscany, Molise, Lazio andMarche - and 25 provinces, cities and communes, including Rome, Milan,: Ban on AgrEvo herbicide resistant rapeseed, moratorium on GE: Ban on PGS and AgrEvo herbicide resistant rapeseed.: Ban on the planting of GE seeds. The states of Rio Grande do 
  Suland Mato Grasso do Sul have declared their intentions to remain GE-free.18 states have called upon the central government to block commercial GE: The Ministry of Agriculture plans to ban the commercial planting: Ban on GE food and declared not to import GE wheat. : Maryland has banned GE fish. There are variousbills calling for moratoria on GE food (Vermont), and bans on GE wheat(North Dakota and Montana) have been filed within the last year. Severalmunicipalities have declared moratoria on GE food (Burlington, Vermont),bans of GE crops (City of Boulder, Colorado), or urged the federalgovernment to ban GE food (City and County of San Fransisco, California).American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati,Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, PapuaNew Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuaturecommended a moratorium on the import of GMOs pending theimplementation of appropriate national risk assessment and risk: Ban GE rapeseed as weed in Tasmania, and a ban oncommercial planting of GE crops in Western Australia. Australian Stateshave been given the right to declare themselves GE free. Somecommunities (e.g. Bondi/Sydney, West Wimmera Shire) have declared: Trials of GE salmon have been blocked by the government.Some local bodies in Auckland and Wellington have declared themselves

 




Document Number: 3561 
RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #716================================================================= 
  Genetic engineering is the process by which genes are altered and 
  transferred artificially from one organism to another. Genes, 
  which are made of DNA, contain the instructions according to 
  which cells produce proteins; proteins in turn form the basis for 
  most of a cell's functions. Genetic engineering makes it possible 
  to mix genetic material between organisms that could never breed 
  with each other. It allows people to take genes from one species, 
  such as a flounder, and insert them into another species, such as 
  a tomato -- thus, for example, creating a tomato that has some of 
  the characteristics of a fish. Starting in the 1980s and accelerating rapidly in the past 
  decade, companies have begun using genetic engineering to insert 
  foreign genes into many crops, including important foods such as 
  corn and soybeans.[1] Just in the past few years, genetically 
  engineered ingredients have begun appearing in many foods in U.S. 
  supermarkets; they have been detected in processed foods such as 
  infant formulas, drink mixes, and taco shells, to name a few 
  examples.[2] These foods are not labeled, so consumers have no 
  way to know when they are eating genetically engineered food. Genetic engineering is an extremely powerful technology whose 
  mechanisms are not fully understood even by those who do the 
  basic scientific work. In this series, we will review the main 
  problems that have been identified with genetically engineered Most genetically engineered crops planted worldwide are designed 
  either to survive exposure to certain herbicides or to kill 
  certain insects. Herbicide tolerant crops accounted for 71% of 
  the acreage planted with genetically engineered crops in 1998 and 
  1999, and crops designed to kill insects (or designed both to 
  kill insects AND to withstand herbicides) accounted for most of 
  the remaining acreage. A small proportion (under 1%) of 
  genetically engineered crops planted in 1998 and 1999 were 
  designed to resist infection by certain viruses.[4] Genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops are able to 
  survive applications of herbicides that would ordinarily kill 
  them. The U.S. food supply currently includes products made from 
  genetically engineered herbicide-tolerant crops including 
  "Roundup Ready" canola, corn, and soybeans which are engineered 
  to withstand applications of Monsanto's Roundup (active 
  ingredient, glyphosate), as well as crops engineered to survive 
  exposure to other herbicides.[1] Genetically engineered pest-resistant (or pesticidal) crops are 
  toxic to insects that eat them. For example, corn can be 
  engineered to kill the European corn borer, an insect in the 
  order lepidoptera (the category that includes butterflies and 
  moths). This is accomplished by adding genetic material derived 
  from a soil bacterium, BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS (Bt), to the 
  genetic code of the corn. BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS naturally 
  produces a protein toxic to some insects, and organic farmers 
  sometimes spray Bt on their crops as a natural pesticide. In 
  genetically engineered "Bt corn," every cell of the corn plant 
  produces the toxin ordinarily found only in the bacterium. Unfortunately, genetically engineered crops can have adverse 
  effects on human health and on ecosystems. And by failing to test 
  or regulate genetically engineered crops adequately, the U.S. 
  government has allowed corporations to introduce unfamiliar 
  substances into our food supply without any systematic safety Here are some of the reasons why we might not want to eat 
  genetically engineered crops: ** Ordinary, familiar foods can become allergenic through the Genetic engineering can introduce a known or unknown allergen 
  into a food that previously did not contain it. For example, a 
  soybean engineered to contain genes from a brazil nut was found 
  to produce allergic reactions in blood serum of individuals with 
  nut allergies. (See REHN #638.) Allergic reactions to nuts can be 
  serious and even fatal. Researchers were able to identify the 
  danger in this particular case because nut allergies are common 
  and it was possible to conduct proper tests on blood serum from 
  allergic individuals. In other cases, testing for allergenic 
  potential can be much more difficult. When genetic engineering 
  causes a familiar food to start producing a substance previously 
  not present in the human food supply, it is impossible to know 
  who may have an allergic reaction. ** Genetic engineering has the potential to make ordinary, 
  familiar foods become toxic. In some cases, new characteristics introduced intentionally may 
  create toxicity. The Bt toxin as it appears in the bacteria that 
  produce it naturally is considered relatively safe for humans. In 
  these bacteria, the toxin exists in a "protoxin" form, which 
  becomes dangerous to insects only after it has been shortened, or 
  "activated," in the insect's digestive system. In contrast, some 
  genetically engineered Bt crops produce the toxin in its 
  activated form, which previously only appeared inside the 
  digestive systems of certain insects.[5] Humans have little 
  experience with exposure to this form of the toxin. Furthermore, 
  in the past humans have had no opportunity or reason to ingest 
  any form of the Bt toxin in large quantities. When the Bt toxin 
  is incorporated into our common foods, we are exposed each time 
  we eat those foods.[6, pgs. 64-65.] And of course, a pesticide 
  engineered into every cell of a food source cannot simply be Toxicity can also result from characteristics introduced 
  unintentionally. For example, a plant that ordinarily produces 
  high amounts of a toxin in its leaves and low amounts in its 
  fruit could unexpectedly begin to concentrate the toxin in its 
  fruit after addition of a new gene. (See REHN #696.) Unpleasant surprises of this sort can result from our ignorance 
  about exactly how a foreign gene has been incorporated into the 
  engineered cell. Foreign genes can be added to cells by various 
  methods; among other options, they can be blasted into cells 
  using a "gene gun," or a virus or bacterium can be used to carry 
  them into the target cells.[7] The "genetic engineer" who sets 
  this process in motion does not actually control where the new 
  genes end up in the genetic code of the target organism. The 
  "engineer" essentially inserts the genes at a random, unknown 
  location in the cell's existing DNA. These newly-inserted genes 
  may sometimes end up in the middle of existing genetic 
  instructions, and may disrupt those instructions. A foreign gene could, for example, be inserted in the middle of 
  an existing gene that instructs a plant to shut off production of 
  a toxin in its fruit. The foreign gene could disrupt the 
  functioning of this existing gene, causing the plant to produce 
  abnormal levels of the toxin in its fruit. This phenomenon is 
  known as "insertional mutagenesis" -- unpredictable changes 
  resulting from the position in which a new gene is inserted.[8] 
  Genetic engineering can also introduce unexpected new toxicity in 
  food through a well-known phenomenon known as pleiotropy, in 
  which one gene affects multiple characteristics of an organism. ** Genetically engineered crops can indirectly promote the 
  development of antibiotic resistance, making it difficult or 
  impossible to treat common human diseases. Whatever method is used to introduce foreign genes into a target 
  cell, it only works some of the time, so the "genetic engineer" 
  needs a way to identify those cells that have successfully taken 
  up the foreign genes. One way to identify these cells is to 
  attach a gene for antibiotic resistance to the gene intended for 
  insertion. After attempting to introduce the foreign genes, the 
  "engineer" can treat the mass of cells with an antibiotic. Only 
  those cells that have incorporated the new genes survive, because 
  they are now resistant to antibiotics. >From these surviving cells, a new plant is generated. Each cell 
  of this plant contains the newly introduced genes, including the 
  gene for antibiotic resistance. Once in the food chain, in some 
  cases these genes could be taken up by and incorporated into the 
  genetic material of bacteria living in human or animal digestive 
  systems. A 1999 study published in APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
  MICROBIOLOGY found evidence supporting the view that bacteria in 
  the human mouth could potentially take up antibiotic resistance 
  genes released from food.[9] Antibiotic resistance among 
  disease-causing bacteria is already a major threat to public 
  health; due to the excessive use of antibiotics in medical 
  treatment and in agriculture, we are losing the ability to treat 
  life-threatening diseases such as pneumonia, tuberculosis, and 
  salmonella.[10] (See REHN #402.) By putting antibiotic resistance 
  genes into our food, we may be increasing the public health The British Medical Association, the leading association of 
  doctors in Britain, urged an end to the use of antibiotic 
  resistance genes in genetically engineered crops in a 1999 
  report. "There should be a ban on the use of antibiotic 
  resistance marker genes in GM [genetically modified] food, as the 
  risk to human health from antibiotic resistance developing in 
  micro-organisms is one of the major public health threats that 
  will be faced in the 21st Century. The risk that antibiotic 
  resistance may be passed on to bacteria affecting human beings, 
  through marker genes in the food chain, is one that cannot at 
  present be ruled out," the Association said.[11] *Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research [1] Union of Concerned Scientists, "Foods on the Market," 
  available at http://www.ucsusa.org. Choose "biotechnology" in the 
  bar at the bottom of the screen, then click on "Foods on the [2] Consumers Union, "CONSUMER REPORTS: Genetically Engineered 
  Foods in Your Shopping Cart," Press Release, August 23, 1999. 
  Available at http://www.consumersunion.org/food/gefny999.htm. [3] For one recent overview, see Environmental Media Services 
  (EMS), REPORTERS' GUIDE: GENETIC ENGINEERING IN AGRICULTURE, 
  Edition 1 (October 2000), available from EMS, Washington, D.C., 
  (202) 463-6670 or at http://www.ems.org. Also see Pesticide 
  Action Network North America (PANNA), "Genetically Engineered 
  Crops and Foods: Online Presentation," available at 
  http://www.panna.org/panna/resources/geTutorial.html. [4] Clive James, "Global Review of Commercialized Transgenic 
  Crops: 1999" ISAAA BRIEFS No. 12: Preview, produced by 
  International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech 
  Applications (ISAAA). Available at 
  http://www.isaaa.org/Global%20Review%201999/briefs12cj.htm. [5] See Michael Hansen, "Potential Environmental and Human Health 
  Problems Associated with Genetically Engineered Food." 
  Presentation delivered at CREA International Seminar on 
  Transgenic Products, Curitiba, Brazil, October 11, 1999. 
  Available from Consumer Policy Institute, Yonkers, N.Y.: [6] National Research Council, GENETICALLY MODIFIED 
  PEST-PROTECTED PLANTS: SCIENCE AND REGULATION (Washington, D.C.: 
  National Academy of Sciences, 2000). ISBN 0309069300. [7] Union of Concerned Scientists, "Fact Sheet: Genetic 
  Engineering Techniques." Available at http://www.ucsusa.org. 
  Choose "biotechnology" in the bar at the bottom of the screen, 
  then click on "Genetic Engineering Techniques." [8] See Food and Drug Administration, "Premarket Notice 
  Concerning Bioengineered Foods," FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 66, No. 12 
  (January 18, 2001), pg. 4710. [9] Derry K. Mercer and others, "Fate of Free DNA and 
  Transformation of the Oral Bacterium STREPTOCOCCUS GORDONII DL1 
  by Plasmid DNA in Human Saliva," APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL 
  MICROBIOLOGY Vol. 65, No. 1 (January 1999), pgs. 6-10. [10] See World Health Organization (WHO), OVERCOMING 
  ANTIMICROBIAL RESISTANCE (Geneva, Switzerland: World Health 
  Organization, 2000). Available at 
  http://www.who.int/infectious-disease-report/2000/. [11] British Medical Association Board of Science and Education, 
  "The Impact of Genetic Modification on Agriculture, Food and 
  Health -- An Interim Statement," May 1999. Summary statement 
  available at http://www.bma.org.uk/public/science/genmod.htm.  RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT 
  & HEALTH NEWS #717 
  . 
   
  ---February 1, 2001--- 
  . 
In the last issue, we looked at hazards associated with eating 
  genetically engineered foods: unexpected allergic reactions; 
  unexpected toxicity; and the development of antibiotic 
  resistance.[1] It is increasingly clear that genetic engineering 
  is neither precise nor predictable; "genetic engineers" are 
  tampering with the instructions for basic cell functions, without 
  understanding fully how those instructions work. ** One source of unpredictable effects is the use of "promoter" 
  genes. As we saw in REHN #716, the aim of genetic engineering is 
  to take a gene from one organism and insert it into another 
  organism. However, organisms have elaborate defense mechanisms to 
  prevent foreign genes from affecting them, so a gene moved from a 
  bacterium to a plant will not automatically work in its new host. 
  To overcome the target organism's defenses and make the new gene 
  function, it is necessary to add a "promoter" gene -- a genetic 
  switch that "turns on" the foreign gene. The promoter of choice in most cases is derived from a plant 
  virus called the cauliflower mosaic virus. Known as the CaMV 35S 
  promoter, this genetic sequence causes hyperexpression of other 
  genes. A gene is hyperexpressed when the proteins for which it 
  contains instructions are produced in excessive amounts -- 
  perhaps ten to a thousand times as great as normal levels. 
  Because the CaMV 35S gene is so powerful, in addition to "turning 
  on" the target gene, it may also "turn on" other genes near where 
  it is inserted, causing the engineered cell to display 
  unpredictable new features.[2] ** Plants can defend themselves against the intrusion of foreign 
  genetic instructions through the phenomenon of "gene silencing," 
  in which the cell blocks expression of the foreign DNA. Silencing 
  may occur in unpredictable ways in genetically engineered plants. 
  For example, a recent study found that infection with the 
  cauliflower mosaic virus could trigger silencing of a newly 
  inserted trait for herbicide tolerance, which was linked to the 
  CaMV 35S promoter. Apparently, the plant defended itself against 
  the infection through silencing of the viral genes. At the same 
  time, it silenced other newly-inserted genes.[3] ** Genetically engineered foods may also produce unexplained 
  health effects in laboratory animals. An article published in THE 
  LANCET by Stanley Ewen and Arpad Pusztai reports on a study of 
  laboratory rats fed genetically engineered potatoes.[4] The 
  potatoes were designed to produce a substance known as GALANTHUS 
  NIVALIS agglutinin (GNA), which is ordinarily found in snowdrops 
  (a type of flower). The purpose of adding GNA to potatoes was to 
  increase resistance to certain insects and other pests. Ewen and Pusztai worked with three groups of rats. One received 
  the genetically engineered potatoes designed to produce GNA; the 
  second received ordinary, non-engineered potatoes, without GNA; 
  and the third group received ordinary, non-engineered potatoes 
  mixed with a dose of GNA. Ewen and Pusztai studied the changes 
  that occurred in the digestive systems of the rats in each group. The researchers found that eating engineered or non-engineered 
  potatoes with GNA was associated with certain changes in the 
  rats' stomachs. In addition, the engineered GNA potatoes were 
  associated with certain intestinal changes NOT found in the rats 
  fed ordinary potatoes laced with GNA. The researchers do not know 
  the reason for these additional changes. They could be due to a 
  "positioning effect" -- the foreign gene may have been inserted 
  at a location in the existing genetic material that caused it to 
  disrupt normal functioning of an existing gene. Or it could be 
  due to the activity of other genetic material inserted along with 
  the target gene, such as the promoter. Pusztai was forced to retire from his research position at the 
  Rowett Research Institute in Scotland after he spoke publicly 
  about the results of his work. (See REHN #649.) His article in 
  THE LANCET is one of only a few animal feeding studies that have 
  been published on the altered foods that are now present, 
  unlabeled, in our grocery stores. ** In some cases, genetically engineered crops can have altered 
  nutritional content. One study found that glyphosate-tolerant 
  soybeans had significantly altered levels of naturally occurring 
  compounds known as isoflavones, which are thought to have some 
  health benefits.[5] The consequences of changes like this could 
  be minor in some cases and serious in others. The important 
  lesson is that when we eat soy, corn, or other important foods 
  that have been genetically altered, we may not be getting the 
  nutrient mix we could expect in the past. As long as these 
  altered foods are unlabeled, we do not have the information we 
  need to make informed choices about the foods we eat. Last fall, corn products in U.S. supermarkets were found to be 
  contaminated with "StarLink" corn, a genetically engineered 
  variety approved only for use as animal feed due to concerns 
  about possible allergic reactions in humans.[6] The contamination 
  was detected by a non-governmental organization, Friends of the 
  Earth, working as part of a national collaborative effort, the 
  Genetically Engineered Food Alert coalition. Had Friends of the 
  Earth not taken responsibility for testing foods -- a function 
  that should be performed by government -- we could have continued 
  to consume unapproved StarLink corn with no way to trace the 
  health consequences. We do not know what other errors may already 
  have occurred; and since we do not know when we are eating 
  genetically engineered foods, we have no way to watch for links 
  between eating these foods and developing certain illnesses. 
  Those who favor the rapid and unregulated introduction of 
  genetically engineered foods into our food supply often say 
  genetic engineering is really nothing new; it is simply an 
  extension of conventional agricultural breeding techniques. In 
  fact, as Michael Hansen of Consumers Union explains in a review 
  article, there are some obvious differences.[2] ** Gene transfers across natural boundaries: Conventional 
  breeding transfers genetic information among organisms that are 
  related to one another -- members of the same species, or related 
  species, or (rarely) of closely-related genera. (Genera is the 
  plural of genus; a genus is a biological grouping that includes 
  multiple species.) Genetic engineering, on the other hand, may 
  transfer genes from any organism to any other organism (fish to 
  fruit, bacteria to vegetables, etc.). ** Location of gene insertion: Variations of a gene are known as 
  alleles. Genes are carried in chromosomes, and each gene has a 
  specific place in a chromosome. Conventional breeding shuffles 
  alleles of existing genes. In general, conventional breeding does 
  not move genes from one place to another in a chromosome. Genetic 
  engineering, on the other hand, inserts genes that were not in 
  the original chromosome of the target organism. These genes may 
  be inserted in unpredictable locations in the chromosome, 
  producing unforseeable changes in the plant. ** Extra genetic material: Genetically engineered foods contain 
  extra genetic material that is unrelated to the target 
  characteristics. This extra genetic material can include vectors, 
  which are added to move genes across natural barriers; promoters, 
  added to "turn on" the foreign genes; marker genes, added to show 
  the engineer whether the target gene has been successfully 
  inserted; and random extra genetic material that the engineer 
  inserts unintentionally. Here is a brief discussion of each of a) Vectors: Genetic engineering often uses "vectors," genetic 
  sequences derived from viruses or bacteria, to move genes into 
  the target cell. One vector used frequently is derived from 
  AGROBACTERIUM TUMEFACIENS, a bacterium that causes tumors in 
  plants by inserting DNA from its own genetic code into the 
  genetic code of the plant. A study published in PROCEEDINGS OF 
  THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES in January 2001 reported that 
  AGROBACTERIUM may be able to insert DNA into human cells as When AGROBACTERIUM infects a plant under natural conditions, the 
  genes are incorporated only into the infected part of the plant; 
  they do not move throughout the plant and are not passed on to 
  subsequent generations. In contrast, when AGROBACTERIUM genes are 
  used as vectors in genetic engineering, the resulting plant 
  includes AGROBACTERIUM genes in all its cells. Conventional 
  breeding does not require the use of vectors. b) Promoters: As we have seen, most genetically engineered crops 
  include the CaMV 35S "promoter" gene to "turn on" the foreign 
  gene and overcome normal cell defense mechanisms. Viral promoters 
  are not necessary for conventional breeding. c) Marker genes: As we saw in REHN #716, genetic engineering 
  often involves the insertion of antibiotic resistance marker 
  genes. This does not occur in conventional breeding. d) Unintentional additions: Sometimes genetic engineers introduce 
  additional genetic material into the target cell without knowing 
  it. Last spring, for example, newspapers reported that Monsanto's 
  Roundup Ready (glyphosate-tolerant) soybeans contained extra 
  fragments of DNA that the company's genetic engineers were not 
  aware of having introduced.[8] On the basis of these points, some people would say that genetic 
  engineering is "very different" from conventional breeding, 
  whereas others would say that it is only "somewhat different." 
  Either way, the differences have obvious implications for the 
  ways in which governments should regulate genetically engineered 
  foods. At a minimum, governments should require companies to 
  conduct pre-market safety tests related to the special hazards 
  associated with genetic engineering, and any altered foods 
  allowed onto the market should be labeled. *Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research [1] For a thorough collection of resources on agricultural 
  biotechnology, see AgBioTech InfoNet, maintained by Benbrook 
  Consulting Services at http://www.biotech-info.net. [2] Michael K. Hansen, "Genetic Engineering is Not an Extension 
  of Conventional Plant Breeding; How Genetic Engineering Differs 
  from Conventional Breeding, Hybridization, Wide Crosses, and 
  Horizontal Gene Transfer," available at http://- 
  www.consumersunion.org/food/widecpi200.htm. Also see Michael 
  Hansen and Ellen Hickey, "Genetic Engineering: Imprecise and 
  Unpredictable," in GLOBAL PESTICIDE CAMPAIGNER, Vol. 10, No. 1, 
  April 2000, available from Pesticide Action Network 
  (415-981-1771; panna@panna.org). [3] Nadia S. Al-Kaff and others, "Plants Rendered 
  Herbicide-Susceptible by Cauliflower Mosaic Virus-Elicited 
  Suppression of a 35S Promoter-Regulated Transgene," NATURE 
  BIOTECHNOLOGY Vol. 18 (September 2000), pgs. 995-999. [4] Stanley W. B. Ewen and Arpad Pusztai, "Effect of Diets 
  Containing Genetically Modified Potatoes Expressing GALANTHUS 
  NIVALIS Lectin on Rat Small Intestine," THE LANCET Vol. 354, No. 
  9187 (October 16, 1999), pgs. 1353-1354. [5] Marc A. Lappe and others, "Alterations in Clinically 
  Important Phytoestrogens in Genetically Modified, 
  Herbicide-Tolerant Soybeans," JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD Vol. 1, 
  No. 4 (July 1999), pgs. 241-245. [6] Andrew Pollack, "Case Illustrates Risks of Altered Food." NEW 
  YORK TIMES October 14, 2000. Available at http://- 
  www.biotech-info.net/altered_food.html [7] Talya Kunik and others, "Genetic Transformation of HeLa Cells 
  by AGROBACTERIUM," PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF 
  SCIENCES, published online before print (January 30, 2001). Full 
  text available for U.S. $5 at 
  http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.041327598. [8] James Meikle, "Soya Gene Find Fuels Doubts on GM Crops," THE 
  GUARDIAN (London) (May 31, 2000). Available at http://- 
  www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/gmdebate/Story/0,2763,326569,00.html 
  Also see "Monsanto GM Seeds Contain 'Rogue' DNA," SCOTLAND ON 
  SUNDAY (May 30, 2000). Available at http://www.biotech-info.net/-  RACHEL'S 
  ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #718 
  . 
   
  ---February 15, 2001--- 
  . As we saw in REHN #716, genetically engineered crops now planted 
  in the U.S. and worldwide are mostly designed to tolerate 
  herbicides or to kill insects or other pests. A small percentage 
  is designed for other purposes such as resisting infection by 
  certain viruses. Here we will look at some of the threats 
  genetically engineered crops pose to ecosystems. Pesticidal crops may be toxic to nontarget organisms - organisms 
  they were not designed to kill. For example, BT corn designed to 
  kill the European corn borer can also be toxic to other closely 
  related insects, including butterflies and moths. Monarch butterfly larvae feed on milkweed, which often grows in 
  or near corn fields. In a laboratory, scientists found that 
  monarch larvae feeding on milkweed dusted with BT corn pollen 
  grew more slowly and died at a higher rate than larvae that were 
  not exposed to the toxic pollen.[1] Another study found these 
  effects were likely to occur outside the laboratory as well. 
  Researchers placed potted milkweed plants in fields of BT corn 
  and measured the number of BT pollen grains that were deposited 
  on the milkweed leaves. Monarch larvae exposed to BT corn pollen 
  at these levels had high death rates compared with larvae exposed 
  to non-engineered corn pollen or placed on milkweed leaves with The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now expresses 
  concern about the effects of BT corn pollen on monarchs and other 
  butterfly species, including the endangered Karner Blue 
  butterfly.[3] EPA has asked companies to submit data on these 
  effects, but this "data call-in" occurred four years AFTER EPA 
  allowed BT corn to be used on U.S. farms.[2,pg.13] BT corn may also harm the green lacewing, a beneficial insect 
  that eats agricultural pests. The lacewing may be affected by the 
  toxin in the digestive systems of insects that have eaten BT corn 
  but have not been killed by it.[4] This example shows how 
  non-target effects may interfere with a chain of predator-prey 
  relationships, disrupting the natural balance that keeps pest BT crops may also affect non-target organisms by changing soil 
  chemistry. A 1999 article in NATURE reported that the roots of BT 
  corn plants released BT toxin into soil. The researchers found 
  that 90 to 95% of susceptible insect larvae exposed to the 
  substance released from the roots died after 5 days.[5] The use of BT crops can also promote the development of 
  BT-resistant pest populations. As we saw in REHN #716, organic 
  farmers use BT sprays occasionally as a natural insecticide to 
  combat severe pest outbreaks. BT crops, in contrast, generally 
  expose insects to BT toxins day after day, whether or not there 
  is a major infestation. These conditions increase the likelihood 
  that BT-resistant insects will evolve. The widespread appearance 
  of BT-resistant insect pests would mean the loss of one of the 
  most valuable tools available to organic farmers for dealing with 
  serious pest outbreaks.[6,pg.139] Herbicide-tolerant crops are designed to make it easier for 
  farmers to use certain herbicides. A 1999 study of soybean 
  farming in the U.S. midwest found that farmers planting Roundup 
  Ready soybeans used 2 to 5 times as many pounds of herbicide per 
  acre as farmers using conventional systems, and ten times as much 
  herbicide as farmers using Integrated Weed Management systems, 
  which are intended to reduce the need for chemical 
  herbicides.[7,pg.2] Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, 
  can sometimes persist in soil over long periods of time[8] and 
  may affect the growth of beneficial soil bacteria, among other 
  environmental effects.[9] A recent, unpublished study conducted 
  at the University of Missouri suggests that applications of 
  Roundup to Roundup Ready crops may be associated with elevated 
  levels of soil fungi that sometimes cause plant diseases.[10] More hazards may lie ahead as new products of genetic engineering 
  come to market. According to the NEW YORK TIMES, Scotts Company 
  is collaborating with Monsanto to develop Roundup Ready grass for 
  lawns.[11] Studies suggest that Roundup exposures can be harmful 
  to human health. For example, exposure to glyphosate herbicides 
  may be associated with increased occurrence of non-Hodgkins 
  lymphoma, a cancer of white blood cells.[12] (See REHN #660.) And 
  a study published last August in ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 
  PERSPECTIVES found that in a laboratory, Roundup exposure 
  interfered with sex hormone production in cells of testicular 
  tumors taken from mice.[13] If the introduction of Roundup Ready 
  grass leads to increased use of Roundup on lawns, children's 
  exposure to the herbicide could rise. In some cases, genetically engineered crops might become problem 
  weeds, disrupting existing ecosystems. A recent study published 
  in NATURE found that some genetically engineered crops are 
  unlikely to become problem weeds. Researchers planted genetically 
  engineered crops that were available in 1990 and monitored their 
  growth for ten years. Many of the plants simply died out, and 
  those that did survive showed no signs of spreading.[14] But some 
  crop plants, such as canola, survive well on their own without 
  human intervention. In Canada, genetically engineered canola 
  plants designed to resist various herbicides appear to have 
  exchanged genetic material so that some canola plants now can 
  survive exposure to two or three herbicides. These plants with 
  multiple herbicide resistance can be difficult for farmers to Genetically engineered virus-resistant crops are supposed to 
  reduce problems from viral infections, but in some cases they 
  could make those problems worse. Virus-resistant crops are 
  created by adding virus genes to the plant's existing genetic 
  material. If a genetically engineered crop resistant to one virus 
  is infected by another virus, the genetic material from the two 
  viruses may sometimes interact to produce new virus types, which 
  could be more harmful or could infect a wider range of plants 
  than the original.[15,pgs.59-68] All the hazards discussed above are compounded by the problem of 
  genetic pollution. Many crop plants disperse genetic material 
  through pollen, which may be carried by the wind or by 
  pollinators such as bees. This means genetically engineered 
  plants may "share" their genetic material with other, 
  non-engineered plants. For example, pollen from genetically 
  engineered corn can blow into a neighboring field and pollinate 
  conventional corn. Because of genetic pollution, some organic 
  farmers whose fields border genetically engineered crops may no 
  longer be able to certify their crops as organic.[6,pg.127] In animals, sexual reproduction between different species is 
  usually impossible. In a few cases, reproduction between closely 
  related species can occur but the offspring are generally 
  sterile. For example, a horse and a donkey can mate to produce a 
  mule, but mules cannot reproduce. In contrast, many plants are 
  able to reproduce sexually with related species, and the 
  offspring of these combinations are often fertile. When crop 
  plants grow near wild plants to which they are related, they may 
  reproduce with these plants. This means that genetic material 
  inserted into a crop plant can find its way into wild plant A recent article in SCIENCE reviews the literature on "ecological 
  risks and benefits" of genetically engineered crops and confirms 
  what advocates of precaution have been saying for years: we lack 
  basic information on how genetically engineered crops may affect 
  ecosystems.[16] Here are a few examples of what scientists do not 
  know about ecological effects of genetically engineered crops: ** No published studies have looked at whether novel genes 
  introduced into crops have become established in populations of 
  wild relatives.[16, pg. 2088] ** We know that BT toxin can be released from the roots of BT 
  corn plants, but no published studies have looked at the 
  ecological consequences of adding BT toxin to soil in this way. ** As we have seen, BT toxin in the digestive systems of 
  plant-eating insects may affect the predator insects that eat 
  them. Right now it is impossible to model how an ecosystem might 
  change due to these effects on predators, the authors say.[16, ** Scientists are currently unable to estimate the likelihood 
  that planting genetically engineered virus-resistant crops will 
  lead to the development of new types of plant viruses. [16, pg. A precautionary approach would require that we investigate these 
  questions before, rather than after, permitting large-scale 
  commercial cultivation of genetically engineered crops. 

  *Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research [1] John E. Losey and others, "Transgenic Pollen Harms Monarch 
  Larvae." NATURE Vol. 399, No. 6733 (May 20, 1999), pg. 214. [2] Laura C. Hansen and John J. Obrycki, "Field Deposition of BT 
  Transgenic Corn Pollen: Lethal Effects on the Monarch Butterfly," 
  OECOLOGIA Vol. 125, No. 2 (2000), pgs. 241-248. [3] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Biopesticide Fact 
  Sheet: BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS Cry1Ab Delta-Endotoxin and the 
  Genetic Material Necessary for Its Production (Plasmid Vector 
  pCIB4431) in Corn [Event 176]," April 2000. EPA Publication No. 
  http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/biopesticides/factsheets/fs006458t.htm. [4] A. Hilbeck and others, "Effects of Transgenic BACILLUS 
  THURINGIENSIS corn-fed prey on Mortality and Development Time of 
  Immature CHYSOPERLA CARNEA (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)." 
  ENVIRONMENTAL ENTOMOLOGY Vol. 27, No. 2 (April 1998), pgs. [5] Deepak Saxena and others, "Insecticidal Toxin in Root 
  Exudates from BT Corn," NATURE Vol. 402, No. 6761 (December 2, [6] Royal Society of Canada, ELEMENTS OF PRECAUTION: 
  RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE REGULATION OF FOOD BIOTECHNOLOGY IN 
  CANADA (Ottawa: Royal Society of Canada, January 2001). ISBN 
  0-920064-71-X. Available from the Royal Society at (Ottawa, 
  Canada) phone: (613) 991-6990 or at 
  http://www.rsc.ca/foodbiotechnology/-GMreportEN.pdf. [7] Charles Benbrook, "Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences 
  of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based 
  Varietal Trials in 1998," AgBioTech InfoNet Technical Paper #1, 
  July 13, 1999. Available at 
  http://www.biotech-info.net/RR_yield_drag_98.pdf. [8] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Pesticide and 
  Environmental Fate One Line Summary: Glyphosate," May 6, 1993. [9] See T. B. Moorman and others, "Production of Hydrobenzoic 
  Acids by BRADYRHIZOBIUM JAPONICUM strains after treatment with 
  glyphosate." JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL AND FOOD CHEMISTRY Vol. 40 
  (1992), pgs. 289-293. For a review of other relevant studies, see 
  Caroline Cox, "Herbicide Factsheet: Glyphosate (Roundup)" JOURNAL 
  OF PESTICIDE REFORM Vol. 18, No. 3 (Fall 1998), updated October 
  2000, available at http://www.pesticide.org/gly.pdf [10] R.J. Kremer and others, "Herbicide Impact on FUSARIUM spp. 
  and Soybean Cyst Nematode in Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean." 
  American Society of Agronomy study abstract, available at 
  http://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup_abstract.html. Also see 
  University of Missouri press release, "MU Researchers Find Fungi 
  Buildup in Glyphosate-Treated Soybean Fields" (December 21, 
  http://www.biotech-info.net/fungi_buildup.html. [11] David Barboza, "Suburban Genetics: Scientists Searching for 
  a Perfect Lawn," NEW YORK TIMES July 9, 2000, pg. A1. [12] Lennart Hardell and Mikael Eriksson, "A Case-Control Study 
  of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Exposure to Pesticides," CANCER Vol. 
  85, No. 6 (March 15, 1999), pgs. 1353-1360. [13] Lance P. Walsh and others, "Roundup Inhibits Steroidogenesis 
  by Disrupting Steroidogenic Acute Regulatory (StAR) Protein 
  Expression," ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES Vol. 108, No. 8 
  (August 2000), pgs. 769-776. [14] M. Crawley and others, "Transgenic Crops in Natural 
  Habitats." NATURE Vol. 409, No. 6821 (February 8, 2001), pgs. [15] Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, THE ECOLOGICAL RISKS OF 
  ENGINEERED CROPS (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1996). [16] L. L. Wolfenbarger and P.R. Phifer, "The Ecological Risks 
  and Benefits of Genetically Engineered Plants." SCIENCE Vol. 290 
  No. 5499 (December 15, 2000) pgs. 2088-2093. 
 
  . 
   RACHEL'S 
  ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS #719 
  . 
   
  ---March 1, 2001--- 
  . 
  BIOTECH--THE BASICS, FINAL PART Biotechnology corporations want people in the U.S. and around the 
  world to believe that the U.S. government has fully tested 
  genetically engineered crops for ecological and human health 
  hazards. Three federal agencies -- U.S. Food and Drug 
  Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 
  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) -- have responsibility 
  for genetically engineered foods, but there is no guarantee that 
  a genetically engineered food sold in the U.S. has been tested 
  for ecological or human health effects. In the rush to promote 
  genetic engineering, safety testing has fallen through the Biotechnology corporations also want us to believe that 
  genetically engineered foods have been embraced by the public. In 
  fact, genetically engineered foods are not labeled, so the public 
  has no knowledge -- and no choice -- about purchasing and eating U.S. Food and Drug Administration The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its basic 
  policy statement on genetically engineered foods in 1992. Under 
  this policy, FDA considers genetically engineered foods to be 
  "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), unless in the judgment of 
  the manufacturer there is some reason for concern.[2, pg. 22990] 
  Foods considered GRAS are not subject to pre-market safety FDA states that the need for safety testing depends on the 
  characteristics of a food, not on the methods used to produce it. 
  In other words, the fact that a food was produced using genetic 
  engineering is not sufficient to trigger safety tests.[2, pgs. FDA's 1992 policy says that a genetically engineered food must be 
  labeled if it "differs from its traditional counterpart such that 
  the common or usual name no longer applies to the new food, or if 
  a safety or usage issue exists to which consumers must be 
  alerted."[2, pg. 22991] For example, it says a tomato containing 
  peanut genes might need to be labeled so that people with peanut 
  allergies could avoid it.[2, pg. 22991] But FDA allows 
  biotechnology corporations to decide whether a hazard of this 
  sort exists. Under FDA's no-labels policy, we can find out the 
  fat, cholesterol, sodium, potassium, carbohydrate, and protein 
  content of our breakfast cereal but we can't find out whether it 
  contains antibiotic-resistance genes, viral promoters, or 
  proteins normally produced only by bacteria. (See REHN #716, In 1998 a coalition of non-governmental organizations, 
  scientists, and others filed a lawsuit against FDA for failing to 
  fulfill its regulatory duties. During the suit, FDA was forced to 
  release internal documents that showed FDA staff scientists had 
  strongly opposed the 1992 policy.[3] (See REHN #685.) The lawsuit also forced FDA to release details of its safety 
  evaluation of the first genetically engineered food that entered 
  U.S. supermarkets, the Flavr Savr tomato. Calgene, the company 
  that developed the Flavr Savr, submitted three safety tests to 
  FDA in which rats were fed engineered tomatoes. After 
  twenty-eight days of the Flavr Savr tomato diet, researchers 
  examined the rats' stomachs. The three studies produced 
  inconsistent results that Calgene was unable to explain. The 
  first study showed no unusual effects. In the second study, some 
  of the rats fed genetically engineered tomatoes developed gastric 
  erosions (damage to the lining of the stomach). In the third 
  study, gastric erosions appeared in some of the rats fed 
  genetically engineered tomatoes AND in some of the rats fed Calgene concluded these stomach problems were unrelated to eating 
  genetically engineered tomatoes, but it had no explanation for 
  why they appeared. An FDA staff scientist who reviewed Calgene's 
  data said there were "doubts as to the validity of any scientific 
  conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies' findings," 
  because Calgene could not explain the variations in results among 
  the three tests.[4] In spite of the doubts expressed by its own 
  staff, FDA categorized the Flavr Savr tomato as GRAS and approved 
  it for sale. (The Flavr Savr did not sell well, so it has 
  disappeared from stores.)[1, pgs. 83-84] In January 2001, the FDA proposed new regulations on genetically 
  engineered food. These proposed regulations still fail to require 
  either pre-market safety testing or labeling of genetically 
  engineered foods.[5] FDA says "there does not appear to be any 
  new scientific information that raises questions about the safety 
  of bioengineered food currently being marketed," and states once 
  again that genetically engineered foods are "generally recognized To make this claim, FDA had to ignore scientific information that 
  had been brought to its attention explicitly during the previous 
  year. In March 2000, the Center for Food Safety and partner 
  organizations filed a legal petition asking FDA to start 
  requiring pre-market safety testing, environmental impact 
  assessments, and labeling for all genetically engineered foods. 
  The petition included a thorough review of new scientific 
  evidence on safety concerns associated with genetic The main new requirement in FDA's proposed regulations is that 
  producers of genetically engineered foods must notify FDA 120 
  days before bringing a new genetically engineered food to market. 
  This notification, known as a pre-market biotechnology notice 
  (PBN), would include various information, such as whether the 
  product contains antibiotic-resistance marker genes and whether 
  it is likely to produce allergic reactions. FDA says it will make 
  a list of PBNs available to the public, but the list may not be 
  complete. In some cases, FDA says, the existence of a PBN could 
  be considered "confidential commercial information."[6, pg. 
  4723] As a result, under the proposed regulations a company could 
  market a genetically engineered food without any public 
  notification. FDA's proposed regulations are open for public 
  comment until April 3, 2001.[5] FDA has also proposed to create non-binding guidance for 
  voluntary labeling. This guidance is clearly not intended for 
  companies using genetically engineered crops, which have nothing 
  to gain by telling consumers what is in their food. Instead, the 
  guidance undermines consumers' right to know what they are buying 
  and threatens to limit the free speech of organic and other food 
  producers, by discouraging the use of labels with phrases such as 
  "biotech free" or "no genetically engineered materials." FDA says 
  these labels will be misleading on most foods, because ordinary 
  food could be contaminated with the products of genetic 
  engineering. In addition, FDA says these phrases could imply that 
  non-engineered food is superior to engineered food, which, FDA 
  says, would be misleading.[8, pg. 4840] U.S. Department of Agriculture Under the Federal Plant Pest Act, the U.S. Department of 
  Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for regulating "plant pests" -- 
  organisms that could cause harm to a plant. USDA considers 
  genetically engineered plants to be possible plant pests if they 
  contain genetic material from organisms, such as some bacteria, 
  included on an official list of plant pests.[1, pg. 109] Plants 
  engineered without the use of genes from a recognized plant pest 
  may escape USDA regulation entirely. Even when genes from a plant 
  pest are involved, the manufacturer has discretion to decide 
  whether the engineered plant is itself a plant pest. USDA does 
  not tell manufacturers what data to take into account when they 
  make this decision.[1, pgs. 110-111] Under USDA's rules, genetically engineered crops that are 
  considered plant pests must first be approved for field testing 
  before they are approved for commercial planting. After 
  conducting field tests, the developer of a genetically engineered 
  crop can apply for "nonregulated status," under which the crop 
  can be planted commercially with no further oversight from USDA. 
  USDA leaves it up to the developer to decide what data to submit 
  in support of its application for nonregulated status.[1, pg. 
  111] According to a recent article in AMERICAN SCIENTIST, many 
  tests that companies submit to USDA are poorly designed, so they 
  are unlikely to reveal any adverse effects that may occur.[9] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency As we saw in REHN #716, crops can be engineered to kill certain 
  insects by adding a gene derived from the bacterium BACILLUS 
  THURINGIENSIS (Bt). Under its authority to regulate pesticides, 
  the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is responsible for 
  evaluating the health and environmental consequences of these 
  engineered plants, which are, themselves, pesticidal. EPA has registered pesticidal crops for five years, but the 
  agency makes these registration decisions on a case-by-case 
  basis; it does not have a standard testing system tailored to the 
  hazards posed by genetically engineered crops.[1, pg. 176] EPA 
  says it is reviewing existing registrations for Bt corn and 
  cotton this year, in order to decide whether it is safe to When EPA registers a chemical pesticide for use on food crops, it 
  establishes a tolerance level -- an amount of pesticide residue 
  that is allowable on food. However, thus far EPA has exempted all 
  pesticidal crops from this requirement.[1, pg. 106] Pesticidal crops are likely to promote the development of Bt- 
  resistant pest populations. (See REHN #637, #718.) Despite ample 
  scientific knowledge about this danger, EPA waited until December 
  1999 to issue requirements for resistance management. Under these 
  requirements, companies selling Bt corn are responsible for 
  making sure that farmers grow "refuges" of ordinary corn 
  alongside their pesticidal crops. The idea is that some pest 
  insects will eat only the ordinary corn, so they will be 
  sheltered from the evolutionary pressure that promotes the 
  development of resistant pest populations.[1, pgs. 106-7] In the past five years, corporations have introduced a powerful 
  new technology into our food system without understanding the 
  basics of how this technology works. Government agencies have 
  refused to gather crucial data on how this technology can affect 
  ecosystems and human health. Once again, we are flying blind. *Rachel Massey is a consultant to Environmental Research [1] Thomas O. McGarity and Patricia I. Hansen, BREEDING DISTRUST: 
  AN ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE REGULATION OF 
  PLANT DERIVED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. Report prepared for the 
  Food Policy Institute of the Consumer Federation of America, 
  January 11, 2001. Available at http://- 
  www.biotech-info.net/Breeding_Distrust.html. [2] U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Statement of Policy: 
  Food Derived from New Plant Varieties," FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 57, 
  No. 104, May 29, 1992, pgs. 22984-23005. Available at 
  http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/fr92529b.html [3] Marion Burros, "Documents Show Officials Disagreed on Altered 
  Food," NEW YORK TIMES December 1, 1999. Available at 
  http://www.biotech-info.net/officials_disagree.html. [4] Fred A. Hines, "FLAVR SAVR Tomato (Pathology Review PR-152; 
  FDA Number FMF-000526): Pathology Branch's Evaluation of Rats 
  with Stomach Lesions from Three Four-Week Oral (Gavage) Toxicity 
  Studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677-002, 677-004, and 677-005) and an 
  Expert Panel's Report." Memo to Linda Kahl, Biotechnology Policy 
  Branch, June 16, 1993. Available at 
  http://www.bio-integrity.org/FDAdocs/17/fhlkp.pdf [5] See Joseph Mendelson, "The Food and Drug Administration's New 
  Proposal on Genetically Engineered Foods: First Draft Analysis," 
  January 17, 2001. Available at http://- 
  www.centerforfoodsafety.org/facts&issues/- 
  CFSNewFDAAnalysis.html?cam_id=70. Also see this web site for 
  information on writing to FDA about the proposed regulations. [6] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Premarket Notice 
  Concerning Bioengineered Foods," FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 66, No. 
  12, January 18, 2001, pgs. 4706-4738. Available at http://- 
  www.centerforfoodsafety.org/FRPremarketNotice.html?cam_id=70. [7] Center for Food Safety and others, "Citizen Petition Before 
  the United States Food and Drug Administration." Available at 
  http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/li/FDApetition.html. [8] U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), "Draft Guidance for 
  Industry: Voluntary Labeling Indicating Whether Foods Have or 
  Have Not Been Developed Using Bioengineering; Availability," 
  FEDERAL REGISTER Vol. 66, No. 12, January 18, 2001, pgs. 
  4839-4842. Available at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/- [9] Michelle Marvier, "Ecology of Transgenic Crops," AMERICAN 
  SCIENTIST Vol. 89, No. 2 (March-April, 2001), pgs. 160-167. 
  Available at http://americanscientist.org/articles/01articles/- [10] See Union of Concerned Scientists, "Bt Crop Renewals," 
  http://www.ucsusa.org/food/btcrops.html. Thanks to Charles Benbrook, Caroline Cox, Michael Hansen, Ellen 
  Hickey, Sheldon Krimsky, and Joseph Mendelson for reviewing ################################################################ 
   
  NOTICE 
  In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 this material is 
  distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior 
  interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. 
  Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic 
  version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH NEWS free of charge even 
  though it costs the organization considerable time and money to 
  produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service 
  free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution 
  (anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send 
  your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research 
  Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do 
  not send credit card information via E-mail. For further 
  information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F. 
  by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at 
  (410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944. 
   
  --Peter Montague, Editor 
  ################################################################ 

 




Document Number: 7019 
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020128/misc/28corn.htmwhen 
  genetically modified plantsImagine you're in Denver. Now drive north for 
  20 hours straight.Welcome to Maymont, Saskatchewan, a place sort 
  of like NorthDakotaonly colder. Dale Beaudoin, 55, runs 
  an organic farmhere on the Canadian prairie. "It's fairly 
  nice, I guess, when it isn'tdry," he says. Dry, however, is a good 
  word for his farm's cashflow. Beaudoin got premium prices for keeping 
  his crops free ofpesticides and other controversial trappings 
  of modernagriculture. But his 1999 canola harvest tested 
  positive forgenetically modified (GM) strains, and its 
  value dropped by a third.So earlier this month Beaudoin joined some 
  1,000 other farmers ina suit against GM canola makers Monsanto and 
  Aventis, allegingthe firms' seeds have contaminated organic 
  fields. The farmerswant restitution for lost profits and to block 
  the introduction of GMAre genetically engineered cropswhich contain 
  genes fromother species that let plants produce their 
  own pesticides, amongother thingsactually dangerous? Perhaps more 
  to balancesheets and to the environment than to people. 
  StarLink GM corn,for instance, was at the center of an uproar 
  two years ago thatprompted 300 food products to be yanked from 
  grocery stores. ACenters for Disease Control and Prevention 
  study later found noevidence that StarLink actually made anyone 
  sick. But inNovember 2001, scientists reported finding 
  genes from GM corn inMexican "criollo maize," a source 
  of modern corn varieties. Plantbreeders worry such cross-pollination could 
  flood out geneticdiversity, making it impossible to breed new 
  strains. And along withcontamination from GM seeds blowing into organic 
  fields, farmersin western Canada fear GM-enhanced "superweeds"problemplants they can't kill with herbicides. "You 
  really can't containthese genes," says Allison Snow, a plant 
  ecologist at Ohio StateUniversity. With biotech companies working 
  on plants that producedrugs and industrial chemicals, she says, "we 
  have to ask if wewant those genes getting around."Weeding out genes. The seed developers tend 
  to argue thatindividual farmers who buy their GM seeds are 
  responsible for anyadverse effects on their neighbors. But a recent 
  Monsanto law-suit might come back to haunt the biotech companies, 
  saysUniversi- ty of Saskatchewan law Prof. Martin 
  Phillipson. In 1998,Monsanto accused Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan 
  farmer, ofgrowing its herbicide-ready canola without 
  permission. Thecompany won a lawsuit by asserting that it 
  retains intellectualproperty rights over its seed in the field. 
  "They've established thatthey have a lot of rights," says Phillipson, 
  "but no one's evertested whether they also have responsibilities." 
  Beaudoin and his fellow farmers' new lawsuit 
  may force that test. Ifit succeeds, the suit would throw a wheat-field-size 
  wrench into thebiotech giants' plans and encourage similar 
  GM-blocking legalaction elsewhere. Beaudoin says the farmers 
  are scrambling fordonations to fund their cause against deep-pocketedcorporations, but he doesn't see any options. 
  "Losing canola wastough," he says. "But if they ever 
  got GM wheat on us, it would

 




Document Number: 690 
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/020128/misc/28corn.htmwhen 
  genetically modified plantsImagine you're in Denver. Now drive north for 
  20 hours straight.Welcome to Maymont, Saskatchewan, a place sort 
  of like NorthDakotaonly colder. Dale Beaudoin, 55, runs 
  an organic farmhere on the Canadian prairie. "It's fairly 
  nice, I guess, when it isn'tdry," he says. Dry, however, is a good 
  word for his farm's cashflow. Beaudoin got premium prices for keeping 
  his crops free ofpesticides and other controversial trappings 
  of modernagriculture. But his 1999 canola harvest tested 
  positive forgenetically modified (GM) strains, and its 
  value dropped by a third.So earlier this month Beaudoin joined some 
  1,000 other farmers ina suit against GM canola makers Monsanto and 
  Aventis, allegingthe firms' seeds have contaminated organic 
  fields. The farmerswant restitution for lost profits and to block 
  the introduction of GMAre genetically engineered cropswhich contain 
  genes fromother species that let plants produce their 
  own pesticides, amongother thingsactually dangerous? Perhaps more 
  to balancesheets and to the environment than to people. 
  StarLink GM corn,for instance, was at the center of an uproar 
  two years ago thatprompted 300 food products to be yanked from 
  grocery stores. ACenters for Disease Control and Prevention 
  study later found noevidence that StarLink actually made anyone 
  sick. But inNovember 2001, scientists reported finding 
  genes from GM corn inMexican "criollo maize," a source 
  of modern corn varieties. Plantbreeders worry such cross-pollination could 
  flood out geneticdiversity, making it impossible to breed new 
  strains. And along withcontamination from GM seeds blowing into organic 
  fields, farmersin western Canada fear GM-enhanced "superweeds"problemplants they can't kill with herbicides. "You 
  really can't containthese genes," says Allison Snow, a plant 
  ecologist at Ohio StateUniversity. With biotech companies working 
  on plants that producedrugs and industrial chemicals, she says, "we 
  have to ask if wewant those genes getting around."Weeding out genes. The seed developers tend 
  to argue thatindividual farmers who buy their GM seeds are 
  responsible for anyadverse effects on their neighbors. But a recent 
  Monsanto law-suit might come back to haunt the biotech companies, 
  saysUniversi- ty of Saskatchewan law Prof. Martin 
  Phillipson. In 1998,Monsanto accused Percy Schmeiser, a Saskatchewan 
  farmer, ofgrowing its herbicide-ready canola without 
  permission. Thecompany won a lawsuit by asserting that it 
  retains intellectualproperty rights over its seed in the field. 
  "They've established thatthey have a lot of rights," says Phillipson, 
  "but no one's evertested whether they also have responsibilities." 
  Beaudoin and his fellow farmers' new lawsuit 
  may force that test. Ifit succeeds, the suit would throw a wheat-field-size 
  wrench into thebiotech giants' plans and encourage similar 
  GM-blocking legalaction elsewhere. Beaudoin says the farmers 
  are scrambling fordonations to fund their cause against deep-pocketedcorporations, but he doesn't see any options. 
  "Losing canola wastough," he says. "But if they ever 
  got GM wheat on us, it would

 




Document Number: 8545 
GM corn set to stop man spreading his seed
Scientists have created the ultimate GM crop: contraceptive
corn. Waiving fields of maize may one day save the worldThe pregnancy prevention plants are the handiwork of the SanDiego biotechnology company Epicyte, where researchers havediscovered a rare class of human antibodies that attackBy isolating the genes that regulate the manufacture ofthese antibodies, and by putting them in corn plants, thecompany has created tiny horticultural factories that make'We have a hothouse filled with corn plants that makeanti-sperm antibodies,' said Epicyte president Mitch Hein.'We have also created corn plants that make antibodiesagainst the herpes virus, so we should be able to make aplant-based jelly that not only prevents pregnancy but alsoblocks the spread of sexual disease.'Contraceptive corn is based on research on the rarecondition, immune infertility, in which a woman makes'Essentially, the antibodies are attracted to surfacereceptors on the sperm,' said Hein. 'They latch on and makeeach sperm so heavy it cannot move forward. It just shakesabout as if it was doing the lambada.'Normally, biologists use bacteria to grow human proteins.However, Epicyte decided to use corn because plants havecellular structures that are much more like those of humans,making them easier to manipulate.The company, which says it will not grow the maize nearother crops, says it plans to launch clinical trials of theFAIR USE NOTICE: This contains copyrighted material the useof which has not always been specifically authorized by thecopyright owner. Such material is made available in aneffort to advance understanding of environmental, political,human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and socialjustice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided forin section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance withTitle 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributedwithout profit to those who have expressed a prior interestin receiving similar information for research andeducational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtmlto use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that gobeyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the_________________________________Rev. Douglas B. Hunt, BS, MS, PhDConvening Associate, Religious Center on BiotechnologyAdvisor, United Methodist Bioethics Task Force100 Maryland AV, NE - Ste. 300, Washington DC 20002t: 202-488-5635 e: dhunt@gencen.org

 




Document Number: 9558 
GM TRIALS TO FIND MEDICINE RAISE NEW ETHICAL FEARS;
The first GM crop containing human genes is being grown in field 
trials in the middle of a farming heartland. The geneticallymodified rice has been engineered to produce medicine thought to beintended to fight diseases like cystic fibrosis.Details emerged after the Daily Express faced fierce criticism fromthe biotech industry two years ago for "scaremongering" afterrevealing the existence of Chinese GM experiments with human genes.Conservationists say the current trials, in California's SutterCounty, risk contaminating surrounding rice crops destined for humanconsumption. And they say many people will have serious ethicalconcerns about using human genes in plants.Charlie Kronick, GM campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: "There is 
  noexcuse to allow drug-producing crops to be grown in fields where theycan contaminate the environment and food chain."This rice and all the other GM pharmaceutical crops should be bannedand permits for future open field trials revoked. If an individualwants to take a GM medicine, that is their personal decision."But past experience shows that once GM crops are widely planted thereis no way of stopping them contaminating conventional crops."This means rice with human genes could get into the food chain. Inaddition, many people will find the idea of engineering human genesinto a crop totally abhorrent."Last year hundreds of farmers unwittingly planted crops contaminatedwith GM seed across Britain after a mix-up of supplies in Canada. Atthe same time a GM corn not approved for human consumption found itsway into 300 supermarket products in America, forcing stores to clearThe GM rice is being grown by American firm Applied PhytologicsIncorporated. Greenpeace carried out a test in the field, north ofSacramento, and identified two proteins in the rice as humanlactoferrin and human lysozyme, commonly found in breast milk, bileand tears. Lactoferrin is thought to be able to boost the immunesystem while other proteins can be used to treat cystic fibrosis andthe lung disease emphysema. API chief executive Frank Hagie saidlast night that he "welcomed" Greenpeace activists "visiting" 
  thecompany's research plot. He said: "API continues to respect therights of all interested parties to share their views in regard tothis important and safe technology. "This plot has been approved 
  bythe United States Department of Agriculture and complies with all

 




Document Number: 6544 
A GE BACTERIUM THAT COULD HAVE KILLED ALL PLANTS Dr. Elaine Ingham's Testimony (Executive Summary) before the (New Zealand) 
  Royal Commission on Genetic Modification Executive Summary Executive Summary of DR. Ingham's Testimony: Genetically engineered organisms 
  have not been adequately assessed for their environmental or human health effects. 
  It is inadequate to subject ORGANISMS to the tested [sic] required for non-living 
  chemical pesticides, and conclude that there will be no adverse or risky effects 
  from release of those organisms based on that testing. A graduate student of mine, no longer working in the field of engineered organisms, 
  and I did some research on a particular engineered bacterium that had been approved 
  by the USEPA for field testing. No environmental effects were detected during 
  pesticide or toxicity testing with this organism. However, Michael Holmes discovered 
  that the engineered bacterium, Klebsiella planticola with a additional alcohol 
  gene, killed all the wheat plants in microcosms into which the engineered organisms 
  was added 1 . None of the wheat plants were killed in microcosms into which 
  the not-engineered parent organism or just water were added. This bacterium was engineered to produce alcohol from plant debris, so alcohol 
  could be produced after raking up grass straw residues instead of burning fields. 
  This organism would have been released to the real world by placing the residue 
  left at the bottom of the fermentation container following grass straw alcohol 
  production on fields as fertilizer. With a single release, we know that bacteria 
  can spread over large distances, probably world-wide. These bacteria would therefore get into the root systems of all terrestrial 
  plants and begin to produce alcohol. The engineered bacterium produces far beyond 
  the required amount of alcohol per gram soil than required to kill any terrestrial 
  plant. This would result in the death of all terrestrial plants, because the 
  parent bacterium has been found in the root systems of all plants where anyone 
  has looked for its presence. This could have been the single most devastating 
  impact on human beings since we would likely have lost corn, wheat, barley, 
  vegetable crops, trees, bushes, etc, conceivably all terrestrial plants. It is clear, therefore, that current testing procedures required by US regulatory 
  agencies are completely inadequate in assessing the potential risks involved 
  with genetically engineered organisms. Until such time as adequate testing procedures 
  are instigated and carried out, engineered organisms should not be considered 
  to have acceptable risks. 
  Holmes, M. and E.R. Ingham. (1999) Ecological effects of genetically engineered 
  Klebsiella planticola released into agricultural soil with varying clay content. 
  Appl. Soil Ecol. 3:394-399. ** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is 
  distributed for research and educational purposes only. ** 
  Email: information@biotech-info.net 

 




Document Number: 7559 
http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/11.htm
    When Public Relations replaces Science "Golden 
    Rice": A technology for creating Vitamin A deficiency. Golden
rice has been heralded as the miracle cure for malnutrition and hunger of which
800m members ofHerbicide
resistant and toxin producing genetically engineered plants can be
objectionable because of theirBut who could
possibly object to rice engineered to produce vitamin A, adeficiency
found in nearly 3 million children, largely in the Third World? As
remarked by Mary Lou Guerinot, the author of the Commentary on Vitamin A rice
in Science, onecan
only hope that this application of plant genetic engineering to ameliorate
human misery without regardto
short term profit will restore this technology to political acceptability. Unfortunately,
Vitamin A rice is a hoax, and will bring further dispute to plant genetic
engineering wherepublic
relations exercises seem to have replaced science in promotion of untested,
unproven andThe
problem is that vitamin A rice will not remove vitamin A deficiency (VAD).It is a technology that fails in
its promise. Currently,
it is not even known how much vitamin JA the genetically engineered rice will
produce.goal
is 33.3% micrograms/100g of rice.Even
if this goal is reached after a few years, it will be totallySince
the daily average requirement of vitamin A is 750 micrograms of vitamin A and 1
serving contains30g
of rice according to dry weight basis, vitaminA rice would only provide 9.9 micrograms which is1.32%
of the required allowance.Even taking
the 100g figure of daily consumption of rice used in thetechnology
transfer paper would only provide 4.4% of the RDA. In
order to meet the full needs of 750 micrograms of vitamin A from rice, an adult
would have toconsume
2 kg 272g of rice per day.This implies
that one family member would consume the entirefrom the PDS in 4 days
to meet vitaminA needs through "Golden rice". This
is a recipe for creating hunger and malnutrition, not solving it. Besides
creating vitamin A deficiency, vitamin A rice will also create deficiency in
other micronutrientsRaw milled rice has a low
content of Fat (0.5g/100g).Since fat
is necessary for vitamin Auptake,
this will aggravate vitamin A deficiency.It also has only 6.8g/100g of protein, which means lessIt has only 0.7g/100g of
iron, which plays a vital role in the conversion of Betacarotene(precursor
of vitamin A found in plant sources) to vitamin A. Superior
Alternatives exist and are effective. A
far more efficient route to removing vitamin A deficiency is biodiversity
conservation and propagationof
naturally vitamin A rich plants in agriculture and diets. Table
1 gives sources rich in vitamin A used commonly in Indian foods. Hindi name/ Content
(microgram/100g) (Amaranth
leaves) Chauli saag=266-1,166 - (Coriander
leaves) - Dhania=1,166-1,333 (Curry
leaves)-Curry patta=1,333 (Drumstick
leaves)-Saijan patta1=283 (Fenugreek
leaves)-Methi-ka-saag=450 (Radish
leaves)-Mooli-ka-saag=750 (Pumpkin
(yellow))-Kaddu=100-120 (Milk
(cow, buffalo))-Doodh=50-60 (Liver
(Goat, sheep))-Kalegi=6,600 - 10,000 Cod
liver oil=10,000 - 100,000 In
spite of the diversity of plants evolved and bred for their rich vitaminA content, a report of the MajorScience
Academies of the World - Royal Society, U.K., National Academy of Sciences of
the USA, TheThird
World Academy of Science, Indian National Science Academy, Mexican Academy of
Sciences,Chinese
Academy of Sciences, Brazilian Academy of Sciences - on Transgenic Plants and
WorldAgriculture
has stated, Vitamin A deficiency causes half a million children to become
partially or totallyTraditional
breeding methods have been unsuccessful in producing crops containing a high
vitamin Aconcentration
and most national authorities rely on expensive and complicated supplementation
programsResearchers have
introduced three new genes into rice, two from daffodils andThe transgenic
rice exhibits an increased production of betacarotene as aprecursor
to vitamin A and the seed in yellow in colour.Such yellow, or golden rice, may be a useful toolto
help treat the problem of vitamin A deficiency in young children living in the
tropics. It
appears as if the worlds top scientists suffer a more severe form of blindness
than children in poorThe statement that "traditional
breeding has been unsuccessful in producing crops high invitamin
A" is not true given the diversity of plants and crops that Third World
farmers, especially womenhave
bred and used which are rich sources of vitamin A such as coriander, amaranth,
carrot, pumpkin,It
is also untrue that vitamin A rice will lead to increased production of
betacarotene.vitamin A in 100g of
rice is achieved, it will be only 2.8% of betacarotene we canobtain
from amaranth leaves 2.4% of betacarotene obtained from coriander leaves, curry
leaves andEven
the World Bank has admitted that rediscovering and use of local plants and
conservation of vitaminA
rich green leafy vegetables and fruits have dramatically reduced VAD threatened
children over the past20
years in very cheap and efficient ways.Women in Bengal use more than 200 varieties of field greens. Over
a 3 million people have benefited greatly from a food based project for
removing VAD by increasingvitamin
A availability through home gardens.The higher the diversity crops the better the uptake ofThe
reason there is vitamin A deficiency in India in spite of the rich biodiversity
a base and indigenousknowledge
base in India is because the Green Revolution technologies wiped out
biodiversity byconverting
mixed cropping systems to monocultures of wheat and rice and by spreading the
use ofherbicides
which destroy field greens. In
spite of effective and proven alternatives, a technology transfer agreement has
been signed between theSwiss
Government and the Government of India for the transfer of genetically
engineered vitamin A riceThe
ICAR, ICMR, ICDS, USAIUD, UNICEF, WHO have been identified as potential
partners.breeding
and transformation is to be carried out at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University,
Coimbatore,Central
Rice Research Institute, Cuttack and Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana
and University ofThe
Indian varieties in which the vitamin A traits are expected to be engineered
have been identified as IR64,
Pusa Basmati, PR 114 and ASD 16. Dr.
M.S. Swaminathan has been identified as "God father" to ensuring
public acceptance of geneticallyDBT & ICAR are also potential
partners for guaranteeing public acceptance and steadyGenetically
engineered vitamin A rice will aggravate this destruction since it is part of
an industrialagriculture,
intensive input package. It will also lead to major water scarcity since it is
a water intensivecrop
and displaces water prudent sources of vitamin A. Transferring
an Illusion to India. The
first step in the technology transfer of vitamin A rice requires a need
assessment and an assessmentOne assessment
shows that vitamin A rice fails to pass the need test. The
technology availability issue is related to whether the various elements and
methods used for theconstruction
of transgenic crop plants are covered by intellectual property rights.need
to be obtained before a product can be commercialised.The Cornell based ISAAA (InternationalService
for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Application) has been identified as the
partner for ensuringtechnology
availability by ensuring technology availability by having material transfer
agreements signedbetween
the representative authority of the ICAR and the "owners" of the
technology, Prof. I. PotrykusIn
addition, Novartis and Kerin Breweries have patents on the genes used as
constructs for the vitamin AAt
a public hearing on Biotechnology at U.S. Congress on 29th June 2000,
Astra-Zeneca stated theywould
be giving away royalty free licenses for the development of "Golden
rice". At
a workshop organised by the M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation, Dr. Barry of
Monsantos RiceGenome
initiative announced that it will provide royalty-free licensesfor all its technologies that can helpthe
further development of "golden rice". Hence
these gene giants Novartis, Astra-Zeneca and Monsanto are claiming exclusive
ownership to thebasic
patents related to rice research.Further, neither Monsanto nor Astra - Zeneca said they will give uptheir
patents on rice - they are merely giving royalty free licenses to public sector
scientists forThis is an
arrangement for a public subsidy to corporate giants for R&Dsince
they do not have the expertise or experience with rice breeding which public
institutions have. Not
giving up the patents, but merely giving royalty free licenses implies that the
corporations likeMonsanto
would ultimately like to collect royalties from farmers for rice varieties
developed by publicMonsanto has stated
that it expects long term gains from these IPRarrangements,
which implies markets in rice as "intellectual property" which cannot
be saved orThe real test for Monsanto
would be its declaration of giving up any patent claims torice
now and in the future and joining the call to remove plants and biodiversity
out of TRIPS.such
an undertaking by Monsanto the announcement that Monsanto giving royalty free
licenses fordevelopment
of vitamin A rice like the rice itself can only be taken as a hoax to establish
monopoly overrice
production, and reduce rice farmers of India into bio-serfs. While
the complicated technology transfer package of "Golden Rice" will not
solve vitamin A problems inIndia,
it is a very effective strategy for corporate take over of rice production,
using the public sector as aReturn 
  to "Genetic Engineering and Its Dangers." 

 




Document Number: 3665 
 NASA's Earth plants could invade 
    Mars 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2001/07/02/MN219554.DTL
With the aid of glowing jellyfish, a team of NASA scientists is proposing 
    a mission to test the soil of Mars for its ability to sustain life. 
  They would do it by growing genetically engineered plants from Earth in 
Martian soil, which robotic equipment would scoop aboard a sealed laboratory 
greenhouse to be landed on the planet. Transplanted jellyfish genes would 
cause the plants to glow if the unfamiliar dirt gave them trouble.
Christopher P. McKay, an astrobiologist at NASA's Ames Research Center in 
Mountain View, has long championed the idea that it may be possible one day to 
transform the Martian climate and atmosphere to make the planet habitable for 
humans.
Now, he plans to submit his "modest" project proposal to NASA as a small 
start toward that long-term goal. If mission planners agree the idea has merit,
McKay and Robert Ferl, a University of Florida plant geneticist, would land a 
small laboratory on the planet's surface and grow flowers there.
Their Mars lander would scoop a few spoonfuls of Martian soil into an 
isolated pressure capsule containing genetically altered seeds of the common 
flowering mustard plant called Arabidopsis thalania. Nourished aboard the 
spacecraft with nutrients from Earth, the plants could get their carbon 
dioxide and moisture from the Martian atmosphere.
The plants would be engineered to glow with different frequencies depending 
on what sort of problems they encounter, such as insufficient carbon dioxide, 
toxicity from heavy metals in the soil, too much peroxide, thirst or heat 
shock.
"We'd just be asking the plant, How are you feeling?'" McKay said. "And if 
it's one small step for Arabidopsis, it's one giant step for life on the 
planet, and I'm a chauvinist for life."

   2001 San Francisco Chronicle  PageA - 4 


 




Document Number: 3403 

  Rural Advancement Foundation International 
  News Release - 3 August 2001 
  It's official. The US Department of Agriculture announced this week that it 
  has concluded negotiations to license the notorious Terminator technology to 
  its seed industry partner, Delta & Pine Land (D&PL). As a result of 
  joint research, the USDA and D&PL are co-owners of three patents on the 
  controversial technology that genetically modifies plants to produce sterile 
  seeds, preventing farmers from re-using harvested seed. A licensing agreement 
  establishes the terms and conditions under which a party can use a patented 
  technology. Although many of the Gene Giants hold patents on Terminator technology, 
  D&PL is the only company that has publicly declared its intention to commercialize 
  Terminator seeds. (for details, see '2001: A Seed Odyssey' RAFI Communique, 
  January/February 2001, www.rafi.org) 
  'USDA's decision to license Terminator flies in the face of international public 
  opinion and betrays the public trust,' said Hope Shand, Research Director of 
  RAFI. 'Terminator technology has been universally condemned by civil society; 
  banned by international agricultural research institutes, censured by United 
  Nations bodies, even shunned by Monsanto, and yet the US government has officially 
  sanctioned commercialization of the technology by licensing it to one of the 
  world's largest seed companies,' explains Shand. 
  'USDA's role in developing Terminator seeds is a disgraceful example of corporate 
  welfare involving a technology that is bad for farmers, dangerous for the environment 
  and disastrous for world food security,' adds Silvia Ribeiro of RAFI. Terminator 
  has been universally opposed as an immoral technology because over 1.4 billion 
  people, primarily poor farmers, depend on farm-saved seeds as their primary 
  seed source. 
  Michael Schechtman, Executive Secretary to USDA's Advisory Committee on Agricultural 
  Biotechnology, made the official announcement regarding the licensing of Terminator 
  at the Committee's August 1 meeting. The 38-member Advisory Committee, established 
  during the Clinton administration, was created to advise the Secretary of Agriculture 
  on issues related to growing public controversy over GM technology. Because 
  of overwhelming public opposition to USDA's involvement with Terminator, the 
  issue became a top priority for the Advisory Committee. USDA officials admitted 
  last year that the Agency had the option of abandoning patents on Terminator, 
  but chose not to do so. Although many members of the Biotech Advisory Committee 
  urged the USDA to abandon its patents and forsake all further research on genetic 
  seed sterilization, the USDA steadfastly declined. The official statement released 
  by USDA this week states that the Agency 'had a legal obligation' to license 
  the technology to D&PL. 
  In a lackluster attempt to quell its critics, the USDA pledged to negotiate 
  licensing restrictions on how the Terminator technology could be deployed by 
  Delta & Pine Land. 'In the end, the restrictions negotiated by USDA are 
  meaningless,' concludes Michael Sligh, RAFI-USA's Director of Sustainable Agriculture, 
  and member of the Biotech Advisory Committee. According to Sligh, 'USDA's promotion 
  of Terminator technology puts private profits above public good and the rights 
  of farmers everywhere.' Sligh spearheaded efforts amongst Advisory Board members 
  who urged the USDA to abandon Terminator. 
  USDA places the following conditions on D&PL's deployment of Terminator: 
  
  _ The licensed Terminator technology will not be used in any heirloom varieties 
  of garden flowers and vegetables and it will not be used in any variety of plant 
  available in the marketplace before January 1, 2003. (RAFI's comment: In other 
  words, Terminator will not be commercialized, at the earliest, until 2003 - 
  only 17 months from now. To suggest that USDA is protecting heirloom varieties 
  from genetic seed sterilization technology is ludicrous. There's no money to 
  be made on genetic modification of heirloom vegetables and flowers. The seed 
  industry aims to engineer seed sterility in major crop commodities - especially 
  those crops that have not been successfully hybridized on a commercial scale 
  such as soybeans, rice and wheat.) 
  _ USDA scientists will be involved in safety testing of new varieties incorporating 
  the GM trait for seed sterility, and a full and public process of safety evaluation 
  must be completed prior to regulatory sign-off by USDA.(RAFI's comment: Can 
  USDA play a role in both developing and regulating this technology? Is it a 
  blatant conflict of interest for the agency to conduct a biosafety review of 
  a product in which it holds a financial interest?) 
  _ All royalties accruing to USDA from the use of Terminator will be earmarked 
  to technology transfer efforts for USDA's Agricultural Research Service innovations 
  that will be made widely available to the public. (RAFI's comment: 'Technology 
  transfer' is a very broad concept. Terminator seeds in every foreign aid package? 
  More paper clips for ARS patent lawyers?) 
  USDA concludes that Terminator 'is a valuable technology.' Ironically, the agency 
  promotes Terminator as a 'green' technology that will prevent gene flow from 
  transgenic plants. 
  'We reject the notion that Terminator is a biosafety bandage for GM crops with 
  leaky genes, but even if it were, biosafety at the expense of food security 
  is unacceptable,' concludes RAFI's Silvia Ribeiro. 
  Last year the FAO's Panel of Eminent Experts on Ethics in Food and Agriculture 
  concluded that Terminator seeds are unethical. When heads of state meet at FAO's 
  World Food Summit Five Years Later in Rome, 9-15 November, they will have the 
  opportunity to re-affirm that finding, and recommend that member nations ban 
  the technology. In keeping with its image as a rogue, isolationist state in 
  international treaty negotiations on global warming and biological weapons, 
  the US also appears to stand alone on Terminator. 
  Delta & Pine Land (Mississippi, USA) is the world's 9th largest seed corporation, 
  with revenues of $301 million in 2000. The company has joint ventures and/or 
  subsidiaries in North America, Brazil, Argentina, China, Mexico, Paraguay, South 
  Africa, Australia, and China. 
  RAFI is an international civil society organization based in Canada. We are 
  dedicated to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and to the 
  socially responsible development of technologies useful to rural societies. 
  
  For further information on this news release: 
  Hope Shand, RAFI: hope@rafi.org 919 960-5223 
  Michael Sligh, RAFI-USA (member of USDA's Ag Biotech Advisory Committee), msligh@rafiusa.org 
  (919) 542-1396 

 




Document Number: 6429 

Geneticists can now create millions of new viruses and bacteria in a matter of 
minutes in the laboratory. And there is no regulation to stop them from being 
effectively released. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho reports. Willem P.C. Stemmer of Affymax Research Institute in Palo Alto, California, 
  published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy Science in 1994, 
  describing a technique for rapidly shuffling and recombining DNA in the laboratory 
  that appears to generate recombinant proteins with greatly improved performances. 
According to Stemmer, computer simulation studies had demonstrated the importance 
  of recombining segments of genes in evolution, rather than single base changes. 
  To put this into practice, he devised a method for reassembling genes from random 
  gene fragments in the test tube. The DNA of the gene is digested with the enzyme deoxyribonuclease 1 (DNAse 
  1) into random 10 to 50 bp (base-pair) fragments. These fragments are heated 
  up to separate the two strands and made to re-anneal (pair up again) in the 
  presence of a DNA polymerase, an enzyme that synthesize DNA. Figure 1 DNA shuffling. Different variants of a gene or a DNA sequence, represented 
  by the different colours are fragmented and reassembled to generate millions 
  of recombinants all at once. See complete version The recombinants are cloned into a vector and introduced into bacteria for 
  rapid screening. In this way, many variants of any gene can be rapidly recombined, even variants 
  from different species. Larger pieces of DNA such as entire plasmids, viral 
  and bacterial genomes can also be recombined. To increase the variety of recombinants, 
  short pieces of synthetic DNA can be added into the mixture. Even non-homologous 
  DNA, from totally unrelated species can be recombined.Stemmer has since set up a California-based company, Maxygen, Inc. to exploit 
  the technology. In a series of papers between 1998 and 2002, he and his coworkers 
  in Maxygen and other companies have used the technique to obtain greatly improved 
  proteins, such as green fluorescent protein, fucosidase, subtilisin, thymidine 
  kinase and interferon-alpha, as well as improved retroviral vectors and bacterial 
  strains of Streptomyces and Lactobacillus.In the experiment on retroviral genomes, 6 mouse leukaemia viruses (MLV) were 
  recombined in a single round, giving a library of 5 million replicating recombinant 
  viruses. Among them were completely new viruses that infect Chinese Hamster 
  Ovary cells, which none of the original MLV was capable of infecting, and recombinant 
  viruses that were 30 to 100 times more stable than the parental strains, and 
  hence much better for gene therapy. So far, such experiments appear to have been carried out exclusively by Maxygen 
  Inc. or by the company in collaboration with other companies, and therefore 
  not independently replicated as far as the remarkable successes are concerned. 
There is no doubt, however, that the procedure itself is dangerous. As these 
  researchers have amply demonstrated, recombination is the major route to generating 
  new viruses and bacteria. Some of the recombinant viruses and bacteria could 
  well be lethal.What precautions have they taken with regard to the recombinants and vectors 
  used, to prevent them from being released into the environment? Are the recombinant 
  viruses and bacteria, or their DNA, strictly contained within the laboratory? 
With unregulated experiments like these, who need bio-terrorists? 
  The Institute of Science in Society, PO Box 32097, London NW1 OXR
  telephone: [44 20 8643 0681] [44 20 7383 3376] [44 20 7272 5636]
  General Enquiries sam@i-sis.org.uk - Website/Mailing List press-release@i-sis.org.uk 
  - ISIS Director m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk 
  MATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT PERMISSION, ON CONDITION 
  THAT IT IS ACCREDITED ACCORDINGLY AND CONTAINS A LINK TO http://www.i-sis.org.uk/ 
  

 




Document Number: 8204 
Frankentrees Are Spreading Across the U.S.Genetically engineered trees quietly sproutingBy PAUL ELIAS, AP Biotechnology WriterBiotechnology is coming to the forest and orchard.Scientists are planting genetically engineered trees in dozens of research 
  projects across the country. They are working to create trees that grow faster, 
  yield better wood, produce hardier crops, fight pollution, even serve as sentinels 
  for detecting germ and chemical attacks.Environmentalists fear dangerous unintended consequences."It won't be as widespread as agricultural biotechnology, but it could 
  be much more destructive," said Jim Diamond of the Sierra Club. "Trees 
  are what's left of our natural environment and home to endangered species."The Sierra Club wants a moratorium on the planting of genetic engineered trees 
  outdoors until the science is better understood. But the plea has been like 
  a tree falling deep in the forest.Tree researchers say their critics are missing all the ways that science can 
  give nature a fighting chance against ravages natural and manmade.Biotechnology, they say, may provide just what is needed to help reverse global 
  deforestation and industrial pollution while satisfying increased demand for 
  wood and paper products.Already, biotechnology has been credited with saving Hawaii's $14-million-a-year 
  papaya industry. A virus had wiped out 40 percent of the crop and threatened 
  to destroy the rest before seeds engineered to resist the virus were introduced 
  in 1998. Now the industry is thriving again.About 230 notices of genetically engineered tree experiments have been filed 
  with the Department of Agriculture since 1989, with about half since 2000. So 
  far, papayas are the only approved engineered tree for market. The rest are 
  still experimental.Some researchers are infusing trees with genetic material taken from viruses 
  and bacteria that helps them grow faster and fatter and yield better wood. Others 
  are splicing mercury-gobbling bacteria genes into trees, enlisting nature to 
  help clean polluted soil.Still others are inserting foreign genes that might reduce the amount of toxic 
  chemicals needed to process trees into paper.Fruit-tree farmers are looking for hardier trees with less reliance on chemical 
  bug and weed killers.And the Pentagon even awarded Colorado State researchers $500,000 this year 
  to develop a pine tree or other plants that can change colors when exposed to 
  a germ or chemical attack.Many field trials are backed by paper and timber companies hoping to design 
  trees that yield more wood and paper.ArborGen LLC, a North Charleston, South Carolina-based biotechnology company 
  whose backers include International Paper and MeadWestvaco Corp., said it has 
  50 field trials under way. Chief technology officer Maud Hinchee said the company's 
  work could reduce reliance on national forests by creating faster-growing trees 
  cultivated on industry plantations.Poplar, eucalyptus, apple and coffee trees are among those being engineered. 
  Researchers even hope to revive the cherished American chestnut, devastated 
  a century ago by a tree-stunting blight that prevents them from growing higher 
  than shrubs become before succumbing.All this is being done today because of better understanding of tree genomes. 
  The Dendrome Project at the University of California at Davis offers detailed 
  genetic information on 100 trees on its Web site.Except for the Hawaiian papaya, no genetically modified tree is expected to 
  be commercialized for the next five to ten years. Trees grow much slower than 
  crops, and genetic researchers need years to compare generations.Could biotech trees crossbreed with their natural brethren and ruin forests' 
  genetic diversity? The Sierra Club fears that, among other ecological consequences.Researchers hope to placate critics by engineering sterility into their designer 
  trees, so their effect on the environment can be contained. But that technology 
  remains elusive.Forestry researchers are proud of their work but have become cautious about 
  disclosing where their genetically engineered trees are growing.In June, three protesters were arrested after chaining themselves inside a 
  UC-Davis science building to protest tree research. And two years ago, the Earth 
  Liberation Front claimed responsibility for arson attacks in Seattle and Clatskanie, 
  Oregon, that caused more than $3.5 million in damage.Oregon State University researcher Steven Strauss, who tends to a few thousand 
  engineered trees, said some of the protesters' are virtually identical to those 
  of scientists. After all, he is working to engineer poplars that are sterile."The violent guys just don't understand the science," he said. "Genetic 
  engineering is not one thing, it's a thousand things. But the extremes want 
  to stop it all."Sierra Club: http://www.sierraclub.org/biotech/trees.aspStrauss lab: http://www.cgrb.orst.edu/mcb/faculty/strauss/index.htmlDendrome Project: http://dendrome.ucdavis.edu/
  News | Campaigns | GE Food | Organics | Irradiation | Find Organics | Events 
  
  Mad Cow | Globalization | Cloning | rBGH | Food Safety | Newsletter | Search 
  
  Volunteer | Donate | About | Home | Recommend Site | Email This Page | Site 
  Map 
  6101 Cliff Estate Rd, Little Marais, MN 55614
  E-mail:Staff  Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164  Fax: 
  218-353-7652
  Please support our work. Send a tax-deductible donation to the OCA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 




Document Number: 4416 
New life for redwood harvesting [GMO Redwoods]
  Fed up with protracted environmental battles over logging North Coast redwoods, 
  a California timber company is cloning some of the state's grandest trees and 
  shipping them to New Zealand, where they'll be grown for lumber.Soper-Wheeler Co. has contracted with a Humboldt County tree nursery to grow 
  and ship about 150,000 genetically engineered baby redwoods to the company's 
  10,000-acre Conway Hills plantation on New Zealand's South Island. The seedlings, 
  transported in sterilized Petri dishes, will be planted in August, which is 
  late winter in New Zealand.Six months ago, Soper-Wheeler planted the first 50,000 young redwoods at the 
  site, an old sheep ranch that the company acquired for $905,000 two years ago. 
  The company also is establishing a Douglas fir plantation at the site.Soper-Wheeler's New Zealand redwood plantings will continue over the next 35 
  years, with the first trees to be harvested and sent to U.S. mills at the end 
  of that cycle, according to Jim Rydelius, a veteran North Coast forester who 
  is managing the project.Rydelius said because of climate conditions and genetically improved strains, 
  the New Zealand trees are expected to be "significantly larger" than 
  North Coast redwoods of the same age.Soper-Wheeler is a century-old Sierra Nevada-based company that owns 103,000 
  acres of timberlands, including a 10,000-acre swath of Mendocino County redwoods. 
  It is ranked among the state's most respected timber companies.Soper-Wheeler's New Zealand venture is the biggest industry attempt yet to 
  grow redwoods for commercial timber production outside the fabled species' native 
  California coastal environment.Rydelius said the first batch of baby redwoods planted six months ago has shot 
  up so fast that most of them "will have grown 10 inches or more in height 
  by the end of their first growing season."If Soper-Wheeler's project proves to be as successful as earlier efforts in 
  New Zealand to establish large-scale fir and pine planations, industry leaders 
  and forestry experts say it's destined to reshape the commercial cultivation 
  of an ancient tree species long considered unique to California."Even if North Coast redwood productivity maintains the status quo, consumer 
  demand over the next 40 years will outstrip available supply. New Zealand redwood 
  could fill the gap," said William Libby, professor emeritus of forestry 
  and genetics at UC Berkeley.Industry foresters said Soper-Wheeler's concerns about the long-term effects 
  of environmental restraints on North Coast redwood producers are legitimate."We, too, know it isn't going to get any easier to grow and harvest redwoods 
  in Northern California," said Mike Jani, chief forester for Mendocino Redwood 
  Co. in Ukiah. Jani's company, largely owned by members of San Francisco's Fisher 
  family, owns about 200,000 acres of timberland in Mendocino and northern Sonoma 
  counties.Mendocino Redwood is among a growing list of state timber companies who are 
  looking to New Zealand for possible future investments in redwood and Douglas 
  fir production.Already, Mendocino Redwood and Soper-Wheeler have entered into a joint New 
  Zealand venture to cut and mill a four-acre grove of redwoods planted in an 
  early but largely failed experiment about 70 years ago.Jani said the surviving New Zealand redwoods, some as tall as 200 feet, will 
  be felled over the next few months and milled into rough planks of unfinished 
  lumber. The boards will be shipped to Mendocino Redwood's Ukiah mill for testing 
  and processing this summer."It's going to allow both companies to do a very thorough study of how 
  redwoods grow in New Zealand, and whether the quality of the wood can in fact 
  meet our future needs," said Jani.Soper-Wheeler President Jim Holmes said the company's multimillion-dollar commitment 
  in New Zealand marks an end to four decades of investment and expansion in California.Given the state's current regulatory and environmental climate, Holmes said, 
  "One conclusion is inescapable: it is no longer prudent to make forestry 
  investments in California.""Why spend money to plant trees or to raise timber or to buy timberland 
  that you will never be allowed to harvest? Why finance someone else's 'national 
  park?'" said Holmes.In New Zealand, Holmes said, Soper-Wheeler is being warmly welcomed by a government 
  that "honors property rights like we did 50 years ago."New Zealand is so eager to expand its booming timber industry that a newly 
  published "New Zealand Redwood Growers Handbook" was recently circulated 
  among attendees at a series of seminars that covered all aspects of the emerging 
  redwood industry, "with an emphasis on export of logs to the viable California 
  market."In the 1980s, New Zealand ended 60 years of government ownership of a vast 
  system of commercial timber plantations that was originally established to halt 
  depletion of the country's indigenous forests. The government plantations were 
  sold to private investors, whose practices are now monitored by the New Zealand 
  Ministry of Forestry.But Libby, an internationally recognized redwood expert who has worked and 
  studied in New Zealand, said government regulators there judge timber companies 
  "on the merits" of their operations, instead of relying on "prescriptive" 
  measures favored in California to address environmental concerns. As a result, 
  Libby said, timberland owners in New Zealand, unlike those in California, don't 
  face "additional risks from changing political directions."In investing in New Zealand, Soper-Wheeler is ignoring spotty and largely unsuccessful 
  efforts over the past century to establish viable redwood production there."The early efforts failed because of poor location and planting techniques, 
  but we know a lot more now," said Libby. In 1979, Libby was involved in 
  redwood planting experiments with the New Zealand Forest Research Institute.Libby said preliminary results suggest that redwoods, if planted in areas that 
  mimic the temperate climate and wet winters of the North Coast, can grow even 
  larger in New Zealand.By tapping into the genetics of the best redwoods available, Soper-Wheeler's 
  plantation forests could end up with towering trees of unusual stature and strength, 
  he said.Libby said as it is, New Zealand already is home to "one of the most beautiful 
  groves of redwoods I've ever seen anywhere.""It was planted only 100 years ago as part of a random experiment," 
  he said. Today, the redwood grove near Rotorua is a major New Zealand tourist 
  attraction, drawing as many visitors as state and federal redwood parks on the 
  North Coast.For family-owned Soper-Wheeler, the New Zealand redwood venture represents 
  a second migration.About 100 years ago, company founders in Wisconsin speculated on timber investments 
  in California and Oregon, including a 14,000-acre tract surrounding Strawberry 
  Valley in the Sierra Nevada northeast of Marysville. Since then, the company's 
  holdings and production capacities in Northern California have grown dramatically.The company's turn to New Zealand is not without financial risks, Holmes acknowledged 
  recently in a written explanation to his employees.But Holmes said a century ago, company owners headed West "not because 
  they wanted to, but because they felt they had no choice.""Similarly, today's investors would prefer to continue their growth in 
  California, but under the circumstances are convinced that growing in California 
  is not an option and that they too have no choice."So, said Holmes, "What goes around comes around, and here we go again."You can reach Staff Writer Mike Geniella at 462-6470 or mgeniella@pressdemocrat.com.

 




Document Number: 9253 
What happens when this stuff escapes into the wild?Farmers Weekly 12 January 2000 
  Making plastic from maize, once a pipedream, is now a growing business in the 
  US. Brendan James looks at what could be an important new use for the crop 
  THERE would seem to be little connection between farmers of the American Mid-West 
  and petrochemical plastics factories burning precious reserves of fossil fuel. 
  But what if their vast, rolling fields of corn had granules of plastic forming 
  in the stalks and leaves? For farmers like Brian Peterson, a Western Iowa corn grower, this is a far 
  from academic question. Mr Peterson farms near Mondamin in Harrison County, 
  30 miles from the wet milling plant of agricultural giant Cargill. It is also 
  the site of Cargill Dow's $300m (200m) plastic manufacturing facility 
  that will be taking l000t of maize a day by the end of 2001. 
  "This is something farmers have been waiting for," says Kevin Swanson, 
  chairman of the Nebraska Corn Board. "It represents a new market and a 
  variety of new, high-tech products." 
  The effects will not, however, be limite to American corn growers. Cargill Dow 
  is developing the technology to use annually renewable agricultural waste and 
  other crops such as wheat, and sugar beet. It has also announced plans to open 
  a similar facility in Europe within the next two years. 
  What type of plastic is it? 
  Cargill Dow, a 50/50 joint venture between Cargill Inc and the Dow Chemical 
  Co, owns the most successful process. Currently Cargill Dow is manufacturing 
  6000- 8000t/yr of corn-derived plastics (PLA) at its plant near Minneapolis, 
  but construction has started on a new $300m (200m) 140,000t/yr plant 
  in Blair, Nebraska. This will begin production by the end of 2001 and produce 
  NatureWorks PLA, a polylactide polymer for worldwide sale. PLA is the result of only 15 years research started by Cargill Inc and is reckoned 
  to be a big achievement for a specialist grain trader with fermentation and 
  distillation expertise. However, as an agricultural firm, Cargill had taken 
  it as far as it could by 1997. The company needed an associate with access to 
  chemical markets and polymerisation capabilities, and Dow Chemicals was the 
  ideal partner. 
  PLA production starts with the fermentation of corn sugar which turns it into 
  lactic acid. Condensation is then used to turn the lactic acid into short-chain 
  polylactic acid which is turned into lactic by the vacuum distillation process. 
  The final stage, called ring-opening polymerisation, then creates the final 
  product. By January 2000 two firms, Fibre Innovations Technology and Unifi, were already 
  producing fibres and yarns from Nature-Works PLA. They are now developing new 
  products with industry brand leaders such as Woolmark and several well-known 
  sports wear companies. 
  Cargill Dow believes that it is the application advantages of PLA, rather than 
  its environmental benefits, that will let it compete with conventional plastics. 
  It is apparently soft and wrinkle resistant and when used in clothing drapes 
  well. Used in carpeting, it has low flamability and excellent UV stability. 
  In packaging, it offers outstanding gloss, a good printing surfface and resistance 
  to moisture and grease. 
  Importantly, Cargill Dow's long term vision for PLA takes the process even further. 
  "We may eventually go all the way from taking in local corn supplies to 
  producing finished goods in the same location," says Gruber. "It is 
  also conceivable that we could set up the whole process as a closed loop, in 
  which we bring in the biomass, extract the sugar, and burn the rest as fuel 
  to reduce dependency on imported hydrocarbons. 
  A new agricultural industry? Clearly, harvesting the carbon which plants remove from the air to produce 
  plastics from natural plant sugars is no longer just a vision. It is something 
  that Cargill Dow and their closest rivals Du Pont already do on a global scale. 
  
  Cargill Dow uses maize that is not genetically modified, while Du Pont and several 
  others use GM plants. One experimental process actually produces plastic granules 
  in leaves and stalks within the plant itself, converting plant sugars to polymers 
  during growth. Many researchers see this as the most efficient, and most elegant, 
  way to make plastics from renewable resources. Developed first by ICI, then 
  Monsanto, it was used to manufacture packaging for niche markets in the nineties 
  but lack of funds and opposition by environmental groups has halted development. 
Though commercially some way behind Cargill Dow, Du Pont has recently announced 
  its intention to market a plant-derived polymer under the brand name Sorona. 
  The technology involves inserting four genes taken from various species of bacteria 
  and yeast into industrial strains of E Coli. 
  Unlike PLA, Sorona in its commercial form is not biodegradable.It is, however, 
  recyclable, easily dyed, and stain resistant. It can also be stretched up to 
  15% while retaining its original shape and can be used in polyurethane and synthetic 
  leather when mixed with other acids. 
  Du Pont began commercial production of Sorona in October 2000. Initial production 
  will be 12,000t a year with the ability to expand to 50,000t a year. Manufacturing 
  agreements are also in place with Du Pont's Dacron polyester businesses in Europe, 
  the US, Korea, and Japan. 

 




Document Number: 2883 
FAO report reveals GM crops not needed to feed the world
(www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/faoreport.htm ) By 2030 the world's population is expected to top eight billion. Can the world 
  produce enough food to meet global demands? The answer is yes, according to 
  a new report from the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) Global 
  Perspective Studies Unit completed in April and released at the end of July.This conclusion is reached by FAO experts whose quantitative analysis specifically 
  does NOT allow for any production improvements from genetically modified (GM) 
  crops. These are not factored in by FAO due to the ongoing uncertainties regarding 
  the technical performance, safety and consumer acceptance of GM crops. (p.2)Accordingly the FAO projections are restricted to being based on 'present-day' 
  technical knowledge only (p.1, 2, 95, 117). Ignoring the impact of any future 
  developments in genetic engineering, and using a baseline year of 1995/7, the 
  FAO report reveals that:* the latest assessment of world population trends by the UN (UN,1999) indicates 
  that there is a 'drastic deceleration' in world demographic growth in prospect. 
  (p.3)* the growth rate of the world population, which had peaked in the second half 
  of the 1960s at 2.1 percent p.a. and had fallen to 1.3 percent p.a. by the late 
  1990s, is projected to fall further to 1.0 percent by 2015, to 0.7 percent by 
  2030 and to 0.3 percent by 2050. (p.4, 25)* although the annual rate of growth in global crop production is expected 
  to reduce, the projected overall increment in world crop production to 2030 
  of 57% (p.95, 96) will exceed population growth. (p.25)* global per capita food consumption will grow significantly. The world average 
  will approach 3000 kcal/person/day in 2015 and exceed 3000 by 2030. Average 
  consumption in developing countries will rise from 2626 in the 1990's to 3020 
  in 2030. (p.4, 23, 29)* the number of well-fed people (i.e. not classed as undernourished) in developing 
  countries will increase by 75% by 2030, to produce a level equivalent to 94% 
  of their population. (p.5) (The outstanding balance will reflect the failure 
  of countries to transit to rapid economic development and poverty reduction.(p.40))* in parallel the number of countries having high incidence of undernourishment 
  will reduce by 84% by 2030. (p.5)* by 2030, crop production in the developing countries is projected to be 70 
  percent higher than in the 1990s. (p.11)* projected faster growth in crop production in developing countries, as compared 
  to the world average, means that by 2030 this group of countries will account 
  for almost three-quarters (72 percent) of world crop production, up from two-thirds 
  (66 percent) in 1995/97 and just over half (53 percent) in 1961/63. (p.95). 
  [Given this prognosis it is not surprising that biotechnology companies are 
  currently keen to gain a foothold for GM crops in developing countries.]The FAO report emphasises that: "Concerning the future, a number of projection studies have addressed 
  and largely answered in the positive the issue whether the resource base of 
  world agriculture, including its land component, can continue to evolve in a 
  flexible and adaptable manner as it did in the past, and also whether it can 
  continue to exert downward pressure on the real price of food (see for example 
  Pinstrup-Andersen et al., 1999). The largely positive answers mean essentially 
  that for the world as a whole there is enough, or more than enough, food production 
  potential to meet the growth of effective demand, i.e. the demand for food of 
  those who can afford to pay farmers to produce it." (p.109)[i.e. any residual hunger problems will be largely poverty, rather than production 
  related (p.40) - e.g: as is the case in India at present where millions of people 
  go hungry despite the country holding massive grain surpluses in store: for 
  more on this shameful situation see - http://biotech-info.net/Biotechnology_not_answer.html 
  . Notwithstanding this overriding poverty factor absolute numbers of those undernourished 
  are expected to halve globally by 2030 despite the projected increase in total 
  population. (p.40)].The Food and Agriculture Organisation is the largest autonomous agency within 
  the United Nations. Its report "Agriculture: Towards 2015/30", can 
  be obtained at http://www.fao.org/es/ESD/at2015/toc-e.htm .Whilst the FAO's quantitative projections avoid the GM factor altogether, it 
  is worth noting that such crops frequently perform worse for farmers than conventional 
  crops - for more on this see, http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/gmagric.htm 
  .So the obvious remaining question is - why are we taking unnecessary risks 
  with global food security and the environment by introducing GM crops incorporating 
  recombinant DNA?For more information on the nature of those risks see 'The Promise of Plant 
  Biotechnology - The Threat of Genetically Modified Organisms', an excellent 
  review by Patrick Brown, Professor of Pomology and Director of International 
  Programs, College of Agriculture & Environmental Science, University of 
  California, Davis: http://www.lifesciencenz.com/repository/external_news_material/promise_opponent.htm 
  (New Zealand Life Sciences Network web site). "RDNA techniques are profoundly different from traditional breeding methods 
  and are well known to cause unexpected metabolic perturbations. The principle 
  of substantial equivalence is not scientifically justifiable; hence we can make 
  no a priori assumption of the safety of any rDNA manipulation." Patrick 
  Brown, July 2000.

 




Document Number: 7532 
No Foolproof Way Is Seen to Contain Altered Genes
  new report commissioned by the government suggests that it will be difficult 
  to completely prevent genetically engineered plants and animals from having 
  unintended environmental and public health effects. The report, released yesterday by the National Research Council of the National 
  Academy of Sciences, says that while there are many techniques being developed 
  to prevent genetically engineered organisms or their genes from escaping into 
  the wild, most techniques are still in early development and none appear to 
  be completely effective. "One of our big messages throughout the whole report is that there are 
  very few bioconfinement methods that are well developed," Anne R. Kapuscinski, 
  a professor of fisheries, wildlife and conservation biology at the University 
  of Minnesota and a member of the committee that wrote the report, said at a 
  news conference in Washington yesterday. Companies and scientists are now developing a wide range of genetically modified 
  organisms: salmon that grow superfast, mosquitoes engineered not to transmit 
  malaria, corn that produces pharmaceuticals and industrial chemicals. One concern about these transgenic products is that their genes or the organisms 
  could spread. Fast-growing fish, if they were to escape into the wild, might 
  beat out regular salmon for food or mates, disrupting the ecological balance. 
  Genes giving crops resistance to herbicides or insects might spread to weeds, 
  making the weeds harder to eradicate. Pollen flow from corn engineered to produce 
  a drug could allow the drug to get into corn destined for the food supply. Much of the efforts to prevent these effects have involved physical containment, 
  like growing fish in tanks rather than the ocean or growing crops in greenhouses. 
But the new report, commissioned by the Department of Agriculture, looks at 
  biological methods of containment, which it calls bioconfinement. These include 
  measures like inducing sterility by giving fish an extra set of chromosomes 
  or exposing insects to radiation. Bacteria might be given "suicide genes" 
  that would cause them to self-destruct if they escaped. Crop scientists are 
  working on a variety of techniques, including putting the foreign genes into 
  the chloroplasts rather than the nucleus because chloroplast genes usually do 
  not get into the pollen. In many cases, the report says, such bioconfinement will not be needed because 
  the organisms will pose little risk. But it says that when it is needed, it 
  might be useful to use more than one method at a time, since no single method 
  is likely to be 100 percent effective. The report also says such bioconfinement 
  methods are best considered early in the development of a genetically modified 
  plant or animal rather than as an afterthought. The panel's report could have some bearing on issues now before regulators. 
  It recommends, for instance, that nonfood crops be sought for growing pharmaceuticals 
  or chemicals that need to be kept out of the food supply. This position is favored by many environmental and consumer groups and by food 
  companies, which fear that a contamination incident would hurt sales and undermine 
  public confidence in food safety. But the biotechnology industry has generally 
  argued that it is most economical to use widely grown crops like corn and that 
  these crops can be adequately isolated from crops grown for food.The report also says there are weaknesses in the safeguards being taken by 
  a company that is seeking Food and Drug Administration approval to sell salmon 
  genetically engineered to grow faster. The company, Aqua Bounty Technologies of Waltham, Mass., has said it would 
  sell to fish farms only female fish that have been sterilized, thereby eliminating 
  the possibility that the fish could reproduce should they escape into rivers 
  or the ocean. But the report says those methods alone might not be sufficient, 
  in part because sterilization does not always work. It says the fish should 
  be grown only in special inland facilities, rather than in cages in the ocean 
  from which they might escape. Joseph B. McGonigle, vice president of Aqua Bounty, said there were errors 
  in the report. "They clearly don't have a full grasp of both what we're 
  proposing and how effective the technology is," Mr. McGonigle said. Consumer groups and the biotechnology industry differed on their interpretation 
  of the report. Gregory Jaffe of the Center for Science in the Public Interest said the report's 
  conclusion that there was no foolproof bioconfinement method suggested "there 
  is a need to have a better regulatory system that assesses whether there are 
  any risks to begin with." But the Biotechnology Industry Organization said in a statement that the report 
  concluded that "technology providers have a variety of methods available 
  to ensure confinement of organisms modified through biotechnology when risk 
  warrants it." In another report issued yesterday, the National Research Council said urgent 
  action was needed to preserve the Atlantic salmon in Maine, where the fish supply 
  has been rapidly declining. The fish there constitute most of the Atlantic salmon 
  population in the United States. A program of removing dams should start immediately, 
  the report said. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

 




Document Number: 9845 
Forget Frankenfruit - the new-and-improved flavor of gene science 
is Earth-friendly and all-natural. 
Welcome to the golden age of smart breeding.Once upon a technologically optimistic time, the founders of a swaggering biotech 
  startup called Calgene bet the farm on a tomato. It wasn't just any old tomato. 
  It was the Flavr Savr, a genetically engineered fruit designed to solve a problem 
  of modernity.  Back when we all lived in villages, getting fresh, flavorful tomatoes was 
  simple. Local farmers would deliver them, bright red and bursting with flavor, 
  to nearby markets. Then cities and suburbs pushed out the farmers, and we began 
  demanding our favorite produce year-round. Many of our tomatoes today are grown 
  in another hemisphere, picked green, and only turn red en route to the local 
  Safeway. Harvesting tomatoes this way, before they've received their full dose 
  of nutrients from the vine, can make for some pretty bland fare. But how else 
  could they endure the long trip without spoiling? Flavr Savr was meant to be an alternative, a tomato that would ripen on the 
  vine and remain firm in transit. Calgene scientists inserted into the fruit's 
  genome a gene that retarded the tendency to spoil. The gene-jiggering worked 
  - at least in terms of longer shelf life. Then came the backlash. Critics of genetically modified food dubbed the Flavr 
  Savr "Frankenfood." Sparked by the Flavr Savr's appearance before 
  the US Food and Drug Administration, biotech watchdog Jeremy Rifkin set up the 
  Pure Food Campaign, stalling FDA approval for three years and raising a ruckus 
  that spread to Europe. When the tomato finally emerged, it demonstrated that 
  there was no accounting for taste at Calgene. Flavr Savr wasn't just oddly spelled; 
  it was a misnomer. Even worse, the fruit was a bust in the fields. It was highly 
  susceptible to disease and provided low yields. Calgene spent more than $200 
  million to make a better tomato, only to find itself awash in red ink. Eventually, 
  it was swallowed by Monsanto.But the quest for a longer-lasting tomato didn't end there. As the Flavr Savr 
  was stumbling (Monsanto eventually abandoned it), Israeli scientist Nachum Kedar 
  was quietly bringing a natural version to market. By crossbreeding beefsteak 
  tomatoes, Kedar had arrived at a savory, high-yield fruit that would ripen on 
  the vine and remain firm in transit. He found a marketing partner, which licensed 
  the tomato and flooded the US market without any PR problems. The vine-ripened 
  hybrid, now grown and sold worldwide under several brand names, owes its existence 
  to Kedar's knowledge of the tomato genome. He didn't use genetic engineering. 
  His fruit emerged from a process that's both more sophisticated and far less 
  controversial. Welcome to the world of smart breeding. The tale of the Flavr Savr is a near-perfect illustration of the plight of 
  genetically modified organisms. A decade ago, GMOs were hailed as technological 
  miracles that would save farmers money, lower food prices, and reduce the environmental 
  damage unintentionally caused by the Green Revolution - a movement that increased 
  yields but fostered reliance on chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and wanton 
  irrigation. Gene jocks said they could give us even greater abundance and curb 
  environmental damage by inserting a snip or two of DNA from another species 
  into the genomes of various crops, a process known as transgenics. In some cases, GMOs have fulfilled their promise. They've allowed US farmers 
  to be more productive without as much topical pesticide and fertilizer. Our 
  grocery stores are stuffed with cheaply produced food - up to 70 percent of 
  all packaged goods contain GM ingredients, mainly corn and soybean. GM has worked 
  even better with inedible crops. Take cotton. Bugs love it, which is why Southern 
  folk music is full of tunes about the boll weevil. This means huge doses of 
  pesticides. The world's largest cotton producer, China, used to track the human 
  body count during spraying season. Then in 1996, Monsanto introduced BT cotton 
  - a GMO that employs a gene from the bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis to make 
  a powerful pesticide in the plant. BT cotton cuts pesticide spraying in half; 
  the farmers survive. But while producers have embraced GMOs, consumers have had a tougher time understanding 
  the benefits. Environmentalists and foodies decry GMOs as unnatural creations 
  bound to destroy traditional plants and harm our bodies. Europe has all but 
  outlawed transgenic crops, prompting a global trade war that's costing US farmers 
  billions in lost exports. In March, voters in Mendocino County, California, 
  banned GMO farming within county lines.Opponents have found an ally in crop scientists who condemn the conglomerates 
  behind transgenics, especially Monsanto. The company owns scores of patents 
  covering its GM seeds and the entire development process that creates them. 
  This gives Monsanto a virtual monopoly on GM seeds for mainline crops and stifles 
  outside innovation. No one can gene-jockey without a tithe to the life sciences 
  giant.Which brings us back to smart breeding. Researchers are beginning to understand 
  plants so precisely that they no longer need transgenics to achieve traits like 
  drought resistance, durability, or increased nutritional value. Over the past 
  decade, scientists have discovered that our crops are chock-full of dormant 
  characteristics. Rather than inserting, say, a bacteria gene to ward off pests, 
  it's often possible to simply turn on a plant's innate ability. The result: Smart breeding holds the promise of remaking agriculture through 
  methods that are largely uncontroversial and unpatentable. Think about the crossbreeding 
  and hybridization that farmers have been doing for hundreds of years, relying 
  on instinct, trial and error, and luck to bring us things like tangelos, giant 
  pumpkins, and burpless cucumbers. Now replace those fuzzy factors with precise 
  information about the role each gene plays in a plant's makeup. Today, scientists 
  can tease out desired traits on the fly - something that used to take a decade 
  or more to accomplish. Even better, they can develop plants that were never thought possible without 
  the help of transgenics. Look closely at the edge of food science and you'll 
  see the beginnings of fruits and vegetables that are both natural and supernatural. 
  Call them Superorganics - nutritious, delicious, safe, abundant crops that require 
  less pesticide, fertilizer, and irrigation - a new generation of food that will 
  please the consumer, the producer, the activist, and the FDA.  One of the smart breeder's most valuable tools is the DNA marker. It's a tag 
  that sticks to a particular region of a chromosome, allowing researchers to 
  zero-in on the genes responsible for a given trait - a muted orange hue or the 
  ability to withstand sea spray. With markers, much of the early-stage breeding 
  can be done in a lab, saving the time and money required to grow several generations 
  in a field. Once breeders have marked a trait, they use traditional breeding 
  tactics like tissue culturing - growing a snip of plant in a nutrient-rich medium 
  until it's strong enough to survive on its own. One form of culturing, embryo 
  rescue, allows breeders to cross distant relatives that wouldn't normally produce 
  a viable offspring. This is important because rare, wild varieties often demonstrate 
  highly desirable characteristics. After fertilization, a breeder extracts the 
  premature embryo and fosters it in the lab. Another technique - anther culture 
  - enables breeders to develop a complete plant from a single male cell.The science behind some of these techniques makes transgenics look unsophisticated. 
  But the sell is simple: Smart breeding is the best of transgenics crossed with 
  the best of organics. It can feed the world, heal the earth, and put an end 
  to the Big Ag monopoly. Take it from Robert Goodman, the former head scientist at Calgene who now works 
  with the McKnight Foundation, overseeing a $50 million program that funds genomics 
  research in the developing world. "The public argument about genetically 
  modified organisms, I think, will soon be a thing of the past," he says. 
  "The science has moved on."In the mid-'80s, a grad student in plant breeding at Cornell University was 
  handed a task that none of her peers would take. Her name: Susan McCouch. Her 
  loser assignment: Create a map of the 40,000 genes spread across the rice genome. 
  In 1988, the completion of that work would be heralded as a scientific breakthrough. 
  Sixteen years later, it's beginning to shake corporate control of science. A genome map is a detailed outline of an organism's underlying structure. Until 
  McCouch came along, rice - the most important food for most of the world's poor 
  - was an orphan crop for research. Big Ag was interested only in the Western 
  staples, wheat and corn. But good maps enlighten - geologists once looked at 
  maps of South America and Africa and figured out that the edges of the two continents 
  fit together, giving rise to the idea of plate tectonics. McCouch's map was 
  just as revealing. Researchers compared it to the genomes of wheat and corn 
  and realized that all three crops, along with other cereal grasses - more than 
  two-thirds of humanity's food - have remarkably similar makeups. The volumes 
  of research into corn and wheat could suddenly be used to better understand 
  developing world essentials like rice, teff, millet, and sorghum. If scientists 
  could find a gene in one, they'd be able to locate it in the others.By extension, characteristics of one crop should be present in related plants. 
  If a certain variety of wheat is naturally adept at defeating a certain pest, 
  then rice should be, too; scientists would just need to switch on that ability. 
  McCouch started her project as a way to unlock the door to the rice library; 
  it turned out she cut a master key. Still at Cornell, McCouch is now learning how crossbreeding domesticated rice 
  with wild ancestors can achieve super-abilities that neither parent possesses. 
  "We're finding things like genes in low-yielding wild ancestors, which 
  if you move them into cultivated varieties can increase the yields of the best 
  cultivar," McCouch says. "Or genes of tomatoes that come out of a 
  wild background - they make a red fruit redder. We also have ways to make larger 
  seeds, which can yield bigger fruit." Generations of unscientific plant 
  breeding have inadvertently eliminated countless valuable genes and weakened 
  the natural defenses of our crops. McCouch is recovering the complexity and 
  magic.Food scientists around the world are picking up on her work. In China, researcher 
  Deng Qiyun, inspired by McCouch's papers, used molecular markers while crossbreeding 
  a wild relative of rice with his country's best hybrid to achieve a 30 percent 
  jump in yield - an increase well beyond anything gained during the Green Revolution. 
  Who will feed China? Deng will. In India, the poorest of the poor can't afford 
  irrigated land, so they grow unproductive varieties of dryland rice. By some 
  estimates, Indian rice production must double by 2025 to meet the needs of an 
  exploding population. One researcher in Bangalore is showing the way. H. E. 
  Shashidhar has cataloged the genes of the dryland varieties and used DNA markers 
  to guide the breeding toward a high-yield super-rice. In West Africa, smart 
  breeders have created Nerica, a bountiful rice that combines the best traits 
  of Asian and African parents. Nerica spreads profusely in early stages to smother 
  weeds. It's disease-resistant, drought-tolerant, and contains up to 31 percent 
  more protein than either parent. This is not exclusively a matter of crafting new rice varieties in the developing 
  world. Irwin Goldman, a horticulture professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison, 
  cites McCouch's work as critical to the progress he's made with carrots, onions, 
  and beets. For example, he has spawned a striped beet through some sophisticated 
  genome tweaking - and in the process revealed methods to improve the appearance 
  and taste of all sorts of vegetables.Beet genes make two pigments of a class of chemicals called betalain. When 
  both are present, the beet is red. Switch off one gene, as happens in natural 
  mutations, and the beet is gold. Switch it on and off at different stages and 
  the beet becomes striped. Creating a striped beet is not hugely important by 
  itself - striped heirloom varieties date back to 19th-century Italy. What's 
  significant is that Goldman pinpointed the genes responsible for the trait and 
  figured out how to turn them on. This type of smart breeding may one day lead to something as useful as a high-yield 
  rice that's naturally rich in beta-carotene, which our bodies convert to vitamin 
  A. For years, genetic engineers have been trying to introduce so-called golden 
  rice to Asia, where vitamin A deficiency causes millions of people to go blind 
  every year. Creating the GM version wasn't easy - it required the insertion 
  of two daffodil genes - but it wasn't nearly as difficult as getting it to the 
  people. As with the Flavr Savr, golden rice drew the ire of the Frankenfood 
  crowd while running afoul of some 70 patents. A natural counterpart wouldn't 
  encounter such problems. Far-fetched? Maybe, considering that there's no known 
  naturally occurring rice containing beta-carotene. Then again, we never thought 
  carrots had vitamin E - until Goldman found some.  By scouring the carrot gene bank, Goldman discovered several exotic varieties 
  of carrots (ranging in color from yellow to orange, red, and purple) that make 
  vitamin E. Capitalizing on that native ability is a matter of tagging the relevant 
  genes and crossbreeding the wild relatives with ordinary, everyday carrots. 
  Gene bank searches are also revealing a whole host of antioxidants, sulfur compounds, 
  and tannins - chemicals that bring sharp color and strong tastes - that have 
  been stripped out of our lowest-common-denominator crops over the centuries. 
  Many of these qualities not only fight cancer and increase the nutritional value 
  of our vegetables, but also make them taste better while helping plants fight 
  disease. We now have the ability to bring these traits back.And we can do it quickly. It often takes seed companies several years to establish 
  a new variety. To recover their investment, they release seeds that don't usually 
  pass on the parents' traits, forcing farmers to buy new seed every year. Smart 
  breeding, by contrast, is faster and cheaper because much of it can be done 
  in the lab - reducing the time and expense of growing countless varieties in 
  the field. Goldman's work is funded by university dollars, which allows him 
  to give away the spoils. He links up with local organics growers, farmers' markets, 
  and the expanding counter-agribusiness food movement and hands out open-pollinated 
  seeds - ag's version of open source.Richard Jefferson is an iconoclastic American bluegrass musician living in 
  Australia. He's also a brash biotechnologist intent on wrestling control of 
  our crops away from Big Agriculture. As head of Cambia (the Center for the Application 
  of Molecular Biology to International Agriculture), a plant science think tank 
  in Canberra, he's sowing the seeds of a revolt, citing the open source ethos 
  of Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman as inspiration. "In the case of 
  almost every single enabling technology, the corporations have acquired it from 
  the public sector," he says. "They have the morals of stoats."If McCouch and Goldman are making an end run around GMO by improving on methods 
  that predate genetic engineering, Jefferson is taking a direct approach. All 
  three scientists use an expanded knowledge of plant genomes to create new crop 
  varieties. But where McCouch and Goldman do gene bank searches and study genome 
  maps to figure out which plants to bring together, Jefferson digs into the genome 
  itself and moves things around. He doesn't insert anything - he calls transgenics 
  "hammer and tong science; as dull as dishwater" - but he's not above 
  tinkering. His big idea: manipulate plants to teach ourselves more about them. 
Jefferson made a name for himself as a grad student in 1985 when he discovered 
  GUS, a clever little reporter gene that causes a glow when it's linked to any 
  active gene. He distributed GUS to thousands of university and nonprofit labs 
  at no cost - but charged the Monsantos of the world millions. He used the money 
  to establish Cambia, which invents technologies to help developing world scientists 
  create food varieties without violating GMO patents.Transgenic researchers treat the genome like software, as if it contained binary 
  code. If they want an organism to express a trait, they insert a gene. But the 
  genome is more complicated than software. While software code has two possible 
  values in each position (1 and 0), DNA has four (A,C,T, and G). What's more, 
  a genome is constantly interacting with itself in ways that suggest what complexity 
  theorists call emergent behavior. An organism's traits are often less a reaction 
  to one gene and more a result of the relationship between many. This makes the 
  expression of DNA fairly mysterious.Jefferson is out to master this squishy science with a practice he calls transgenomics. 
  You are different from your siblings because your parents' genes were unzipped 
  during reproduction and the 23 chromosomes on each half rejoined in a unique 
  pattern. The same thing happens in plants. Jefferson has modified native genes 
  to act as universal switches that turn a plant's latent genes on and off. Simply 
  put, he's rigging the reproductive shuffle.In a process he calls HARTs - homologous allelic recombination techniques - 
  Jefferson manipulates genomes (no insertions allowed) to force plants to mimic 
  other crops. "We're taking inspiration from one plant and asking another 
  plant to make that change in itself," he says. One example Jefferson likes 
  to talk about is sentinel corn - a plant-sized version of the GUS gene that 
  would turn red when it needs water. It may not sound like much, but by the time 
  a traditional corn plant wilts, it's usually too late. More efficient irrigation 
  would mean the difference between profit and loss - or nourishment and starvation. 
Jefferson's greatest hope to challenge Big Ag comes in what's known as apomixis 
  - plant cloning. He wants to teach all sorts of crops to clone themselves the 
  way dandelions and blackberries do naturally. When a plant's seeds produce genetically 
  identical offspring, there's no need to buy hybrid seeds every year. Jefferson 
  and rival scientists claim to have several paths to apomixis - but the race 
  is competitive and no one's offering details. The real problem, says Jefferson, 
  is not developing the methods, but releasing them into a world of patents. "I 
  am not a technological optimist who thinks that if you put a technology out 
  there, everything is going to be fine," he says. "How you put it out 
  there matters as much or more than what it is." His solution is to create an open source movement for biotechnology. In his 
  vision, charitable foundations, which have paid for most of the world's public-interest 
  crop science, would fund platform technologies and provide free licenses to 
  public and private scientists. Commercial end products would be encouraged, 
  but the basic technology, the OS, would remain in public hands. To get the whole 
  thing started, Jefferson is offering up Cambia's portfolio of patents. It's tempting to reach for the Linux versus Microsoft analogy to describe 
  Cambia's plan to unlock some of the astounding technologies that remain dormant 
  in labs and greenhouses. It's powerful, but also decentralized, networked, and 
  accessible - democratic. It's like Monsanto's mainframe giving way to biotech's 
  equivalent of the PC. Agriculture is one of the most ill-conceived human endeavors. We plow down 
  stable communities of hundreds of species of plants to get single-row crops. 
  We replace entire ecosystems with pesticides, fertilizers, precious fresh water, 
  and tractor emissions. Then, after every harvest, we start all over again. Organic 
  agriculture breaks this cycle. But it's just a Band-Aid on the wound.Add the knowledge and tools of biotechnology, though, and we are on the verge 
  of something enormous. Plant genomes carry age-old records that reveal the complex 
  manner by which nature manages itself. Researchers around the world - McCouch, 
  Goldman, and Jefferson are a few examples - are learning to not only read those 
  records but re-create them. Which is not to say success is automatic. This new era of food won't arrive 
  with a technological big bang. But that's a good thing. Single events are too 
  easy to control and monopolize. A steady trickle of innovation will buy time 
  to get the marketing right. Public perception is as complex as the genome, and 
  just as important to master. The science is taking hold. If the business side 
  can clearly communicate what superorganics are - and what they are not - these 
  new foods will not only change the way we eat, they'll change the way we relate 
  to the planet.The mission: Develop rice that's resistant to bacterial blight and will thrive 
  around the globe.SEARCH Food scientists scour the rice gene bank, consisting of 84,000 seed 
  types, in search of varieties with blight immunity. INSERT MARKER Scientists extract DNA from selected varieties and tag the blight-immunity 
  gene - previously identified by researchers - with a chemical dye. CROSSBREED A network of researchers around the world cross disease-resistant 
  varieties with thousands of local versions. With some plants, this means merely 
  putting two varieties in a room. Self-pollinating rice requires manual pollen 
  insertion.ANALYZE The offspring are analyzed to detect the presence of the immunity gene. 
  Those containing the gene are planted in a field. TEST Mature plants are exposed to bacterial blight to confirm resistance. Those 
  that don't die, and maintain desired traits from the local variety, are distributed. 
  Unless REPEAT Sometimes, the process reveals several genes responsible for a trait. 
  Three genes confer resistance to different blight strains. In such cases, breeders 
  repeat the crossbreeding until all genes are turned on.END RESULT A rice plant with broad resistance to bacterial blight that will 
  thrive in local conditions.
  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright  1993-2003 The Cond Nast Publications Inc. All 
  rights reserved. Copyright 2004, Lycos, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 




Document Number: 610 
GM TRIALS TO FIND MEDICINE RAISE NEW ETHICAL FEARS; HUMAN GENE CROP FURY
  The first GM crop containing human genes is being grown in field trials in the middle of a farming heartland. The geneticallymodified rice has been engineered to produce medicine thought to beintended to fight diseases like cystic fibrosis.Details emerged after the Daily Express faced fierce criticism fromthe biotech industry two years ago for "scaremongering" afterrevealing the existence of Chinese GM experiments with human genes.Conservationists say the current trials, in California's SutterCounty, risk contaminating surrounding rice crops destined for humanconsumption. And they say many people will have serious ethicalconcerns about using human genes in plants.Charlie Kronick, GM campaigner for Greenpeace UK, said: "There is noexcuse to allow drug-producing crops to be grown in fields where theycan contaminate the environment and food chain."This rice and all the other GM pharmaceutical crops should be bannedand permits for future open field trials revoked. If an individualwants to take a GM medicine, that is their personal decision."But past experience shows that once GM crops are widely planted thereis no way of stopping them contaminating conventional crops."This means rice with human genes could get into the food chain. Inaddition, many people will find the idea of engineering human genesinto a crop totally abhorrent." Last year hundreds of farmers unwittingly planted crops contaminatedwith GM seed across Britain after a mix-up of supplies in Canada. Atthe same time a GM corn not approved for human consumption found itsway into 300 supermarket products in America, forcing stores to clearThe GM rice is being grown by American firm Applied PhytologicsIncorporated. Greenpeace carried out a test in the field, north ofSacramento, and identified two proteins in the rice as humanlactoferrin and human lysozyme, commonly found in breast milk, bileand tears. Lactoferrin is thought to be able to boost the immunesystem while other proteins can be used to treat cystic fibrosis andthe lung disease emphysema. API chief executive Frank Hagie saidlast night that he "welcomed" Greenpeace activists "visiting" 
  thecompany's research plot. He said: "API continues to respect therights of all interested parties to share their views in regard tothis important and safe technology. "This plot has been approved bythe United States Department of Agriculture and complies with all




Document Number: 1781

Genetics in a Nutshell
Deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, is found inside the nucleus of every cell. DNA tells the cell how to behave and carries information that is passed from generation to generation. DNA is made up of four recurring units, nucleotides or bases, arranged in pairs. The sequence of these units carries the information.[1] A gene is a specific sequence of bases that function as a unit, carrying particular orders for making protein in the body.[2] Genes are responsible for expression of numerous traits in living organisms.

Process of Genetic Modification
In a single sentence genetic modification is a process whereby a segment of DNA, which is found in every living cell, is extracted from one organism and spliced into a recipient organisms preexisting DNA.[3] In this way scientists have achieved techniques for causing one organism to take up and express segments of another organisms DNA faster than the traditional breeding methods previously employed.

There are several methods to achieve the exchange of DNA from one living organism (called the donor) into another(called a host or recipient). Those methods include:

direct DNA uptake by the host cells mediated by chemical or electrical treatments (electro or chemical poration);
microinjection of DNA directly into host cells;
bioballistics, or firing tiny metal particles coated with the DNA of interest into host cells; and
employing plasmids found in bacteria, such as the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, or a virus, as a vehicle to carry the DNA into host cells.
A Closer Look At Each Method
The electro or chemical poration method is a direct gene transfer which involves creating pores in the cell membrane to allow for the entry of the new gene.

The second method, microinjection, involves injection of DNA directly into host cells. Where the cell is large enough, as many plant and animal cells are, the injection can be done with a fine-tipped glass needle and somehow the injected genes find the host cell genes and incorporate themselves among them.

In bioballistics, the third method, a type of bio gun is used to shoot the DNA into the host cell.[4] Scientists coat thousands of tiny shards of tungsten or gold with the new genes and shoot the projectiles into the host cell, hoping that the DNA will be carried to the host cells nucleus.[5] These techniques are imprecise and depend on luck for success. [6]

The fourth method used to create a GMO is recombitant DNA (rDNA). This method uses plasmids and viruses, two biological vehicles, to carry genetic material into host cells.[7] As the Union of Concerned Scientists describes, plasmids are small circular pieces of genetic material found in bacteria that have the ability to cross species boundaries. The circles can be broken and new genetic material added to them. Plasmids augmented with new genetic material can move across microbial cell boundaries and place the new genetic material next to the bacteriums own genes. Often the bacteria will take up the gene and begin to produce the protein for which the gene codes.

Similarly, viruses can also act as vectors in genetic engineering. Viruses are infectious particles that contain genetic material to which a new gene can be added. The virus can carry the new gene into a recipient cell in the process of infecting that cell. The virus can also be disabled so that while it can carry a new gene into a cell, it cannot redirect the cells genetic machines to make thousands of copies of itself.

Read the fact sheet on genetic engineering techniques prepared by the Union of Concerned Scientists for additional details.

[1] Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods Youre Eating, 49 (Yes! Books 2003)
[2] Id. See also DNA From the Beginning, A Gene is a Discrete Sequence of DNA Molecule (last visited July 19, 2009).
[3] John Charles Kunich, Mother Frankenstein, Doctor Nature, and the Environmental Law of Genetic Engineering, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 807, 809 (2001).
[4] Sophia Kolehmainen, Precaution Before Profits: An Overview of Issues on Genetically Engineered Food and Crops, 20 Va. Envtl. L.J. 267, 271 (2001).
[5] Smith, supra note 1, at 57.
[6] Kolehmainen, supra note 4, at 271.
[7] Kolehmainen, supra note 4, at 272.






Document Number: 445
Loss of Biodiversity and Genetically Modified Crops
By Deniza Gertsberg | June 17th, 2011 | 

It is a statistic that is hard to deny:  industrial forms of agriculture, with emphasis on large-scale monoculture crop production, have a negative impact on biodiversity.  The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, referring to the scale of the loss as extensive, found that some 75 percent of plant genetic diversity has been lost since 1900 as farmers turn to genetically uniform, mass-produced crop varieties.

The term biodiversity was derived from biological and diversity, and refers to the total diversity of all life in a given locale  one as small as a backyard (or smaller) or as large as the entire planet Earth. 1

Since genetically modified crops (a.k.a. GMOs) reinforce genetic homogeneity and promote large scale monocultures, they contribute to the decline in biodiversity and increase vulnerability of crops to climate change, pests and diseases.

Genetically modified crops grow in a dynamic environment and interact with other species of the agro-ecosystem and surrounding environment.  As biological novelties to the ecosystems,2 GM crops may potentially affect the fitness of other species, population dynamics, ecological roles, and interactions, promoting local extinctions, population explosions, and changes in community structure and function inside and outside agroecosystems.3

The recent concerns raised by Dr. Don Huber, who noted a link between GM crops, engineered to withstand continued applications of glyphosate, plant diseases and spontaneous abortions and infertility in pigs, horses, cattle and other livestock, further underscore the troubling fact that GM crops may likely have a larger negative impact on the agroecosystem and the surrounding environment.  More importantly, Hubers revelations further point to the inaccurate assumptions made by this nations regulators.  GM crops are not substantially equivalent to their conventional counterparts, they interact in novel ways to impact the plant, the soil and the animals that consume them and government agencies should think twice before deregulating GMOs.

Independent scientists studying the affects of GMOs have also raised other concerns regarding the impact of GMOs on biodiversity.  The spread of transgenes to wild or weedy relatives, the impact of GMOs on nontarget organisms (especially weeds or local varieties) through the acquisition of transgenic traits via hybridization, the evolution of resistance to pests (in case of Bt crops), accumulation of Bt toxins, which remain active in the soil after the crop is plowed under and bind tightly to clays and humic acids and the unanticipated effects of the Bt toxin on nontarget herbivorous insects, ((Garcia and Altieri.)) are areas of concern as are increasing concerns about the adverse impact of GMOs on insects (such as bees, for example), nematodes, and birds, all of whom either consume GMOs seeds or their by-products or are present in glyphosate saturated soils.  [T]he vast majority of soybeans and cotton, and 70% of our corn, is Roundup Ready, leading to over 230 million lbs of glyphosate being sprayed each year, noted Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst at the Center For Food Safety.

Furthermore, the impact of GMOs on biodiversity is also seen in the development of superweeds and superbugs since over-reliance on and the abundant use of single herbicide and pesticide lead to resistance in the pest community.  The unregulated use of glyphosate-resistant crop systems has triggered an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds infesting 10 million acres or more, in this country alone.

GMOs contribute to a decline in biodiversity in one other way.  According to Bill Freese, the Science Policy Analyst with the Center For Food Safety, as biotech companies acquire conventional seed companies, conventional and organic seeds are pushed out. Freese states that:

When Monsanto buys up seed firms, it discontinues the conventional lines, and offers only biotech versions.  So from Monsantos perspective, it makes no sense to sell a high-quality conventional variety when you can charge higher prices and make more money selling that exact same seed, only with a Roundup Ready or other biotech trait(s) stuck into it.

Its not just Monsanto. Bayer and other biotech firms dont want to sell conventional varieties anymore. [They are] [n]ot as profitable. And since the biotech trait is patented, you get the bonus of patent protection when you insert the trait into a seed. That allows the likes of Monsanto to sue farmers for the crime (patent infringement) of saving seed,  .

While additional studies are needed to gain a fuller understanding of the impact of GMOs on biodiversity, the currently available information begs the question of whether GMOs bring more harm than good, especially when small-scale farmers, using ecological methods, can address the pressing agricultural concerns.

Rediscovering Biology: Molecular to Global Perspectives, 2003
Garcia, Maria Alice and Miguel Altieri, (2005), Transgenic Crops: Implications for Biodiversity and Sustainable Agriculture.  Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, p. 339
Id.






Document Number: 8205

Research Shows How Patented Genes May Move In Nature
By Boris Gitlin | November 11th, 2010 |  2
    Email Share


Plants (S. chacoense) transformed using Agrobacterium. Photo by Seb951 / Wikipedia.
Scientists at the University of Bristol have discovered a previously unknown route by which GM genes may escape into the natural environment thus affirming what many have been saying for years, namely, that before GMOs are deregulated and commercialized, we must have a far better understanding of the process of genetic modification.

At the center of the study was Agrobacterium tumefaciens, a bacterium known for its gene transfer mechanism which allows it carry foreign genes into new plants.  It is widely used as a transferring agent in the recombinant DNA process for genetic modification of plants.

Bacterial cells naturally carry plasmids, circular pieces of genetic material that can easily cross cell boundaries, and plasmids inside Agrobacterium tumefaciens make it an ideal tool for genetic modification techniques in plants.  Scientists use plasmids as vehicles or vectors for carrying engineered genes and depositing them into the nuclei of targeted cells where these genes are sometimes incorporated thus transferring new characteristics.

The success of this process relies on hormones and sugars exuded by plants and, in particular, on the plant wound hormone acetosyringone, which attracts Agrobacterium and triggers transformation mechanisms that allow foreign genes to modify targeted cells.  This hormone is secreted when the plant tissues are damaged.

In this study, Professor Gary Foster and his colleagues looked at whether latent Agrobacterium, left in plant tissues from the process of modification, can be used then to transfer synthesized genetic material from modified plants to other organisms in natural environment.  The study results clearly demonstrated that when fungi are placed together with damaged plant tissues, Agrobacterium readily transforms associated fungi enabling a pathway for patented genes to escape.

Professor Foster stated: This study suggests that the encounter between Agrobacterium and a fungus on the plant surface may lead to gene flow in a previously overlooked way, potentially leaking GM genes into the natural world.  In other words, contrary to what GMO proponents would have us believe, genetic modification is not a precise process and may readily have unintended consequences.

This raises a new concern for geneticists and regulators who will need to focus on elimination of any Agrobacterium material prior to release of the GM plant to prevent later escape of proprietary genes.  It also raises concerns as to, what, if any, preventive measures may be sufficient to stop unintended gene flow.







Document Number: 3944
When was the last time you thought about how food was made, where it came from, whether and if it was chemically treated?  With the first ever Non GMO Month around the corner, an awareness campaign launched by the Non GMO Project, perhaps now is a good time to pay attention. As you look at each food item and its ingredients, consider these fundamental unanswered questions concerning genetically modified (GM) foods  which are most foods that you eat today. Disturbingly, while we are force-fed wholesome messages about the alleged benefits of GM foods, a decade and a half after the first GM crops went commercial many of the same concerns persist.

Read on and find out whether you want frankenfood to be your next meal.

1. Human Health Concerns
Many scientists, doctors and health advocates raise concerns about the unintended impact of GMOs on human health. Yes, because there is no independent research (and in fact, seed companies agreements forbid the use of seeds for independent research), nobody can say with any degree of certainty that GMOs are safe.  And so it is not surprising that there are unresolved questions concerning the potential alteration in human genome, allergenicity of introduced genes and high toxin production in plants and animals that may lead to long-term health effects.

Whats more is that certain GMOs may also have the potential to further lower the effectiveness of antibiotics in the population.  Amflora, the GM potato, for example, that was recently approved in the European Union for industrial uses, has a gene for antibiotic resistance.  Superbugs anyone?

While biotech supporters often argue that GM crops have been around since at least 1996 and that people have been consuming GM foods or foods with GM ingredients for a long time without alleged side-effects, the argument is misleading.  There are no specific tests designed to analyze the long term safety of GM foods, no independent research, and no post-marketing follow-up analysis.

Furthermore, from a policy standpoint, since the safety assessment of GMOs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been based on the idea of substantial equivalence such that if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food, FDA gives its stamp of approval.  Interestingly this substantial equivalence determination is made by the biotech company and not FDA.  Obviously this policy is fraught with problems and is a creature of politics and not science. Moreover, such policies create the undeniable impression that government agencies charged with regulating GMOs and ensuring public safety are pandering to industry interests. (Read here, here and here to find out how government regulatory agencies suffer from the revolving-door syndrome as industry insiders go back and forth between leading industry jobs and government regulatory posts.)

If this makes you think that the fox is running the chicken coop, you would be correct.  Just take a look at this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the issue.

It is inappropriate, at best, for biotech companies to prevent independent testing of its products, as they hide behind the wall of intellectual property protection, and then go on to argue that their products are safe. As Scientific American noted, when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nations food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the countrys agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.

It is the same merry-go-round with GM animals, whose approval is within the jurisdiction of the FDA.  The FDA relies on company data to evaluate the safety of the GM animal. Even so, since the FDA does not have an approval process designed specifically for GM animals, it evaluates the GE animal under the process used for new veterinary drugs. As demonstrated by recent submission for approval of GE salmon, what that means is that much of the data provided to the FDA to demonstrate the safety of the GM animal is considered a trade secret.

Thats not safety.  Thats secrecy enshrouded in enigma, and tied tightly with a pink bow of pro-gmo policies.

2.  Animal Health Concerns
Often less discussed is the impact of GMOs on animal health.  While we should be altruistically concerned about the well being of our fellow creatures, the fact is that if they are impacted by GMOs, we are not far behind.


Worker bee. Original by Makro Freak
Animals, especially insects who feed off GM crops, are our canaries in a coal mine.  Take bees and the colony collapse disorder.  Many scientists believe that while several causes may have contributed to the massive bee die-offs of the last four years, at least one contributing factor is the increased use of pesticides.

If there is anything we learned since GM crops went commercial is that pesticides and GMOs go hand-in-hand.

In fact, recent research indicates that since GMOs were introduced, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides than compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of GM seeds. Now, youve heard it before: if bees become extinct then humankind has about four years left.

Oh, and by the way, increased use of pesticides and herbicides leads to superweeds, the weeds that are resistant to those same pesticides we are told are safer (ahem, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsantos Roundup line of pesticides).  Such superweeds include the common ragweed, common water hemp, giant ragweed, hairy fleabane, horseweed, Italian Ryegrass, Johnson grass, palmer amaranth and rigid ryegrass.

This resistance to glyphosate, which is now ravaging the nations South and Midwest, leads to the use of more toxic pesticides such as paraquat and 2,4-D, one component of the Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange.  (See our discussion on GMOs leading to the use of more toxic pesticides here.)

In addition to impacting bees, GMOs may also be negatively impacting other insects  insects that serve as food for larger animals or serve other beneficial purposes in the ecosystem. For example, some researchers point out that the monarch butterflies are at risk and that more long term studies are needed.  There is also research demonstrating that glyphosate adversely impacts the composition of soil thereby causing adverse impact in nematoes (earthworms) and other beneficial soil bacteria.  Finally, plants engineered to express toxic substances could present risks to other organisms, thus disrupting the natural food chain.

3. Environmental Concerns

Eucalyptus
In addition to the threats that GMOs may have on human and animal health, there are also numerous pressing environmental concerns.  The list of potential problems highlighted by the Union of Concerned Scientists is long and portentous.  First, the engineered crops themselves could become weeds. For example, some compared the recently approved for trial planting of GE eucalyptus trees with kudzu, a plant imported for purposes of preventing soil erosion but which became a pest throughout the southern U.S. states.

Second, the crops might serve as conduits through which new genes move to wild plants, which could then become weeds.

Third, crops engineered to produce viruses could facilitate the creation of new, more virulent or more widely spread viruses.

Fourth, plants engineered to express potentially toxic substances could present risks to other organisms like birds or deer thereby potentially disrupting the ecosystem and, as such, have a negative impact on the natural food chain.

Fifth, crops may initiate a perturbation that may have effects that ripple through an ecosystem in ways that are difficult to predict. Finally, the crops might threaten centers of crop diversity.

Similar alarm bells are ringing for GE animals.  As examples, take this report from Greenpeace concerning GE fish and a recent Jill Richardson article discussing the science behind testing of GE salmon.

In addition, the World Health Organization also noted that concerns about GMOs impact on the environment include the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested as well as the stability of the gene.

While GMO supporters argue that there have been no major environmental catastrophes, the absence of something that we are not looking for is not evidence of non-existence.  As authors of the Union of Concerned Scientists report point out, [o]ther than for insect resistance, there is no systematic monitoring underway in the United States to detect adverse effects of genetically modified crops. So much may be going on that we are simply not aware of.

4. Moral and Ethical Concerns
In addition to the practical and earthly concerns over the health and ecological impacts of GMOs, there are also considerations of the higher sorts.  Since genetic modification, by its very essence, requires manipulation of the genetic make-up of an organism, the very core of its existence, some religious scholars question whether scientifically altered crops and animals are unnatural or threaten the natural order, whether genetic manipulation is tantamount to playing God, whether it is a violation of the laws of nature or tampering with nature.  (See GMO Journals series of articles regarding religious perspectives on GMOs.)

In a some cases, GM manipulation involves using animal genes from different species and, for example, if these were pig genes, consuming derived foods may be prohibited by some religions.  Vegetarians and vegans would also want to avoid consuming foods containing genetic material from animals.

Genetic modification of animals also raises animal welfare concerns because such mutation may result in animal suffering.

Even if you are told that GMOs are permitted under your religious or philosophical point of view, you should still engage in some soul searching to determine if you believe that all is right with the world if GMOs are what you eat.

5. Socioeconomic Concerns
GM crops bring to the forefront issues of dominance, power and control, both, domestically and abroad.  As William F. Engdahl exposes in his book Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, control the food and you control the people.

Socioeconomic concerns stem in part from intellectual property protection and the profit interest that flows from it.  Fundamentally, however, it is not simply the profit-driven perspectives of the biotech industry that have so many civil society advocates concerned.  Knowledge that once belonged to everyone, a communal understanding of seeds, crops, farming practices, and an appreciation for biodiversity is now being gobbled up, privatized, patented, and sold to those same farmers in licensed chunks.

As many farmers have painfully discovered, using GM seeds comes with legal strings (and penalties) attached.  Biotech companies require farmers to enter into license agreements in which farmers waive rights, including the right to save seeds.  These contracts also, among other things, encourage farmers to use company specific pesticides.  And thanks to the advocacy of the United States State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, biotech companies are exporting and imposing their idea of agricultural practices to many impoverished parts of the world with great success.

No wonder many farmer advocates are concerned that such imposition of GM seeds is tantamount to corporate colonialism.

And while biotech companies want us to believe that GMOs will save the world from hunger (it sure makes for a great PR message), in reality, complex problems such as hunger and malnutrition will not be solved with GMOs.  Hunger has many contributing factors, as Jim Goodman wrote in a recent article, such as natural disaster, discrimination, war, poor infrastructure and ineffective or corrupt governments. Similarly, food shortages often have little to do with lack of food and more to do with, as Francis Moore Lappe put it, a lack of justice.

And, by the way, the best hope for ending hunger lies with local, traditional, farmer-controlled agricultural production, not high tech industrial agriculture.

So lets dispense with the faux humanitarianism and call spade a spade.

6. Labeling Concerns
Dont let anyone tell you otherwise:  Consumers want to know!

Just recently, an article appearing on The Daily Green reported on a survey about American attitudes on GMOs.  According to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53% of Americans would not eat GM foods if given the choice, while 87% believe GM foods should be labeled as such regardless.

Furthermore, broad public opposition to GMOs in the United States and abroad goes back many years.  Another survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted in 2002, reported that 55% of Americans considered GMOs bad.  According to that survey, the opposition to GMOs was far less wide-spread in the U.S. than in Europe and Asia.  Nearly nine-in-ten in France (89%) said it is bad to scientifically alter fruits and vegetables.  More than seven-in-ten in Germany (81%), Japan (76%) and Italy (74%) also took a negative view of scientifically altered produce.

At the same time, the research fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is still citing a 1999 study that boldly proclaims that American consumers are quite positive regarding continued acceptance of biotechnology.  The statistic would be different if those same consumers had a better understanding about what was involved in the process of genetic modification, what types of tests were conducted on GE animals and crops to assess their safety, as well as the duration of those tests, and the type of non-health related consequences that they may be facing.  (Wed also like to see what types of questions were asked during that study and how the questions were worded.)

Mass media is also not free from blame for the lack of public debate about labeling. Genetic modification is an obscure topic that is hard to explain in a 30 second sound news byte.  It is much easier to talk about the alleged benefits of biotechnology in those 30 seconds  feeding the world, sustainability, saving fish populations, making hardier, drought resistant plants, lowering the costs of foods  than to discuss the lack of progress on those lofty goals and the adverse impacts of GMOs.  It is also too convenient that the biotechs purchase plenty of ad space and air time in many news media outlets.

Consumers not only want to know, they also deserve to know if their food contains GMOs or GM ingredients.

Note that the Food and Drug Administration does allow voluntary labeling and some No GMOs.  No Bioengineered Ingredients. labels have started to appear on packaging.

Next time you shop, consider if you can avoid GMOs and use this Non-GMO Shopping Guide (or the iPhone version) to help you navigate the store isles.  And remember, if you are what you eat, then arent you a GMO?








Document Number: 7719
ndustry's Defense of GMOs - Part II: Further Exploration of the Uses
By Deniza Gertsberg | July 23rd, 2009 |  1
    Email Share

This is the second of a two part series which explores the biotech industrys defense of GMOs. Read Part I: GMOs Uses Identified where I identify the common application of genetic technology today. The article below explores these uses in greater detail.

1. Forcing Expression or Suppression of Traits
One example in which geneticists try to manipulate genetic materials to force the expression or suppression of different traits was the genetically engineered FLAVR SAVR tomato that Calgene, Inc. (now controlled by Monsanto) created in an attempt to extend the shelf life and supposedly improve the flavor of tomato.[1]The Calgene scientists isolated a gene associated with an enzyme involved in the ripening of the tomato plant.[2] They reversed the gene, blocking the expression of the enzyme and extending the time it took before picked tomato became soft.[3] The goal of such tomatoes was to allow extended shelf life, and easier transportation, as tomatoes could be picked while they were still hard.[4] Although FLAVR SAVR was a commercial failure, the model  gene isolation and insertion into another species to affect some trait or process  is still used by genetic engineers.[5]

A subset of this category is the use of GMO seeds in revolutionizing food production and improvement of health of populations in developing nations. Indira Nath, for example, sees biofortification of seeds as a viable solution to health problems related to vitamin deficiencies in developing nations. GMO proponents often use Vitamin A deficiency in populations around the world to support the development and use of GMO seeds.

Vitamin A deficiency, when left untreated, can lead to blindness and affects millions of people in mostly the developing worlds. Similarly, anemia caused by iron deficiency is another common condition in the undernourished population that affects millions. Biotech industrys response to these problems is creating plants that are fortified with vitamin A, iron, micronutrients, proteins and antioxidants. The golden child of this effort was the creation of golden rice. This vitamin A enriched rice was first developed in 2000 and promised to deliver the much needed beta-carotene to impoverished populations. Although golden rice is currently not available for human consumption, this argument of creating bio-fortified GMOs to cure world hunger and make people healthy is still viable.

2. Pesticide Resistance
Another popular use for genetic engineering in plants is pesticide resistance. Organic farmers and scientists discovered that naturally-occurring soil bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis (B.t.), produced proteins that acted as a natural insecticide, killing caterpillars as well as beetle and fly larvae.[6] Although organic farmers had been spraying B.t. on crops with success for over 50 years, genetic engineers wanted to insert the genetic material that triggered B.t. production into crops.[7]

The goal was to induce production of an internalized insecticide in plants, throughout the plants life cycle, in all parts of the plant.[8] That has now been achieved. In transgenic crops B.t. toxin is continuously produced and is protected from the elements, thereby retaining its ability to kill insect pests during the entire growing season.[9] The toxin is expressed in every part of the plant, including internal tissues.[10]

The toxin that was previously applied topically, where it was still possible to wash it off before consumption, is now an integral part of the plant. As an integral part of the plant it becomes an integral part of anyone or anything that consumes it. The unanswered question is if it is toxic to insects, is it safe for human consumption? That remains to be seen.

3. Herbicide Resistance
Herbicides are powerful toxic chemicals used to kill unwanted plants, i.e., weeds.[11] Traditionally farmers had to be extremely careful when applying herbicides to their plants because the herbicide would kill weeds and the plant indiscriminately.[12]

The most widely used herbicide in the United States is glyphosate, known commercially as Roundup.[13]Monsanto, the company that produces Roundup has created Roundup-Ready crops that are genetically modified to be resistant to glyphosate.[14] Genetically engineered crops that are herbicide resistant include oil producing canola (rape seed), corn, soy, flax, papaya, and cotton.[15]

An increasing popular use of genetically modified plants is in pharmacology. Over three hundred USDA approved open-field trials of biopharmaceutical crops have been conducted in dozens of states across the nation.[16] The crops are often entirely experimental, producing substances not yet approved for human exposure or consumption.[17]Many of the crops are bioactive and/or toxic.[18]

4. Pharma Crops
Crops engineered for pharmacology included the following purposes

proteins for healing wounds and conditions such as anemia, liver cirrhosis, and cystic fibrosis; anticoagulants; blood substitutes; hormones; and enzymes to treat Fabrys and Gauchers disease;
antibodies to fight cancer and tooth decay;
vaccines against rabies, cholera, piglet diarrhea, and foot-and-mouth disease;
industrial chemicals, such as compounds used in the manufacture of plastics, personal care items, and laundry detergents; and
research chemicals used in investigative and diagnostic laboratories, such as avidin and beta-glucuronidase.[19]
5. Tolerance to Soil and Temperature
Another potential benefit touted by the biotech industry is the development of GMOs that can withstand drought conditions. The supporters thus advocate that such crops would grow under conditions requiring much less water than non-GM crops. For example, researchers in Egypt are field testing a variety of wheat containing a gene from barley. This genetically engineered (GE) wheat cultivar requires one eighth as much water as its conventional counterpart. The argument certainly has its appeal, considering that the current state of our water supply is rapidly diminishingand global warming is expected to raise the earths temperature by at least 1-2 degrees Celsius. Additionally, biotech proponents also emphasize this benefit of GMOs in its ability to be grown in many impoverished areas of the world many of which are arid.

Undeniably, the biotech industrys arguments in support of GMOs are strong and have an intellectual and humanitarian appeal. The unanswered question, however, is whether in developing the GMOs and integrating them into many phases of our lives (animal feed, pharmacology, food, soil, etc.) we are creating a Frankenstein of sorts. In the words of an Enigma song, are we knocking on forbidden doors?

[1] Sophia Kolehmainen, Precaution Before Profits: An Overview of Issues on Genetically Engineered Food and Crops, 20 Va. Envtl. L.J. 267, 274 (2001).
[2] Food Program: Safety Assessment of Flavr Savr Tomato, April 1997, available at, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/favr_savtm_tomato-tomate_flavr_savrmd-eng.php (last visited on July 21, 2009).
[3] Id.
[4] See id. See also Kolehmainen, supra note 1, at 274, and Jeffrey M. Smith, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods Youre Eating, 137 (Yes! Books 2003).
[5] See Kolehmainen, supra note 1, at 274.
[6] See generally, John Charles Kunich, Mother Frankenstein, Doctor Nature, and the Environmental Law of Genetic Engineering, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 807, 810 (2001).
[7] Id.
[8] See Kolehmainen, supra note 1, at 273.
[9] Kunich, supra, note 6, at 811.
[10] Id.
[11] Kolehmainen, supra note 1, at 273.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Kunich, supra note 6, at 811.
[15] Union of Concerned Scientists, Food and Environment, Genetically Engineered Foods Allowed on the Market, available at, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=337 (last visited on July 21, 2009).
[16] Council for Responsible Genetics, CRGs Official Statement on Biopharmaceutical Crops, available at, http://www.gene-watch.org/programs/biosafety/biopharming-statement.html (last visited on July 21, 2009).
[17] Id.
[18] Union of Concerned Scientists, What Kind of Substances are Being Engineered into Pharmaceutical and Industrial Crops?, available at, http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/biotechnology/page.cfm?pageID=1373 (last visited on July 21, 2009).
[19] Id. See also Kate Madigan, Risky Business: Financial Risks that Genetically Engineered Foods Pose to Kraft Foods, Inc., and Shareholders, (April 2003), available at, http://www.gefoodalert.org/library/admin/uploadedfiles/Risky_Business_Financial_Risks_that_Geneticall.pdf (Sponsored by National Association of State PIRGs, As You Sow Foundation) (last visited on July 21, 2009).





Document Number: 3216
100% Natural GMO Ingredients Challenged In Lawsuits
By Deniza Gertsberg | July 12th, 2011 |  11
    Email Share


Wesson Corn Oil
Two class action suits, one filed in New York and the second in California, challenge the labeling of ConAgra Foods Inc.s line of Wesson cooking oil which proclaims to be pure and 100% natural despite the fact, the complaints allege, that they were derived from genetically modified plants and organisms.

Last time we checked, nature did not make corn that carries genes from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium that is poisonous to insect pests in the corn genome, a view shared by plaintiffs in these lawsuits.

In a conversation with GMO Journal, plaintiffs attorney for the California case, Andrei V. Rado, stated that ConAgras claims of its oils being pure and 100% natural are likely to deceive consumers because the oils contain ingredients made from genetically modified plants, which, even according to industry definitions, are not natural.

Monsanto defines GMOs, the California complaint states, as follows:

Plants or animals that have had their genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. In general, genes are taken (copied) from one organism that shows a desired trait and transferred into the genetic code of another organism. (emphasis in the original).

Similarly, the California complaint alleges that Romer Labs, a company that provides diagnostic solutions, defines GMOs as follows:

Agriculturally important plants are often genetically modified by the insertion of DNA material from outside the organism into the plants DNA sequence, allowing the plant to express novel traits that normally would not appear in nature, such as herbicide or insect resistance. Seed harvested from GMO plants will also contain these modification. (emphasis in the original).

Even the World Health Organization, the California complaint provides, defines GMOs as follows:

[O]rganisms in which the genetic material (DNA) has been altered in a way that does not occur naturally. The technology is often called modern biotechnology or gene technology, sometimes also recombinant DNA technology or genetic engineering. It allows selected individual genes to be transferred from one organism into another, also between non-related species. (emphasis in the original).

The Wesson Oils labels obviously are intended to evoke a natural, wholesome product, the California complaint alleges, while the oils are in fact made from ingredients that most people would not associate as being made or found in nature and are in fact created artificially in a laboratory setting through genetic engineering.  ConAgras Wesson Oils are not natural, much less 100% Natural. Advertising Wesson Oils as natural is deceptive and likely to mislead the public.

In addition to monetary damages sought by both suits, the California case also seeks an order requiring Defendant to adopt and enforce a policy that requires appropriate disclosure of GM ingredients and/or removal of misleading natural claims, which complies with California law.

According to Mr. Rado, it will take some time before a resolution will be reached.  In the meantime, as the cases wade their way through the court system, a project created by consumer advocate group Organic Consumer Association, Million Against Monsanto, is seeking to organize consumers around the country around the idea of labeling GMOs and foods produced in factory farms (aka CAFOs). Then, once we reach a critical mass in our local efforts, we can mount a grassroots lobbying campaign to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.





Document Number: 6101
As many of us have come to know, navigating the supermarket isles is no longer a trivial task. Until recently, those concerned about consuming genetically modified foods (or foods made from genetically modified ingredients) were unable to shop with confidence as a result of the absence of mandatory GM food labeling in the United States.

Taking initiative, the Institute for Responsible Technology (a.k.a. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America) together with the Center for Food Safety, have created the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which has recently been updated.

The updated Guide includes new features, such as a free iPhone App, the ShopNoGMO, which, not only lists brands that do not use genetically modified ingredients, but also identifies more than 100 hidden ingredients, like dextrose and lecithin, which may be derived from GM soy, corn or other GMOs, so consumers know what to avoid. Plus, the iPhone App divides foods into 22 categories, making it easy to locate brands.  The App also allows users to create favorites lists and answers frequently asked questions about GMOs.

You may also want to check out the updated Guide on-line and familiarize yourself with food products and labels. The Guide, for example, gives you information as to the following:

1. Foods that have not been genetically engineered  a category which includes most fruits and vegetables (the only commercialized GM fruit so far is papaya from Hawaii  about half of Hawaiis papayas are GM).

2. Foods derived from animals fed or treated with GE products  While GE animals are not yet commercialized, plenty of non-organic foods are produced from animals raised on GM feed. The Guide advises that you should [l]ook for wild rather than farmed fish to avoid fish raised on genetically modified feed, and 100% grass-fed animals.

Similarly, while shoppers may already be purchasing milk labeled rbGH free, which denotes that cows were not injected with the genetically engineered hormone rbGH, also called rbST, to boost milk production, they may be surprised to know that the animals producing such milk may still have been fed with GM feed. Only organic dairy products are rbGH-free and do not use GM grains as feed.

3. GE foods and ingredients  The updated Guide also identifies the by-products of the most common genetically modified crops in the United Statescorn, soy, canola, and cotton.  Such byproducts  include, but are not limited to, starch, gluten, syrup, soy flour, lecithin, protein, isolate, and isoflavone, and they find their way into the majority of packaged foods in our supermarkets.

4. Non-GMO Certification Program  The updated Guide also cross-references products that participate with the Non-GMO Projects third party GMO Avoidance Verification Program.

Check the brands and the labels of all the products you purchase and compare it against the Guide. If it does not say organic or non-gmo, you cannot be sure that the product and/or its ingredient is not a GMO.

You wallet speaks volumes. Make sure it sends the right message.

Bon apptit!





Document Number: 4956
This Pocket Shoppers Guide to Avoiding GE Foods published by The Center for Food Safety answers the most pertinent and urgent consumer question about genetically modified foods. Which supermarket foods are genetically engineered?

With the absence of GM food labeling standards in the United States, many consumers and advocacy groups have expressed great anxiety over the safety of the foods in our stores. In the words of the publisher, [t]his pocket guide is designed as a quick reference to help you reclaim your right to know about the food you eat and feed your family. It goes to name some GE-free foods and those that may contain GE ingredients.

The shoppers guide identifies three categories of foods:

Foods that have not been genetically engineered - for example, most whole foods  almost all fruits and vegetables, beans, rice, wheat, and other grains  are not not genetically engineered.
Foods derived from animals fed or treated with GE products - While GE animals, including fish, are not yet commercialized, they are fed and treated with GE hormones and products. This guide helps you identify and avoid meat, fish, and dairy products derived from animals that may have been fed or treated with GE products. This includes canned meats and fish and processed foods that may contain milk-derived ingredients, such as whey and milk powders and solids obtained from cows injected with GE hormone rBGH (also called rBST).
GE foods and ingredients - Many of the widely used crops have been genetically altered. Of most concern are the Big Four: corn, soy, canola, and cotton. These crops  especially their byproducts  find their way into the majority of packaged foods in our supermarkets.
Think before you shop and bon appetit!







Document Number: 9239
Whole Foods Partners with Non-GMO Project To Label Non-GM Foods
By Deniza Gertsberg | August 28th, 2009 |  2
    Email Share


Non-GMO Project Verified Seal
Recently, Whole Foods announced that it is partnering with the Non-GMO Project to use the Projects Product Verification Program (PVP) to certify Whole Foods private labeling food line as being free from genetically modified ingredients. In so doing, Whole Foods is joining the Natural Grocery Company, the Big Carrot Natural Food Market and Good Earth Natural Foods, the early partners of the Non-GMO Project, and the companies that have lent major support to the project and participated in the initial piloting of labeling program including Eden Foods, Organic Valley, Lundberg Family Farms, Natures Path Organic and United Natural Foods, Inc. Whole Foods becomes the first major chain at the retail level to enroll its product in the verification system (although other private labels are also interested).

As the Whole Foods press release states, the PVP is the nations first system designed to scientifically test whether a product has met a set of defined standards for the presence of genetically engineered organisms. Specifically, the PVP uses a process that combines on-site facility audits, document-based review and DNA testing to measure compliance with the standard. For a product to bear the non-gmo seal it must undergo a process through which any ingredient at high risk for genetic contamination, such as soy or corn, has been shown to meet the non-GMO standard through avoidance practices and testing.

Once a product has been approved through the PVP it can be described as being verified by the Non-GMO Project and/or be labeled with the Non-GMO Projects compliance seal. The first Whole Foods Market private label products to bear this seal are expected to be in stores before the end of the year.

Needless to say, Whole Foods, together with companies that have already signed up with the Non-GMO Project or are in the process of so doing, are taking a step in the right direction. While some may criticize Whole Foods as a big company whose decision is part of a self-promotion scheme, is indisputable that in this case, a big business is making a decision that will have a positive consumer impact. Would it be too optimistic to hope that if enough companies participated in the labeling it would pave the way to a mandatory labeling requirement?

A related issue is whether Whole Foods and/or other companies will charge extra for products labeled as non-gmo? And if so, what will be the resulting mark-up? It is unfortunate that food production has become so commercialized that consumers have to pay a premium to get food products that are free from impurities. But that is a topic for another day. For now, lets applaud a small victory for consumer choice.

You can find a complete list of companies that have signed up with Non-GMO Project PVP labeling here: http://www.nongmoproject.org/consumers/search-enrolled-products/








Document Number: 1253

Global Land Grab Threatens Unchecked GMO Growth
By Deniza Gertsberg | June 9th, 2011 |  2
    Email Share


Jatropha project in Mozambique by Sun Biofuels, a UK company. Photo by Nilza Matavel
Gold rush is a thing of the past. The name of the new game is land grab, where governments of developed nations and multinational companies are leasing or buying large tracks of land across the African continent and other countries around the world in a feverish rush to grow crops for food and bio-fuel.  While China in particular is looking to cultivate far-away lands to meet their national demand for food, the burgeoning markets of the European Union are hungry for agrofuels.

For countries such as  Saudi Arabia, India, Canada, Belgium, France, South Korea, the Netherlands and even multinational organizations, like the West African Development Bank, African countries such as Ethiopia, Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Liberia, Mali and Zambia are attractive for their arable land and water resources.

Underused or simply cheap land is being snapped up by foreign governments and speculators alike not just in Africa, but also in Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and South America.  Developing nations around the world loosen regulations and even reclassify land tracts to allow purchasers to acquire land in exchange for foreign capital and to develop local biofuel markets.  However, the primary beneficiaries of this land grab remain the foreign buyers who are mainly interested in exports, leaving poor regions with fewer dependable land resources and further threatening their stability.  This is particularly true on the African continent where many countries already are in need of annual assistance.


Click to see larger image. Map showing just a few examples of land grabbing across Africa. Source: Friends of Earth Europe. See the entire report.
What is equally disconcerting is that at least some of what will be grown by foreigners will be genetically engineered crops. Whereas indigenous farmers and local governments have protested the ubiquitous spread of genetically modified crops because they were unable to afford the higher price of patented GM seed, the pesticides that are go hand-in-hand with GMOs, and because of health, cultural and moral concerns of growing transgenic crops, the foreign investors hungry for returns may not be so distinguishing, especially when it comes to growing agrofuel.  With few regulations and with local governments anxious for investment, this could become a bonanza for biotech firms which have long eyed underdeveloped world for expansion.

This has been an under-reported story and below we gathered some of articles of interest on the topic. Also important to note is this report by Friends of Earth Europe, Africa: up for grabs, that documents the breadth of the dramatic impact that this development has on local land and people.

US Universities In Africa land grab

The new report on land acquisitions in seven African countries suggests that Harvard, Vanderbilt and many other US colleges with large endowment funds have invested heavily in African land in the past few years. Much of the money is said to be channelled through London-based Emergent asset management, which runs one of Africas largest land acquisition funds, run by former JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs currency dealers.

Guardian

African Land Grab Could Lead To Future Water Conflicts

China, India and Saudi Arabia have lately leased vast tracts of land in sub-Saharan Africa at knockdown prices. Their primary aim is to grow food abroad using the water that African countries dont have the infrastructure to exploit. Doing so is cheaper and easier than using water resources back home. But it is a plan that could well backfire.

New Scientist

Kazakh Opposition Calls For halt to China expansion

Several hundred people gathered in Almaty, the countrys largest city, for an officially sanctioned rally against Chinese expansion into Kazakhstan, a vast former Soviet republic holding 3 percent of the worlds recoverable oil reserves.

Reuters

Uruguay President Eyes Tax Raise For Big Landowners

Uruguays President indicated that he wanted to raise taxes on the countrys biggest landowners to boost the states share of bumper farming and forestry sector profits, local media reported.  According to Reuters, Foreign investors such as Argentine-based agricultural companies El Tejar and George Soross Adecoagro have snapped up land in the country, which is one of the regions most stable.

African Farmers Displaced As Investors Move In

This New York Times article from December underscores the displacement that thousands of African farmers and their families suffer when they find out their land is owned by foreign investors. Many people, noted the author, condemn the deals as neocolonial land grabs that destroy villages, uproot tens of thousands of farmers and create a volatile mass of landless poor. Making matters worse, they contend, much of the food is bound for wealthier nations.








Document Number: 5386
Back in Court: USDA's Deregulation of GE Alfalfa Challenged
By Deniza Gertsberg | March 19th, 2011 |  Leave a comment
    Email Share

In response to the Jan. 27, 2011, decision by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)  completely deregulating genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa, environmental groups and organic and conventional farmers filed a lawsuit asking the court to determine that the agency violated federal law when it issued its deregulation decision, require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement or supplement the one already performed and vacate the agencys deregulation decision.

APHIS is an agency within the U.S. Department of Agriculture that regulates genetically modified organisms.  GE alfalfa, which is genetically engineered to withstand continued application of Monsantos herbicide, Roundup, is developed by Monsanto and Forage Genetics International, a wholly owned subsidiary of Land O Lakes.

Plaintiffs challenge the agencys decision as unlawful arguing that, among other reasons, APHIS  authorized the unrestricted commercial release of GE alfalfa into the environment despite knowledge of the risks and impacts of gene flow, increase in the use glyphosate, threats to certain endangered species and various other socioeconomic impacts. Plaintiffs also argue that the unrestricted deregulation decision will cause widespread, irreparable and permanent transgenic contamination of conventional, organic and feral alfalfa and because feral alfalfa will contaminate private and public land, the agencys decision will lead to a reduction in biodiversity.  Plaintiffs further decry that the agencys deregulation decision will adversely impact the growing organic industry as it will cause loss of reputation and public trust in organic farmers, dairies and businesses.  Additionally, Plaintiffs argue that the decision will cause an increase in pesticide load on the environment and exacerbate the ongoing glyphosate-resistant weed epidemic, which is regarded as one of the most serious challenges facing American agriculture.

Interestingly, on its website APHIS proudly, if somewhat misleadingly, declares, that [t]o protect agricultural health, APHIS is on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week working to defend Americas animal and plant resources from agricultural pests and diseases.

Paul Achitoff, an attorney with Earthjustice, summed it up well when he stated:

We expect Monsanto to force-feed people genetically engineered cropsthats its business model. We hoped for better from the USDA, which has much broader responsibilities. GE alfalfa will greatly increase use of toxic chemicals from coast to coast, threatens the organic dairy industry, and will have farmers going back to Monsanto every year to buy its patented seed and Roundup.






Document Number: 1955
GMO Express: USDA Approves Yet Another GM Crop
By Deniza Gertsberg | February 12th, 2011 |  4
    Email Share

The US Department of Agricultures (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced on Friday that it would deregulate Syngenta Seeds, Inc.s corn genetically engineered specifically to produce an enzyme called alpha-amylase for biofuel production.  Deregulation means that the product would no longer be subject to USDA oversight and could be grown without any restrictions at any scale in the United States.  The approved corn will be the first genetically engineered industrial crop destined to be planted on millions of acres.

In response to USDAs decision, a consumer advocate group, Center For Food Safety (CFS), announced that it is planning litigation.

According to CFS, the GE corn  known as Event 3272  is genetically engineered to contain high levels of a heat-resistant and acid-tolerant enzyme derived from exotic, marine microorganisms.  The enzyme breaks down starches into sugars, the first step in conversion of corn to ethanol, and has not been adequately assessed for its potential to cause allergies, a key concern with new biotech crops.  Part of the problem is that this GE corn will contain novel proteins, which, according to Union Of Concerned Scientist (UCS), have never been in food and were never intended for human consumption. In fact, except for a small cadre of scientists, human beings have never encountered them.  Furthermore, [a]gronomists suggest that unharvested corn will deposit large quantities of this enzyme in the soil, which could adversely affect soil carbon cycling.

To make matters worse, massive diversion of corn to ethanol has played a significant role in raising food prices and thus aggravating world hunger.  As CFS reports:

Leading food experts have blamed excessive conversion of corn to ethanol for exacerbating the world food crisis by driving up prices of corn and other staples. The World Bank reported an 83% rise in food prices from 2005 to 2008, and estimates that 100 million additional people have been pushed into hunger and poverty as a result. USDA data show that 23% of US corn (3 billion bushels) was converted to ethanol in 2007, jumping to over 30% (3.7 billion bushels) in 2008, with further increases expected as more ethanol refineries are constructed.

If GE crops contribute to world hunger then the biotech industry cannot use the problem as a justification for its products.

The UCS also reports that producing ethanol from corn may actually contribute torather than reduceglobal warming emissions. Recent studies suggest the production of biofuels from corn and other food cropswhether genetically engineered or notmay increase climate changing pollution.

Syngenta, a giant multi-national pesticide company, announced that it will form an advisory council to review the closed loop system that the company has in place for this GE corn. Accepting an invitation from Syngenta, USDA agreed to be part of the council.  According to an APHIS press release, Syngenta is also willing to share information on amylase corn production (wait, here it comes, the back-door escape clause), within appropriate legal and privacy limits, with members of the advisory council.

In explaining the agencys deregulation decision, Michael Gregoire, deputy administrator for APHIS biotechnology regulatory services said that APHIS conducted a plant pest risk assessment and found this line of corn does not pose a plant pest risk, and should no longer be subject to regulation by APHIS.  The agency, however, did not conduct an environmental impact statement.

Neither Gregoires assurances nor Syngentas advisory council calms farmers, consumers and consumer advocate groups concerned about safety. Syngentas biofuels corn will inevitably contaminate food-grade corn, and could well trigger substantial rejection in our corn export markets, hurting farmers said Bill Freese, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety.

In the face of numerous instances of USDAs failure to regulate crops within the existing regulatory framework, which, itself, should be reformed and revamped and when the agency suffers from the revolving door syndrome, favoring, often times industry interests over those of consumers, it is hard to feel assured.  (See our articles here, here and here discussing USDAs failure to regulate GE crops.)








Document Number: 2505

Uganda Testing Genetically Modified Bananas
By Deniza Gertsberg | December 15th, 2010 |  3
    Email Share

Ugandan researchers from the National Agricultural Research Laboratories in Kawanda, have recently began field testing genetically modified bananas. The idea is to help banana farmers in Africas Great Lakes region who lose their banana crop to bacterial disease known as banana Xanthomonas wilt (BXW), which causes infected bananas to ripen unevenly and prematurely, and then to wilt and rot. The genetic modification process that the researchers are investigating involves taking a sweet pepper gene, which produces a protein called HRAP that strengthens the plants ability to seal off infected cells, and inserting it into the banana genome.

With this research on GM bananas, Uganda now joins Africas GM clubwhich currently consists of South Africa, Egypt and Burkina Faso, which grow GM crops commercially, and Kenya, which is expected to start growing such crops in 2012. Several other African countries will soon be eligible members as they are conducting field trials, or, are about to start, on staples such as cowpea (or black-eyed pea), cassava and sweet potato.

The research, growth and commercialization of GM bananas in Africa and other developing nations, or any other staple crop for that matter, raises profound concerns for farmers and consumers alike. We are not just talking about health and environmental safety issues, although they continue to remain at the forefront. To many, genetic modification of crops in developing nations represents issues of domination and control (patented seeds that farmers do not own), access (could farmers afford the annual purchase of GM seeds? will farmers have access to non GM seeds? will governments take measures to prevent cross-contamination?), forced change of agricultural practices (no seed saving allowed, requiring farmers to use specific herbicides and pesticide, creating monocultures, etc), plundering of natural resources (patenting plants unique to Africa) and most importantly, a hereto unseen dependence on a foreign corporation (farmers dependent on inputs, markets, and credit; dependency leads to fewer farmers, lower prices for farmers, jobless, indebtedness and loss of land).

Because of Africas painful history with colonialism, its not surprising that many feel that GMOs is another manifestation of neo-colonialism.

While GM bananas in Uganda are being researched by government scientists, we do not know who or what is funding the research, nor has researched revealed as to how Uganda plans to commercialize GM bananas (license them to a corporation?). Furthermore, many have criticized the current governmental framework which consists of no existing legislature and only two proposed bills that are seen as protecting the rights of commercial plant breeders and not the small farmers or indigenous plant varieties. The findings of Professor James Katorobo, who recently examined the GMO policy in Uganda, demonstrate that there are many problems with the proliferation of GMOs in Africa, not the least of which is a lack of comprehensive legislative scheme.

Sources:

http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/11/28/ending-africas-hunger-means-listening-to-farmers/

http://www.monitor.co.ug/Magazines/Farming/-/689860/1063186/-/2mdtsgz/-/index.html

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101001/full/news.2010.509.html

http://www.newvision.co.ug/D/8/20/739747








Document Number: 1582
When An Apple A Day Makes Things Worse: GMO Apples
By Boris Gitlin | November 30th, 2010 |  3
    Email Share


By Red58bill (CC-BY-3.0), via Wikimedia Commons
A Canadian specialty biotechnology company has asked USDA to approve a genetically modified apple variety that keeps from oxidizing and going brown when cut or damaged.

Unlike the typical commercial GMOs that focus on pesticide or insecticide resistance, the companys gamble is that tree fruits that do not deteriorate as quickly when cut will help boost sales of freshly sliced apples.  The fresh-cut sliced apple market segment has been booming, but this bet is bound to face enormous challenges with consumer, farmer, and industry acceptance.

The company behind the GM apple is Okanagan Specialty Fruits (OSF) based in British Columbia that was founded in 1996.  OSF exclusively licensed its gene control technology from Australias national science agency, CSIRO, and it is looking to alter genes of apples, as well as pears, peaches and cherries.  The company expects that genetic modification will be the right cosmetic touch to benefit apple processors and the food service industry, however it is bound for a failure.

While the USDA and FDA approval process has barely started, the biggest challenge for OSF may be winning over consumer approval.   Beyond public concerns over genetic modified foods, there are also worries that this technology may help hide any damage that apples had incurred during harvest and transportation, as well as the real age of produce on the store shelf.  And the companys actual stated goal is to genetically alter the symbol of nutrition and health and to put this novelty in childrens lunch boxes  thats hardly a way to win over worried parents.

Already some apple industry leaders have expressed skepticism about the potential of this product.  Why tinker with DNA when we already have a number of existing readily-available approved and safe alternatives that keep packaged apple slices fresh.

Similarly, OSF will face an uphill battle in convincing farmers to grow GM apples. Genetically modified  thats a bad word in our industry, said Todd Fryhover, president of Washington Apple Commission, to the Associated Press.  Fryhover also put the price of replanting for apple farmers as possibly too high to make economic sense. Fryhovers Washington state produces more than half of U.S. apple crop.

The company doesnt specify which apple variety was the basis for its proprietary variety named Arctic apple which critics dubbed as the botox apple.

Whichever way you slice it, the regulatory approval process for non-browning GM apples is expected to take years.  This may be one cosmetic surgery on produce that nobody wants.








Document Number: 9799
USDA's Response To A Ban On Monsanto's GM Sugar Beets Is Unlawful
By Deniza Gertsberg | September 10th, 2010 |  7
    Email Share


Sugar beets field, Germany
The United States Department of Agricultures (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) recently announced its response to a court-mandated ban on new planting of genetically modified sugar beets.  Among other things, APHIS said it will issue permits for GM steckling (i.e., seedlings) production.  Many see the agencys response as an attempt to circumvent the Courts order since it would allow for the commercial planting of GM crops without public notice and comment and environmental review.

On August 13, 2010 a California District Court issued a ruling which banned the planting of Monsantos Roundup Ready GM sugar beets until APHIS conducts an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), finding that APHIS failure to conduct one prior to deregulation of GM sugar beets was in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Roundup Ready sugar beets are genetically modified to withstand continued application of Monsantos herbicide, Roundup.

Officially, the agencys statement was in response to a concern among certain growers that there may not be sufficient supply of conventional beet seeds to meet the demand in part because GM sugar beets constitute 95 percent of sugar crop in the United States. Many, however, question whether this is yet another instance of USDA serving Monsantos interests at the expense of the public interest.

APHIS response seeks to, allegedly, not only respond to the concerns of producers while complying with the courts ruling, but also further USDAs continuing efforts to enable coexistence among conventional, organic, and biotechnology production systems. Interestingly, the crux of the District Court ruling was the need for the agency to conduct an EIS to determine whether in fact such a harmonic co-existence is possible. In fact, there is sufficient evidence that points to the contrary, namely, that GM sugar beets will not only pollute conventional and organic beets but will also cross-pollinate with related crops like Swiss chard and table beets, affecting organic and conventional farmers and consumers.

In addition to permitting the planting of GM steckling APHIS also announced that in response to the District Court ruling it will be evaluating requests for a partial deregulation of Roundup Ready sugar beets. The agency also said that its promising to place priority on expediting the completion of the EIS.

Plaintiffs in the GM sugar beet case disapproved of the agencys post-decision conduct. Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of the Center for Food Safety, for example, said that USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops. Despite numerous court opinions, congressional mandates and federal investigations, it continues to act illegally.  In fact, since GM crops were commercialized the agency has yet to conduct a single EIS assessing the impact of such crops.  Kimbrell further stated that [t]he agency and Secretary Vilsack seem to see their mission as defending Monsantos bottom line rather than protecting farmers and consumers. Not surprisingly, prior to announcing its response to the federal court decision, agency members met with companies involved and invested in promoting the gene-altered crop.

On September 8, 2010, Plaintiffs group in the GM sugar beet case have filed a lawsuit arguing that the agency has violated the Courts ruling.








Document Number: 796
Next Generation GM Soybeans From DuPont
By Deniza Gertsberg | June 18th, 2010 |  4
    Email Share

From the company that brought you plastics and rubber (DuPont) comes a genetically modified soybean that is altered to exhibit alleged health benefits. Plenish, as DuPonts GM soy is called, is said to contain more oleic acid  a monounsaturated fatty acid  than other soybeans while its portion of saturated fatty acids is said to have been reduced by roughly 20%.  According to the companys press release, the genetic modification significantly increases the stability of the oil and provides greater flexibility in food applications, and yields a product with zero trans fat.

DuPont is banking on the success of this new development because rather than splicing a bacterial gene into the crop, as is the case with most biotech crops currently on the market, DuPont silenced the expression of a gene in the fatty acid pathways of the soybean seeds.

And on June 8, 2010, the United States Department of Agriculture deregulated Plenish, which means that the crop is approved for cultivation and commercialization. It has already been approved for such purposes in Mexico and Canada, and has been previously given the go-ahead from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2009.  Although DuPont is said to continue testing the crop and the oil this year, both are planned to be ready for global use by 2012.

It is highly debatable, however, whether silencing of genes is any safer than splicing bacterial genes from a foreign entity and inserting the DNA into the host. It may make for a better PR message as, arguably, there is a less of knee-jerk reaction to silencing of genes than to having a salmon gene inserted into a tomato, but safety concerns still remain. Those concerns are not blunted by whether the source material comes from the same species or another. Professor Jack Heineman, for example, likens the process of genetic engineering to cutting a few sentences out of a magazine and inserting them randomly into a book.

Most of the time the resulting pages makes no sense.  Occasionally they do, but we dont always know all of the resulting changes.  It doesnt matter whether the inserted words are from the same book or a magazine; the context of the words has changes sufficiently to make the results uncertain. 

For that reason Prof. Heineman rejects any notion that manipulating the DNA make-up of a species, such as by silencing of genes, be treated any differently than genetic manipulation which occurs when genes from a foreign species are inserted into the host.








Document Number: 5230
Genetically Modified Bananas Harvested In Australia
By Boris Gitlin | April 2nd, 2010 |  
Recently, Australia has made headlines when it was announced that the first harvest of genetically modified (GM) bananas, planted in the South Johnstone area, south of Cairns in far north Queensland, show promise.  The project is spearheaded by Queensland University of Technology, with $5 million grant from the Grand Challenges in Global Health Initiative, which is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.  According to Professor James Daly, the head of the project, [t]he trial was the first of its kind in Australia and probably one of three or four in the world.

The stated humanitarian purpose of the GM bananas is to improve the nutritional content of bananas, as a way of combating malnutrition in Africa, particularly in Uganda, where bananas are a staple food and very low in nutrients.  And according to Professor James Daly, [t]his first planting is demonstrating that at least one of the combinations of genes were putting is working really well for pro vitamin A, and were concentrating on that.

Biotech supporters argue that because cultivated bananas are generally unable to reproduce from seed (i.e., they are grown from offshoots of a parent plant), there is a low-risk for crop contamination by GM varieties.  Even if that were true, the argument nonetheless fails to address all the concerns that GMOs inherently bring to the table, some of which include, but are not limited to, untested or under-tested impact on human health (some studies already suggest decline in animal health after being fed GMO diet), superweeds and superbugs, antibiotic resistance, and loss of biodiversity.  These and other unanswered questions should be answered before we begin to celebrate GM harvests.





Document Number: 6441
Buyer Beware: Monsanto's New GM Soy To Contain Omega-3s
By Deniza Gertsberg | December 11th, 2009 |  1
    Email Share

Weve all been told:  consume Omega-3 fatty acids, usually found in cold water oily fish, for better health.  But weve also been warned: with global fish stocks in decline, if everyone consumed the recommended amounts of fish in order to obtain enough Omega-3s, the results would be catastrophic for wild fish.  There is also a concern that eating too much of certain kinds of fish may lead to mercury and other heavy metal poisoning.  And, we are told that while other food sources, such as flax, for example, contain Omega-3s, they are considered incomplete and are inefficiently converted by the body.

Enter Monsanto:  with the collaboration of Solae, the company has developed a soybean that has been genetically engineered to contain the Omega-3 fatty acids.  The GM (Omega) soy, the company claims, will not only add to a healthier lifestyle (Omega-3s is said to lead to better cardiac health) but that it will stabilize the oceans fish population. Unlike other plant based foods containing Omega-3s, it is claimed that the GM (Omega) soy is more efficiently converted by the body.  The company is moving forward without much delay in developing and testing foods containing this ingredient in part because of the green light  from the Food and Drug Administration which has issued a GRAS (generally recognized as safe) notice for the GM (Omega) soy.  And recently the Canadian Food Inspection Agency announced that it is evaluating Monsantos submission of the same GM (Omega) soy product.

And in case anyone wondered, the soy is genetically engineered to be roundup resistant.

Monsantos claims about its product, however, are overly optimistic and simplistic.

The companys self-proclaimed status of savior of wild fish rings false to many ears.  As Jill Richardson aptly put it, Im sorry, but thats like inflating the tires on a Hummer and saying youre doing something to help fight global warming. The decline of the fish population is a complex problem that is caused by multiple of factors that cannot be redressed with a single solution.  Monsantos saving the wild fish argument is just as unbelievable as the industrys claims that GM food will save the overpopulated world from hunger.  The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations reported in 2007, for example, that in 18  [out of 34 countries], the food crisis is wholly or partially a result of current or recent civil strife or conflict. Tackling world hunger, therefore, involves first and foremost  challenging political systems and improving systems of food distribution but simply growing more (GM) food is not going to solve the issue.  Similarly, it is unlikely that simplistic solutions to address the decline in fish populations will be succesful.  After all, fish populations are in decline not only because of overfishing, although that contributes to the problem, but also because of water pollution, climate change, habitat loss, and lack or lack of enforcement of local and international laws.  Ironically, one of the contributing factors of water pollution (which contributes to the decline of fish populations) is caused by agricultural runoff, which further begs the question of whether growing GM (Omega) soy will hurt or help the declining fish populations.

Monsantos health claims concerning its GM (Omega) soy are equally oversimplified and the the quote from Dr. Alexander Leaf, Professor Emeritus at Harvard Medical School on the companys website, namely, [i]f it is found that [GM engineered Omega-3] behaves in every way the same as the fish-based fatty acids do, it will be an unbelievable blessing as far as human health care goes, further underscores the point.  Any GM food that has not been evaluated long term and whose impact on the body is yet to be told in the future, cannot be considered, at least at this early stage, a contributor to better health.  While it may be true that naturally found Omega-3 may contribute to better health, even that is not the end of the health story.  Better health is a result of a combination of lifestyle choices.  For example, even where Omega-3s are concerned, a person also needs Omega-6s in addition to Omega-3s, because it is actually the ratio between the two fatty acids that matters.  Additionally, better health also means obtaining the necessary vitamins, minerals, exercise, sleep, reduction in stress you get the picture.

Yet Monsantos PR message would have you believe otherwise and its glowing review of its product aims to convince consumers that GM (Omega) soy will solve complex world issues and improve  your health, all at the same time.  What is disturbing, however, is that the minute the GM product is advertised as good for your health and good for the environment, the tone of the GM debate changes, or rather, muted.  There is almost an implict message saying that something that is good cannot be bad and critical analysis of the GM product becomes implicitly anti-environment and anti-health.  Lost in the sunshing of the PR message, however, is that the GM (Omega) soy is a GMO and the concerns and unanswered questions raised about GMO are part and parcel of the deal.

It is hard to digest the GM (Omega) soy news without skepticism.  When the government policies presume that GMOs are safe and equivalent to their non-modified plants, when much of the research is industry-derived and there are reports of suppression of information that raise concerns about their safety, and when there is no mandatory labeling of foods containing GMOs in the United States, this GM (Omega) soy stew shall remain for now in its designated place:  off my table.

For more reading on the issues, please visit:

GMWatch: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11657-problems-with-monsantos-omega-3-gm-soybean
GM Omega Soy in Canada: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/11/30/soy-omega3.html






Document Number: 39
GM Peas - Now On Our Side of the Atlantic
By Deniza Gertsberg | October 26th, 2009 |  Leave a comment
    Email Share


Green Pea Plants
GMO Compass is reporting that German researchers have successfully isolated and transferred a fungal resisting gene found in bacteria and other plants into peas, but in a laboratory setting only. Field testing in Germany remains an elusive goal for the researchers. Citing destruction of test fields, high administrative costs and political uncertainty as the reasons, researches at The Institute for Plant Genetics of Leibniz University Hannover decided that they will continue field testing on genetically modified peas in United States and partnered with North Dakota State University to accomplish this goal.

GM peas are promised to withstand disease and be capable of producing high-yields and thereby reduce dependency on imported protein feedstuffs. Researchers are also using the claim that legumes, such as peas, enrich the supply of nitrates in the soil, and thus growing legumes should mean that less nitrogenous fertilizer is necessary the following year.

It is hard not to be a skeptic when so many other GM crops that promised to deliver higher yields at less the fertilizer have failed to achieve those promises. Additionally, many would argue that it is inappropriate to extrapolate the positive effects of gm-free peas onto their genetically modified brethren. Again, many skeptics would argue that given the many uncertainties of the process of genetic modification, the lack of long-term research into the health and environmental impact of GM crops, and in particular, given that we do not know if the presence of GM peas in the soil will have a negative effect on non-target animals, optimistically assigning to GM peas the positive traits of the non modified pea varities is premature, to say the least.

But also troublesome is the fact that America is seen by others as a Petri-dish for crop related genetic experimentation.  Troublesome because we are indeed a genetically polluted country where growing non-gmo crops is becoming harder to accomplish and we are not even having a legitimate debate on the issue.  The medias attention can become fixated on irrelevant subjects (such as, for example, whether our President is a citizen) but not delve into issues of substance (such as, for example, whether our government sufficiently vets GMOs prior to approving their release).  Ironically, the force of public debate is pushing the German researchers out of their country but the lack of public debate on this issue here is sprouting all sorts of genetic experiments






Document Number: 574
Your New Tires Could Be Genetically Engineered
By Deniza Gertsberg | September 29th, 2009 |  1
    Email Share


Dandelion
While we here at GMO Journal have thus far focused on genetically modified foods, a recent news article further emphasized just how inescapable and ubiquitous biotechnology has become in our lives.

Discovery News is reporting that a new breed of genetically engineered dandelions is currently in development and could be implemented in a number of industrial, chemical and pharmaceutical uses. Currently, transgenic dandelions are used to create dandelion-derived latex. The biotechnology that is used in creation of dandelion-derived latex, however, can be implemented to create not only car tires but also insulin for diabetics, artificial sugars and drugs for other diseases.

Heres why dandelion latex is valuable.

For thousands of years, most of the worlds rubber has come from tropical rubber trees. A diagonal cut in the trunk allows the white latex to drip into hanging cans, which can then be harvested and eventually turned into a variety of different materials.

Natural rubber contains trace amounts of biological impurities, which is a beneficial aspect for car tire makers as those impurities give vulcanized rubber a give and elasticity they cant get anywhere else. Yet, those same impurities trigger life-threatening allergic reactions in some people. People allergic to rubber have to rely on synthetic or petroleum-based rubber as such rubber would typically have fewer impurities than natural rubber.

Now consider dandelions, which can produce latex that has both the elasticity of natural rubber without the allergens, making it an ideal alternative to rubber tree latex.

Heres where biotechnology comes into play.

Naturally occurring dandelion-derived latex is difficult to obtain. Because dandelion latex transforms from a liquid to a solid on contact with the air through the action of enzymes (process known as polymerization), turpentine and naphtha are usually required to chemically extract the latex from the shredded remains of dandelions. To eliminate the enzyme responsible for the phase change, German scientists engineered a special virus. Once inside the dandelion, the virus deletes the genetic sequence from the dandelions DNA, and once the plants head is popped off, the latex begins to flow freely.

Elastic but allergy-free latex is only one of potential uses for dandelion. If the gene that eliminates polymerization can be knocked out through the use of a virus, genes that produce other enzymes can be added using the same method. Thus, as mentioned above, scientists could add enzymes for insulin, artificial sugars and drugs for other diseases using this method of plant infection.

Besides informing us about transgenic dandelions, the Discover News article also highlights vastly different views on biotechnology by Americans and the Europeans. Genetic modification is a pariah in Europe. At least the Europeans have a more vibrant debate with respect to genetically modified foods and crops. German scientists who developed the genetically engineered dandelion, not surprisingly, know that should they try to harvest genetically engineered dandelions, they will meet fierce resistance from groups opposing genetically modified crops. Which is why the Germans next attempt is to try and breed the offending dandelion gene using traditional breeding methods  but that will take five years.

The Americans, however, are said to have more liberal attitude towards GM, especially when it comes to plants that dont produce food, and are expected to get to the harvesting faster. William Ravlin, for example, a scientist at Ohio State University who also works on dandelion-derived rubber, and whose research is funded by Bridgestone Tires as well as the State of Ohio, thinks five years is too long and I have little doubt that he will get there faster.

Does the rest of the world believe that Americans espouse liberal views with respect to GMOs? Is it really accurate to describe Americans as having more liberal attitudes towards biotechnology? Or, rather, is it more accurate to say that Americans are not exposed to sufficient unbiased information from which to formulate their opinions? Personal responsibility certainly plays a role in opinion formation but many people do not have the time to explore all aspects of an issue and instead rely on sources that they think they can trust to deliver to them balanced viewssources which are probably not free from industry influences. I doubt that the same Americans with liberal biotechnology views would continue with their hearty approval if they knew that pharma food crops are very likely to contaminate the food supply with drugs and industrial chemicals that potentially pose serious human health risks. The word liberal implies a progressive and an enlightened view towards an issue. When people are ill-informed or under-informed their position can hardly be called liberal.

Secondly, implicit in the article is the unsettling idea that if you are living in America, harvesting of genetically modified dandelions (and other pharma crops) to produce rubber and drugs, is coming your way, sooner than one might think, especially if the USDA implements the new rules which many believe would provide exceptionally weak oversight of the agricultural biotechnology industry. Are we ready for an ever greater presence of genetically modified crops in our fields and our food?






Document Number: 8254
Approval of Roundup Ready Sugar Beets Deemed Illegal by California District Court - UPDATED
By Deniza Gertsberg | September 25th, 2009 |  Leave a comment
    Email Share


Beet roots
As reported by the Environmental News Service, Judge Jeffrey White of the Northern District of California ruled on September 21, 2009, that the U.S. Department of Agricultures deregulation of genetically engineered Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2004 was unlawful.

Plaintiff groups, Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds, represented by Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety, filed suit against USDAs Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in January 2008 claiming agencys failure to adequately assess the environmental, health, and associated economic impacts of allowing Roundup Ready sugar beets to be commercially grown without restriction was against the law.

The District Court agreed and held that APHIS violated the law when it failed to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, thereby violating the National Environmental Policy Act, before deregulating sugar beets that were genetically engineered to be resistant to the herbicide glyphosate, marketed by Monsanto as Roundup.

Judge White also ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment as the potential elimination of a farmers choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, that could result from cross-pollination of GM crops with those grown free from genetic modification, or a consumers choice to eat non-genetically engineered food, is an action that potentially eliminates or reduces the availability of a particular plant [and] has a significant effect on the human environment. The Judge also found no support in the record for APHIS conclusion that conventional sugar beets would remain available for farmers and consumers and held that the agencys decision that there would be no impact from the GE beets unreasonable.

The issue of genetic contamination as a result of cross-contamination is a concern for all crops that now face competition with their transgenic counterparts. In the case of sugar beet seed, which is grown primarily in Oregons Willamette Valley, biological contamination is a threat to crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets that are grown in the same area.

The Judges decision that APHIS failed to analyze the impacts of contamination from cross-pollination highlights what we at GMO Journal have been pointing out  that the United States regulatory framework often fails, for various reasons, to regulate and monitor genetically modified foods and crops.

By way of background, Roundup Ready crops allow farmers to spray their fields with Monsantos Roundup herbicide without killing the crop. But, hardy crops make for hardy weeds, and like superbugs that result from the constant application of pesticides, constant application of the herbicide has resulted in Roundup resistant weeds. There are now millions of acres across the U.S. of superweeds, including marestail, ragweed, and waterhemp, that were not there prior to the introduction of Roundup, forcing farmers to use greater applications of Roundup or other, even more toxic chemicals.

According to an independent analysis of USDA data by former Board of Agriculture Chair of the National Academy of Sciences, Dr. Charles Benbrook, GE crops increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 122 million pounds  a 15-fold increase  between 1994, when GE herbicide-tolerant crops were introduced, and 2004, debunking one of industrys arguments that planting genetically modified crops reduced the use of pesticides and herbicides.

Studies are not emerging showing that superweeds and the increase use of herbicides have adverse affects on human and animal health, as well as the environment. For example, a 2008 study mentioned by the Environmental News Service, showed that Roundup formulations and metabolic products cause the death of human embryonic, placental, and umbilical cells in vitro even at low concentrations. A similar conclusion was reached by a study conducted by the Austrian government in 2008 on lab mice. The Austrian study found that, among other things, mice fed a type of genetically engineered corn developed by the Monsanto Company produced fewer offspring than those fed conventional corn. The plaintiffs in the sugar beets lawsuits also pointed to yet another recent study that suggests that Roundup is an endocrine disrupter, and that some amphibians and other forms of life may be at risk from glyphosate.

Environmental News Service also reports that food producers have shown reluctance to accept genetically modified beet sugar and more than 100 companies have joined the Non-GM Beet Sugar Registry opposing the introduction of genetically modified sugar beets, and pledging to seek wherever possible to avoid using transgenic beet sugar in their products.

Judge White has scheduled a meeting in his courtroom on October 30, to discuss the remedies phase of the case, including a potential injunction to halt the use of Roundup Ready products.

I would like to express optimism and claim this as a small victory for consumers and organic farmers but given Obamas recent appointments from within the industry to key agricultural and food safety positions, for now, I will keep my optimism in check.

UPDATED: As reported in The Oregonian, on Janual 20th a judge was asked to halt planting of genetically modified sugarbeet seeds in Oregon.





Document Number: 5987
Use of GMOs is Increasing Rapidly
By Deniza Gertsberg | July 16th, 2009 |  Leave a comment
    Email Share

Despite the strong opposition to GMOs by many consumer group advocates and many scientists, domestically and internationally, including some FDA scientists who raised questions about the safety of GMOs almost two decades ago, the speed at which GMOs are entering the market place seems unaffected.

The statistics tell the story. In a report issued by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development), and as reported by the GMO Compass two days ago, a marked rise in commercial use of genetically modified plants globally is expected. Specifically, the OECD projects that by 2015, GM varieties are expected to represent as much as 76 per cent of global soy production. The GM varieties of cotton is expected to be 45 per cent and maize and rapeseed 20 per cent. The OECD report also predicts that herbicide-tolerant or insect-resistant GM varieties of beans, peanuts, barley, potatoes, rice and sunflowers may be market-ready by 2015. In the case of other plants such as wheat, apples, rice or tomatoes, the development of new varieties with modified product quality or agronomic traits are also predicted to enter the market around 2015. This is discomforting news for those who oppose such genetically altered organisms and almost suggests that efforts to limit or regulate GMOs will have little success over the course of the next decade. If GMOs are going to become such a dinner table staple, I would hope that, at a minimum, mandatory labeling legislation would be passed by Congress to help consumers make reasoned choices.







Document Number: 2768 
Does mention of allergen-free peanuts, striga-resistant cowpeas, salt-resistant wheat, beta-carotene rich sweet potatoes, virus-resistant cassavas make you think of GM?
If so, you've missed the great unpublished story – all the non-GM breakthroughs solving precisely the kind of problems (drought-resistance, salt-resistance, biofortification etc.) that GM proponents claim only genetic modification can provide the answer to.
While often speculative claims of potential GM "miracles" win vast amounts of column inches, the non-GM success stories generally get minimal if any reporting in the popular media. Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and claimed silver bullet solutions, it seems there is no story!
The biotechnology industry and its PR people are keen to keep it that way, particularly because the non-GM solutions are often way ahead of the work on GM. They also bring none of the uncertainties that surround GM.
All of this makes keeping track of the many non-GM success stories especially important.
The GM breakthroughs that never were
Another reason it's important is because - thanks to the lack of success with GM "solutions" - non-GM success stories can end up being claimed as GM breakthroughs!
A classic instance is provided by the UK Government's former chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, who has repeatedly used non-GM breakthroughs as evidence of why we need to embrace GM. In one case, King claimed a big crop yield increase in Africa was due to GM, when it did not involve the use of any GM technology at all. On another occasion, King claimed a big success for GM flood resistant rice when what he was referring to was in reality a non-GM crop!
In both cases King was under pressure to provide compelling examples of why GM crops were needed. But far from King's examples showing why we need to embrace GM, they show the exact opposite, i.e. that we need to stop being distracted by GM and to get the funding and support behind the non-GM solutions to the problems we so badly need to address.
If you look at the menu above it gives links to just some of the many non-GM successes we have come across. It's worth noting, incidentally, that some of this progress is being made with the help of biotechnological approaches, like marker assisted selection, that do not involve the same kind of risks and uncertainties as GM, and which are in fact making GM obsolete. You can read more about this here.
What the biotech industry doesn't want you to know about GM "improved" crops
There's another way in which crops touted as GM breakthroughs are not always what they seem – and it's the best-kept secret of the biotech industry. Most of the crops that are touted as GM breakthroughs are nothing of the sort.
In summer 2010 Monsanto bought out part of a West Autralian cereal breeding company, Intergrain. An Intergrain spokesman explained Monsanto's interest like this: "A really important concept is that biotech traits by themselves are absolutely useless unless they can be put into the very best germplasm."
Biotech company raid the germplasm of natural crop varieties that have been developed by farmers and breeders over centuries for the traits they want. It uses conventional breeding and sometimes marker assisted selection – not GM – to get the plant it wants. Its own proprietary genes are added primarily so that it can patent and own the seed and resulting crop.
This GM tweak often adds nothing to the agronomic performance of the crop but is usually either a Bt toxin to kill insects or a herbicide-resistance gene that allows it to be drenched in herbicide. But it has one magical effect – on the biotech company's profit margins.
This process is never disclosed in the industry's hyping of its new crop varieties to the media. The questions we should all be asking are these: which natural parent variety or varieties did the company pirate for its GM variety? How much improvement was made in the parent variety by conventional breeding and marker assisted breeding, aside from the GM tweak? How do the natural parent variety, the non-GM improved variety, and the final GM variety compare with each other with regard to the desired trait in side-by-side field trials?
In other words, how much value was added by the GM manipulation?
The answers would be educational. But we won't usually get to hear them because the information is commercially confidential. And so the biotech companies are able to maintain their seductive lie that GM is necessary for the future of plant breeding.
One instance where do know how the trick was pulled is Vistive soya, which has been described as the first GM product with direct benefits for consumers. These supposedly healthier low linolenic acid soya beans, which make the use of unhealthy trans fats by food manufacturers less necessary, were created by non-GM means. But Monsanto deliberately turned them into a GM crop by adding a GM trait - resistance to its Roundup herbicide - that has absolutely nothing to do with consumer benefits. Interestingly, Iowa State University conventionally bred an even lower linolenic acid soybean variety than the Monsanto one and did not add any GM traits to it. Unsurprisingly, very little has been heard about it, compared to Monsanto's Vistive.

In late 2010 came news of an important breakthrough. Syngenta, we were told, "is leading the charge on a new generation of corn designed by its scientists to withstand drought". Syngenta's Agrisure Artesian drought resistant corn will be a GM corn but not because GM lead to the breakthrough - it didn't. The drought resistance was via (marker assisted) conventional plant breeding. But unrelated herbicide tolerant and pesticidal trangenes were subsequently added to turn it into a GM variety. As one critic noted, "They could have released the non-GM variety without the added transgenes...  This could have benefited many farmers in countries which are suffering from droughts but which do not allow GM crop production. So much for trying to solve global food security."
Although there has been a massive amount of hype about how GM is the way to deliver drought-resistant crops, non-GM plant breeding has been much more succesful. To date there is not a single GM-bred drought resistant variety on the market.






Document Number: 9066
ARS Releases Heat-Tolerant Beans

By Stephanie Yao 
June 30, 2010
New bean germplasm lines containing heat, drought and disease tolerance are being released by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and cooperators.

ARS geneticist Tim Porch, with the agency's Tropical Agricultural Research Station in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico, has recently released two new kidney bean germplasm lines, named TARS HT-1 and TARS HT-2, that are tolerant to high temperature conditions. These new releases are part of collaborative breeding efforts with Cornell University, the University of Tennessee and the University of Puerto Rico.

TARS HT-1 yields well under high day and high night temperature stress, and TARS HT-2 performs well under high day and moderate night temperature stress. These germplasm lines can improve yields under hot summer conditions for farmers in regions prone to high temperature stress. They can also be used to improve heat tolerance in other large-seeded beans through breeding and selection.

Porch and university colleagues are also developing new black bean germplasm lines with tolerance to heat and drought and resistance to root rot and common bacterial blight. Common bacterial blight disease is caused by the bacterium Xanthomonas axonopodis pv. phaseoli and thrives in hot, humid climates. It primarily attacks the leaves and pods of bean plants and causes significant losses in both yields and seed quality. Root rot is caused by a complex of fungal diseases and is present in most common bean production zones worldwide.

Porch crossed tropical black and red beans to produce the new black bean germplasm lines, which are adapted to temperate areas, helping to increase the diversity of U.S. bean germplasm. Field and greenhouse trials in Nebraska show the lines yield well in addition to possessing drought tolerance and disease resistance.

According to Porch, the beans he and his university collaborators are testing have broad adaptation. They do well in the short days common to Puerto Rico and the long days found in the continental United States.







Document Number: 394 
Drought tolerant maize to hugely benefit Africa: study
Thu Aug 26, 2010 5:26am GMT Print | Single Page [-] Text [+]
 
1 of 1Full Size
By Tim Cocks

ABIDJAN (Reuters) - Distributing new varieties of drought tolerant maize to African farmers could save more than $1.5 billion dollars, boost yields by up to a quarter and lift some of the world's poorest out of poverty, a study found.

The study published on Thursday by the Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT), with input from other food research institutes, focused on 13 African countries in which it has been handing out drought tolerant maize to farmers over the past four years.

It described maize as "the most important cereal crop in Africa", a lifeline to 300 million vulnerable people.

The Drought Tolerant Maize for Africa plan aims to hasten the adoption of maize varieties that withstand dry weather.

"The vision of this project is to generate by 2016 drought tolerant maize that ... increases the average productivity of maize under smallholder farmer conditions by 20-30 percent on adopting farms (and) reaches 30-40 million people."

It also aims to add an annual average of $160 - $200 million worth of additional grain to Africa's harvest, it said.

Wilfred Mwangi, a Kenyan agricultural economist on the project, said the drought resistant maize shows comparative yields that beat other varieties even if there's no drought.

"We are saying that comparing with whatever farmers are growing now, these varieties will outperform what they are doing," he told Reuters in a telephone interview.

DRY CONTINENT

Africa's droughts are worsening.

Many scientists blame climate change they say is linked to human emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, but climate talks since last year have failed to yield binding emissions targets, thrusting climate adaptation to the fore.

Repeated droughts have scorched millions of hectares of food crops in southern Africa, the Horn of Africa and the Sahel belt from Mauritania to Sudan in the past decade. Niger and Chad have been particularly badly affected after rains failed this year, with millions facing hunger.

The study found that in zones with the lowest drought risk, the tolerant maize varieties could translate into yields 22-25 percent higher than 2007, when the project started, by 2016.

But in very dry, disaster-prone areas where crops fail 40 percent of the time, the improvement was only 7-10 percent.

In case of the existing maize being fully replaced, the extra maize grown would gross $907 million on a conservative estimate. On an optimistic one, it could bring $1.53 billion.

Even if farmers only replace their plants with what the maize project hands out, it would bring $532 million to $876 million on the conservative and optimistic views, respectively.

The biggest percentage gainers in production would be Kenya, Zambia and Zimbabwe, it said.







Document Number: 9409 
Syngenta Media Releases:

Syngenta Seeds, Inc. Launches Agrisure Artesian™ Technology, First Water-Optimized Technology for Corn Hybrids

Minnetonka, USA, July 26, 2010

Industry-first new technology delivers improved yields on dryland and limited-irrigation acres as well as acres prone to drought stress.

Syngenta Seeds, Inc., today unveiled its Agrisure Artesian™ technology, the new brand name for its range of water optimized hybrids and the newest addition to the Agrisure® family of high-performance trait products. A limited quantity of hybrids with this technology, which has demonstrated the potential to deliver 15% yield preservation under drought stress, will be available through the company‘s Garst®, Golden Harvest® and NK® product brands.

Agrisure Artesian technology enables corn plants to use available moisture more efficiently, resulting in higher yields on drought-stressed acres including dryland and limited-irrigation farms in the western Corn Belt. Growers on rainfed acres in the central and eastern Corn Belt likewise can use Agrisure Artesian technology to help stabilize yields in years of inconsistent rainfall or in fields with variable soil types and moisture-holding capacity. In years of ideal rainfall, hybrids with Agrisure Artesian technology have demonstrated no yield penalty compared with hybrids without the technology.

"Any grower will tell you how tough it is to watch corn roll up under heat and drought stress during tasseling and silking, knowing those plants may never fully regain that lost yield," says David Morgan, president of Syngenta Seeds, Inc. "We are pleased to announce Agrisure Artesian technology, the industry‘s first water-optimized corn technology, to help growers preserve yields when moisture is limited due to lack of rains, poorly timed rains or limited-irrigation situations."

Syngenta created Agrisure Artesian technology through years of advanced molecular breeding to begin identifying and mining the many genes from the corn genome responsible for managing water use in corn. Syngenta‘s first-generation water-optimized hybrids combine multiple genes from this pool, all of which were identified as helping corn plants manage available water more efficiently. The Agrisure Artesian brand name was chosen to reflect the power of this technology, similar to the power of a flowing artesian well to improve accessibility of water for plant life.

Initial hybrids featuring Agrisure Artesian technology will be released primarily in the western Corn Belt – where the probability of drought stress in any given year is virtually 100 percent and yield of dryland corn can be less than 50 percent of irrigated yield levels.

Agrisure Artesian technology will be sold with Agrisure 3000GT and Agrisure GT trait technologies. Syngenta is also developing a complementary water-optimized hybrid product utilizing a genetically modified (GM) trait. These hybrids are anticipated to be available post-2015, pending receipt of all regulatory and key import market approvals.







Document Number: 6546 
Maize farmers and seed businesses changing with the times in Malawi
 
In Malawi, farmers who have in the past few years witnessed crop failure due to poor rains are switching to two new drought tolerant maize varieties, and seed companies are changing their business models to keep up.



“The climate is changing, rainfall is decreasing and the weather is now dictating which varieties farmers grow and in turn which varieties seed companies produce,” says Dellings Phiri, general manager of Seed Co. Malawi, a leading southern African seed company.

He refers to two new drought tolerant maize varieties–ZM 309 and ZM 523–developed specifically for Malawi’s drought-prone areas with infertile soils by CIMMYT, Malawi’s Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security, and the Chitedze Research Station, through the Drought Tolerant maize for Africa (DTMA) project. The research was supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Howard G. Buffett Foundation. The varieties were officially launched in March 2009.

"In Malawi, each adult eats 300 kilos of maize annually, and ZM 309 and ZM 523 will give farmers a boost in safeguarding their maize harvests from the increasing threat of drought,” says Wilfred Mwangi, associate director of CIMMYT's Global Maize Program and leader of the DTMA project.

First introduced by local extension agents to farmers in the drought-prone Balaka area through farmer-managed demonstration plots, these varieties have rapidly become popular among farmers, who have been impressed by their superior performance and accepted them. Compared to other popular commercially marketed varieties, farmers have found ZM 309 and ZM 523 to have higher yields, mature earlier, offer better resistance to common maize leafy diseases, and be better for pounding into flour. Locally, ZM 309 is known as Msunga banja, Chichewa for "that which takes care of or feeds the family," while ZM 523 is Mwayi, which means "fortunate."



Malawi supports for food security
In March 2009, farmers recommended ZM 309 for inclusion in Malawi’s Agricultural Input Subsidy Program, introduced in 2004 and credited with improving the country’s agricultural productivity and food security. Targeting smallholder farmers with access to land and other production resources, the program involves distribution of coupons for subsidized improved maize seed and fertilizer–one for a 100-kilogram bag of fertilizer and another for either 3 kilograms of standard seed or 2 kilograms of hybrid seed. In September 2009, Malawi’s President Dr. Bingu wa Mutharika endorsed ZM 309 saying, “ZM 309 will give Malawi farmers an advantage because it is high-yielding and drought tolerant. We welcome this research because it will help Malawi cope with climate change and improve food security.” The inclusion of ZM 309 in the subsidy program has seen the variety grown in six of the most drought-prone districts in Malawi, contributing to improved food security of thousands of farm families. 

No more hungry months
One such family is that of Bamusi Stambuli, 63. Together with his wife Sagulani, they have they have 7 children and 5 grandchildren. In April 2010, Stambuli harvested nearly 1.8 tons of ZM 309 from his 0.6-hectare plot. “I will now be able to feed my family for a whole year,” says Stambuli proudly.

This year Stambuli will save at least USD 330 that he would have spent to purchase maize for his family. Farmers who grew ZM 309 obtained yields of 3.0 to 3.5 tons per hectare–twice those for the popular local varieties, Kanjelenjele and Kagolo.

In an area where locals rely on farming, fishing, basket-making, sale of firewood, and general trading, Stambuli’s success with ZM 309 is drawing many peers to his farm to buy ZM 309 seed. 

Business as (un)usual
ZM 309 and ZM 523 are open pollinated varieties (OPVs), meaning farmers can save seed from one season and plant it for up to three subsequent seasons without punitive losses in yields or other desirable traits. Ordinarily, OPVs are not as attractive to commercial seed companies as hybrids, because with hybrids farmers have to buy and sow fresh seed every season or risk decreased performance of their crops. With ZM 309 and ZM 523 this is not the case. Seed Co. is changing its business model and investing in producing adequate amounts of both varieties to meet increased demand from farmers.

“We hope that from seeing the performance of ZM 309, farmers will be encouraged to start buying certified maize seed to boost production,” says Phiri.







Document Number: 1763 

Tomatoes made to drink less water
Italians find ways of helping plants survive drought

ROME (ANSA) - As concern mounts over the impact of climate change on
agriculture, Italian scientists are finding ways to cultivate wheat in
deserts and make tomatoes grow with a quarter of the water they normally need.

By studying the genes that allow certain varieties of plants to cope
with drought, the Italian team has managed to select the hardiest
varieties and produce hybrids in which all the crucial genes are present.

Massimo Iannetta, head of the programme run by the ENEA research
institute, said a large-scale experiment with some of the new 'low-
water' plants has just been completed in the Mexican desert.

"We tried growing selected varieties of cereals and vegetables and the
results were excellent. Within a few months we ought to be able to
register them and put them on the market," he said.

Although crossing plant varieties is a technique that has been used for
centuries to created 'improved' versions, advances in the study of
genetics have enabled it to take huge strides.

Stefania Grillo, of the Institute of Vegetal Genetics in Naples, noted
however that pinpointing relevant genes and combining them remained an
immensely complicated business.

"The response to climatic changes depends on a whole range of different
genes," she said, adding that researchers were concentrating on potatoes
and tomatoes for now.

In Sicily ENEA researchers are testing new varieties of tomatoes which
don't need soil to grow at all. They can be cultivated in special
cloches where they sit in a solution of water and nutrients which is
continually recycled. "You can grow a kilo of tomatoes with 15 litres of
water instead of 70 litres," Iannetta said.

Another approach to creating water-saving plant crops is through genetic
engineering. Cultivating genetically modified plants in Italy is illegal
so experiments by Milan university researchers have been confined to the
laboratory.

They have recently patented a way of making plants develop pores which
are much smaller than normal. This means that in droughts they lose less
water through 'transpiration'. Their genetic engineering method is now
being tested on tomatoes and rice.

Roberto Defez, of the Institute of Genetics and Biophysics, said genetic
engineering offered a promising avenue for research into drought-
resistant crops.

"But the research is slow," he warned. "Applications we see emerging now
are based on studies begun in the late 1990s".







Document Number: 5989 
More from Maize 

The Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa Initiative demonstrates a joint commitment to protect Africa’s maize crop from drought and other threats

Sub-Saharan Africa needs concerted efforts to improve the production of maize, its most important cereal. Two Centers supported by the CGIAR — the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) — have found a way to achieve precisely that.

Their combined efforts are vital for improving and stabilizing Africa’s maize production in an era of food price volatility and emerging climate change. Drought, which is expected to become more frequent and severe with climate change, already reduces maize yields by an average of 15% annually, amounting to about US$200 million worth of lost grain. Recent droughts in eastern and southern Africa have been particularly disastrous.

Maize is a highly diverse crop, ensuring ample scope for genetically enhancing its tolerance to drought through breeding techniques designed specifically for this purpose. CIMMYT and IITA work with national partners to adapt and apply such techniques in Africa. As a result, more than 50 new drought-tolerant varieties and hybrids have been developed and released for dissemination by private seed companies, national agencies and nongovernmental organizations. African farmers now grow many of those varieties, which yield 20-50% more than others under drought, on hundreds of thousands of hectares.

To build on this success, CIMMYT and IITA now focus their collaborative efforts on the Drought-Tolerant Maize for Africa (DTMA) Initiative. By significantly scaling up current efforts through more intensive collaboration, the DTMA Initiative expects to provide over the next decade 30-40 million farmers with improved maize varieties that will help to boost maize productivity on small farms by 20-30%. It is working in 13 African countries where maize is particularly important, with support from Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ, its acronym in German), Howard G. Buffett Foundation, Hermann Eiselen, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Rockefeller Foundation, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), and US Agency for International Development (USAID).

“From a biological point of view, there is no limit to building even stronger drought tolerance into maize varieties that are well adapted to the conditions of Africa’s small farmers,” says Marianne Bänziger, the director of CIMMYT’s Global Maize Program. “Moreover, a much larger number of farmers could benefit from the tolerant varieties already available if seed and information were made available to them.”

For many years, CIMMYT and IITA tended to divide their responsibilities for maize research in Africa geographically, with CIMMYT working in eastern and southern Africa and IITA focusing on West Africa, explains Paula Bramel, IITA’s deputy director general in charge of research for development.

“The big advantage of the DTMA Initiative,” she says, “is that bringing together the complementary strengths and research products of the two Centers, in an effort that spans the continent, enables national public and private partners to tap into and benefit from a much broader base of improved germplasm, knowledge and expertise.”

CIMMYT and IITA bring to the project considerable strengths derived from decades of maize research in diverse agroecologies.

IITA has amassed a strong record of achievement in combating biotic constraints. Starting in the 1970s, it successfully thwarted outbreaks of the maize streak virus in the moist savanna region of West Africa, an achievement for which it received the King Baudouin Award in 1986. More recently, IITA researchers have registered important gains against parasitic weeds of the genus Striga, also called witchweed. The single most important biotic constraint of cereal crops in Africa, Striga causes especially severe damage to maize yields in the savannas of coastal and central sub-Saharan Africa. Two newly released varieties — Sammaz 15 and 16, developed in collaboration with Nigeria’s Institute for Agricultural Research (IAR) — show high yields, with only minor losses to the weeds, even under extreme infestation.

CIMMYT has built up particular strength in coping with abiotic constraints through 30 years of research on drought tolerance in maize, work for which the Center received the King Baudouin Award in 2006. CIMMYT safeguards the world’s largest collection of maize genetic resources, in which both IITA and CIMMYT scientists search for new sources of drought tolerance and other valuable traits.

Through the DTMA Initiative, CIMMYT and IITA have created a platform for working more efficiently on drought tolerance, as well as for collaborative research on other problems in maize production, such as Striga.

“How well we combine our strengths and play shared roles — in capacity strengthening, for example — is ultimately a question of our commitment to the partnership and to increasing development impact,” says Bramel.







Document Number: 4030 
Uganda: after decades of war, a new rice variety helps farmers resume their lives
New NERICA cultivar plays a key role in FAO project to help displaced farmers


Grace Otto Albino, Oyam District, Uganda
2 October 2009, Kitgum, Uganda/Rome - The first rains arrived in June in Padibe-East County, part of the Kitgum District, close to the border between Uganda and South Sudan. It was a light rain, but a very welcome one for Alphonso Oyo, who had planted a new variety of high yielding NERICA ("New Rice for Africa") rice, and was waiting impatiently for it to flower. 

"These rains are late, and the flowering of my rice is behind as a result", observes Alphonso. "But with the NERICA variety that I have planted on this dry and hostile soil here on the uplands, I am still hoping to get a good harvest in September". 

Alphonso is already back working his old farm. About 1.5 million more internally displaced people are gradually moving back to their original lands after more than 20 years living a precarious existence in the refugee camps of northern Uganda. Their return is being helped by FAO's NERICA project, which is introducing innovative, rice-based farming systems to increase food security and reduce poverty in Uganda. Funding was provided by Japan (US$1.5 million 2008-2010).  

Going back to the land

Hostilities in this region ceased following a peace process concluded in 2006 between the Ugandan government and the rebels of the Lord's Resistance Army. "That is where we needed to take action to help people return to their homelands and encourage them to start farming again", says Percy Misika, the FAO representative in Kampala.

The Ugandan government, Japan and FAO made a strategic decision to focus on rice cultivation, and especially on varieties of the new NERICA cultivar. "The different NERICA varieties offer a number of advantages: they grow well on the uplands and are resistant to drought, their yield is 30 percent higher than that of local varieties, and they produce a long grain rice with good flavour and high nutritional content which matures in three months or less when the rains are regular", explains Mr. Misika.  

The first phase of the FAO-Japanese intervention, which concluded in 2008, involved eight districts of northern, eastern, central and western Uganda: 1,800 farmers received NERICA varieties, 32 facilitators were trained to teach farmers and 64 farmer field schools launched. 

Otto and Grace Albino work their fields in the Oyam District. They have eight children of their own and take care of six others abandoned by Otto's brother. 

"The 2007 rice harvest enabled us to send our children to school and to put up some more huts on our land; the 2008 one was not so productive, but we are confident that 2009 will be a good season for us," Otto says. 

Now, nine more northern districts are benefiting from the second phase of the NERICA project: Amolatar, Amuru, Apac, Dokolo, Gulu, Kitgum, Lira, Oyam and Pader.  

Many of the young households involved are made up of men and women who have no income and who grew up in refugee camps. Even 20-year-olds have no idea how to grow crops, as they grew up in the camps and have no experience in farming. They have never seen their parents working on their gardens. A number of households are headed by women. All the returnees are determined to get back to work and start farming the land where they were born. Eric Lobi, 20, whose parents both died in the camps, has set up home in Amuru: "When I have enough income from my rice harvest, I'll be able to go to university", he says. 

The farmer field school approach 

Those returning to their villages have had to learn about farming, take on board best agricultural practices, and acquire familiarity with the basic production systems used in cultivating NERICA.  

To achieve this, the project works using the innovative Farmer Field School (FFS) framework, so that young farmers can share knowledge effectively in a spirit of solidarity and unity. 

"We are careful to choose the best profile of facilitator to lead this participatory approach", explains the National Project Manager for NERICA, Emmanuel Iyamuremye Iyibingira. "It takes passion, motivation and perfectionism to offer effective training for the farmers, especially the young ones who have never known anything except the precarious life of the camps".  

Women stand out as some of the most committed and enthusiastic workers; as well as proving a driving force, they also provide stability for groups within the rural community.

Christine Acire is well aware that this is why she was chosen to be chairperson of her group in Lamogi County, Amuru District: "There are 12 men and 18 women in our mixed group, the Gang Ber Kimon", she says. "We want to make this a good year for our rice. We hold group discussions to decide how to share out the work and talk about the effects of the searing heat on the young NERICA plants; we also need to open a bank account to deposit income that will be generated by the harvests in September and for other joint projects," she says.  

Food security: a Millennium Development Goal 

Plans are being laid to increase access to improved rice varieties that are resistant to drought and other problems, and to develop agricultural technologies linked to NERICA rice cultivation in the harsh northern regions.  Rice symbolizes food and income here, contrary to much of the rest of world where it just is a crop for food. 

To achieve this goal and increase both food production and household incomes, Shivaji Pandey, Director of FAO's Plant Production and Protection Division, says that FAO is committed to strengthening local capacities to develop food security programmes in rural areas. "We encourage harmonised seed systems and sustainable agricultural intensification based on rice production; we also aim to improve post-harvest technologies and spread their practice", he adds.    

FAO believes that the project will result in more than 2,160 farmers trained in NERICA crop production technology, with a total of 72 Farmer Field Schools established in nine districts. According to FAO's Senior Agronomist for NERICA, Ram Chaudhary, the project will also help authorities formulate a national programme for extension of the adoption of improved rice/NERICA-based farming systems and enhance government capacities for seed quality analysis, quality control and certification. Rice community seed enterprises will be trained and capacities developed to do successful seed business. 

Against the backdrop of the Millennium Development Goals, the NERICA project is making a major contribution to sustainable development. It is also bringing together partners as part of an alliance against hunger and poverty for the continent's most vulnerable communities, the Coalition for African Rice Development (CARD).
 







Document Number: 2359 
Creating the Ultimate Drought-Resistant Lawn/Pasture Grass

By Don Comis
August 17, 2009
Bluegrass hybrids ideal for pasture and for lawns could be developed faster using genetic markers developed by an Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientist.

ARS geneticist Jason Goldman at the agency’s Southern Plains Range Research Station in Woodward, Okla., identified nine DNA primers that produce markers that can verify successful bluegrass hybrids from DNA samples. This saves time because breeders currently have to wait for the plant to mature before they can verify a hybrid by physical characteristics. The markers can be used on seedlings.

Goldman’s goal is a Kentucky bluegrass-like lawn or pasture grass that is highly tolerant to drought. The research is part of the laboratory’s program for breeding perennial cool-season forage grasses for the southern Great Plains as alternatives to wheat and other annual crops.

Texas bluegrass is native to southern Kansas, Oklahoma, western Arkansas and most of Texas. It tolerates heat and drought, but produces seed that is difficult to harvest and re-plant. It also lacks the turf quality of Kentucky bluegrass. Kentucky bluegrass is not tolerant to heat and drought, but has excellent turf characteristics and produces seed that is easy to harvest and clean.

Goldman’s goal is to combine them into one variety with a broader geographic range than Kentucky bluegrass, while retaining Kentucky bluegrass’ good qualities. The hybrid must also retain Kentucky bluegrass’ ability to produce seed that breeds true, ensuring identical progeny.

Goldman plans further tests to cross Texas bluegrass with other bluegrass species in addition to Kentucky bluegrass, and to see if the markers can be used for other purposes, such as identifying markers linked to desirable or undesirable plant traits.

This research was published in the journal Plant Breeding.







Document Number: 3979 
KENYA: Pigeon peas, the new maize?

Photo: C.L. Ramjohn/Wikimedia
Pigeon peas are a high protein dietary staple
MBEERE SOUTH, 5 August 2009 (IRIN) - Faced with increasingly unreliable rains, farmers in Kenya's eastern district of Mbeere South have started growing drought-tolerant crops to meet their food and subsistence needs instead of the staple maize. 

"The rains have become [scarce]... This is the fourth year we have had insufficient rain," Harrieta Nyaga, a farmer from the Rwika area, told IRIN. "We expected rains in March, but they came in January. People got confused, some planted, some did not... the crop was affected." 

Nyaga, a mother of four, said she had planted 0.8ha of maize but was unsure whether she would harvest more than two 90kg bags. "Normally, I get up to 20 bags," she added. 

Declining maize yields, due to climate variability and high fertilizer costs, have caused maize prices to soar. The cost of a bag has doubled to about 2,000 shillings (US$25) in the area. 

Four new drought-tolerant pigeon pea varieties are being piloted in Mbeere, and specialists say the crop is hardy and can grow in a range of environments and cropping systems. 

The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) is providing farmers with free seeds. 

"They select the preferred varieties and sizes," said Richard Jones, ICRISAT Eastern and Southern Africa assistant director. The selection is based on maturity times, plant height, stem thickness, amount of leaves, susceptibility to disease, cooking times and soil types. 

Representatives from 30 farmers’ groups have been selected to pilot the project. Across Kenya, pigeon peas are being grown on about 196,261 ha of land, according to ICRISAT. Malawi, Uganda, Mozambique and Tanzania grow considerable quantities too. 

"Depending on rainfall availability, one can harvest 750kg per 0.5ha," said Jones. The new varieties mature in about 120 days while the traditional varieties flower at the end of the long rains, growing to maturity from October to August. 

"These new varieties are very elastic. Because they mature quicker, one gets a harvest even with just the short rains [October-December]... if there is more rain [the long rains] one gets a second rattoon [crop]," he said. 

"Old varieties will not give you a crop until after the long rains [April-June]. If the long rains fail, then there is no harvest." 

Nyaga said the uptake of the new varieties would be higher if pesticides were provided during the first planting. "The pesticides are very costly for a first-time farmer," she said. 


Photo: ICRISAT 
About 20 percent of the farmers in Eastern Kenya have adopted new pigeon pea varietiesNutrition value 

Pigeon peas are a high protein dietary staple providing 20 to 22 percent of the protein where it is grown extensively (India, Myanmar, Nepal, China, and south-eastern Africa). 

Besides its de-hulled split peas, its immature green seeds and pods are also used as a vegetable. 

"We have been experiencing a lot of hunger and the first harvest really helped my family. I did not have to look for beans to mix with the maize to make githeri [a maize and bean stew]," John Ngari, a farmer in Mbita area said. "I am now trying to move my wife away from growing maize. We can sell some of the pigeon peas and buy maize instead." 

Crushed dry pigeon pea seeds are also fed to animals, while the green leaves are quality fodder. The dry stems are used for fuel. 

Bonus crop 

According to Jones of ICRISAT, the pigeon pea is a bonus crop, which can be grown alongside early maturing cereals while acting as a nitrogen fixer. 

"I have not had to add manure or fertilizer like I would have for maize," said Carol Maringa, a farmer in Gachoka, adding that it was also not labour-intensive. She planned to increase her pigeon pea production. 

"Even when I combine the cost of ploughing, seeds, weeding and spraying, I am still able to make a good profit," Samuel Mulinge Kyalo, 45, a farmer from Riakanau said. 

According to Fred Njeru, Gachoka Division crops officer, food production in the division has fallen: "Now a big number of people are getting famine relief food and this is not sustainable." 

The hardest-hit localities, he said, are selling their livestock and burning charcoal to meet their food requirements. 

"We are encouraging farmers to adopt drought-tolerant crops, but this will take time," he said. "In the long term, farmers should plant drought-tolerant crops to not only meet their food requirements but also to get more income." 

According to Jones of ICRISAT, there is a need to scale up planting of drought-tolerant crops. 

In Eastern Kenya, about 20 percent of the farmers have adopted the new pigeon pea varieties, which have been developed using conventional breeding. 

Already, there has been about 80 percent uptake in the eastern Makueni District. "Often, information does not move well," Jones noted. "It is like lighting a fire, it burns, then it goes out; you have to keep lighting many smaller fires."






Document Number: 532 
WineCrisp — New apple 20 years in the making

Published: Jan. 21, 2009

Source: Schuyler Korban (217-333-8298; korban@uiuc.edu)

URBANA - A new, late-ripening apple named WineCrisp which carries the Vf gene for scab resistance was developed over the past 20 plus years through classical breeding techniques, not genetic engineering. License to propagate trees will be made available to nurseries through the University of Illinois.

Being resistant to apple scab is a big plus for growers, said University of Illinois plant geneticist Schuyler Korban, as it significantly reduces the number of chemical fungicide sprays. "Apple scab is the number one disease that growers have to spray for — 15 to 20 times per season — so not having to spray for apple scab lowers the cost for the grower and is better for the environment."

Why does it take over 20 years to make an apple? "It takes a long time to develop an apple because you want to test it in different locations, you want to observe it over a number of years, and it takes awhile for an apple to get noticed," said geneticist Schuyler Korban. "I liked it the first time I saw it and I liked the flavor. It has an excellent mix of sugar and acid and a very pleasant flavor, but I was hesitant because of the finish — it's not glossy."

Korban thought the finish might pose a problem because consumers are accustomed to seeing waxed fruit in stores and may not like the matte finish that Korban calls "scarfy" or dull. "Red Delicious is a very good looking apple, but has no flavor, very bland. It's still ranked as the number one apple in the industry; however, there are more new apple varieties available now."

After some time, Korban decided that the crispness and the flavor would be more important factors to consumers than the finish and continued to develop the new apple.

His research, in collaboration with breeders at Rutgers and Purdue Universities, will be published in a 2009 issue of the journal of HortScience, and a U.S. patent is currently pending. The apple is available now to nurseries who want to apply for a license to propagate trees and make them available to apple growers nationwide. "There is a nursery in the southeastern part of the United States that really liked the apple and feel that there is a market for it in the south so they're getting a license to grow it."

It also takes time for a new orchard or even for an existing orchard to plant new apple varieties. But when WineCrisp cuttings are grafted into a fast-growing root stock, Korban says there could be fruit on the tree in as little as three years.

Korban said that the tree is extremely productive and the fruit is firm, but it's not a bright red color. "It's more of a dark red and looks like a deep red wine so we wanted to include 'wine' in the name. It also resembles an older variety that consumers are familiar with called Winesap. "When you pick it up and squeeze it, it's very firm," he said. "We used to call it 'the Rock.' We wanted that characteristic to be in the name so we added 'crisp' and named it WineCrisp.

"There's a market for apples with different flavors, different textures, different ripening and maturity dates — you don't know what the likes and dislikes of the consumer will be," said Korban. "Some of our recent releases are varieties that focus on late ripening which would prolong the apple-growing season and WineCrisp matures two weeks after Red Delicious. They can be harvested all the way through to the end of October. And in good cold storage, they'll keep for eight to nine months. That's another important trait of this variety — it keeps very well in cold storage."

The original cross in the breeding process was done at Rutgers in 1989. The seeds were grown into seedlings and inoculated with apple scab at Purdue. Those seedlings that demonstrated resistance to apple scab were split between the three universities as a part of the Purdue-Rutgers-Illinois (PRI) Cooperative Breeding Program, which has been very successful in naming and releasing over 25 disease-resistant apple varieties, some with other collaborating partners around the world. Because the University of Illinois made the selection, U of I will be the primary licensing institution.







Document Number: 2685 
Beans climb to new heights in Rwanda
Ochieng' Ogodo
SciDev.Net, 4 February 2010 
http://www.scidev.net/en/news/beans-climb-to-new-heights-in-rwanda.html

[KIGALI] Climbing beans suited to rainy high-altitude areas are being distributed in Rwanda after a decade of research.

The fifteen varieties, developed by the Rwandan Agricultural Research Institute (ISAR) in collaboration with the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), could benefit smallholder farmers in similar areas across Central and East Africa.

Unlike the more commonly-planted 'bush beans', the beans are resistant to legume diseases such as anthracnose, root rot and ascochyta, which are found in damp, higher altitude areas.

The new climbing beans are also higher yielding, producing triple and even quadruple the yields of bush beans. The beans can be cultivated up two metres-high stakes — ideal for countries such as Rwanda where space is scarce — and reduce soil erosion in sloping areas that experience heavy rain, Augustine Musoni, bean breeder and coordinator of bean research at ISAR, told SciDev.Net.

And they can be grown year-round. "The climbing bean varieties do well in nutrient-poor soils and take about four months to mature, thus offering farmers the possibility for four planting seasons annually with a hectare yielding 3–4 tonnes each harvesting season," said Robin Buruchara, regional coordinator for CIAT in Africa.

Climbing beans are more often grown in Central American countries but are becoming more popular in Africa, said Musoni.

He added the new varieties, which ISAR began formally distributing to farmers last month (15 January), are good at nitrogen fixing, a process in which soil bacteria in the bean plant's roots absorb nitrogen, which is then released into the soil and acts as a fertiliser.

The varieties are already proving popular. Rwandan farmer Alphonsin Nyirambranjinka said the new variety gives her yields almost three times that of the bush beans she used to grow. "The new variety gives good yields for us to eat at home and I sell the rest the local market. The beans also taste sweet."

Paul Kimani, a bean breeder and professor of plant breeding and genetics at the University of Nairobi, Kenya — where the new varieties have tripled yields — said the new varieties "fix between 5-40 kilograms of nitrogen per year per hectare, compared with maize, which fixes no nitrogen".

He added that the need to grow the beans up stakes could add to costs but higher yields would cover the extra expenditure. Kimani said the biggest barrier was getting the seeds to farmers.






Document Number: 3498 
“Let’s be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.” – Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman, Genetic engineering — a crop of hyperbole. The San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008.
Claims of higher yields from GM crops pop up constantly in the media. It seems to be an example of a misleading claim that is repeated so often that people frequently fail to question it. Yet in the case of the most widely grown GM crop, GM soybeans, there has been evidence of consistently lower yields for over a decade. Controlled comparative field trials of GM/non-GM soya suggest that 50% of the drop in yield may be due to the genetic disruption caused by the GM transformation process. 
A US Department of Agriculture report confirms the questionable yield performance of GM crops, saying, "GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."
Monsanto released its second generation RR2 Yield GM soybeans in 2009, claiming that they would deliver higher yields. By June 2010, however, reports had emerged that yields were again disappointing and that the state of West Virginia had launched a probe into Monsanto for consumer fraud for false advertising claims.
Conventional non-GM approaches, in contrast, have consistently been improving crop yields for decades and continue to do so. Such successes, in contrast with the often mythical claims for high-yielding GM crops, tend to go largely unsung. 

Here are a few examples of what non-GM approaches have been achieving. What would the GM lobby give for success stories like these?






Document Number: 122
A New Rice Revolution on the Way?	 	 	 
TAG IT:
Written by John Berthelsen	   
MONDAY, 17 JANUARY 2011

Dr Jauhar Ali (Photo: IRRI)
Get ready for Green Super Rice 

The world appears to be on the threshold of another green revolution in rice production as a result of an intensive, 12-year partnership between the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines.

Called "Green Super Rice," it is the result of a project begun in 1998, involving the painstaking crossbreeding of more than 250 different potential varieties and rice hybrids, according to Dr Jauhar Ali, a senior scientist and regional project coordinator for the Development of Green Super Rice at IRRI in Los Banos, south of Manila. 

The development of the process, Dr Ali said, is considered so significant that Microsoft founder Bill Gates met personally with Zhi-Kang Li who holds a dual position both with IRRI as Senior Molecular Geneticist and as Chief Scientist with the Institute of Crop Sciences at the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences in Beijing and, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, presented the program with a US$18 million, three-year grant to expand the benefits to Asia and Africa. 

The two institutions are seeking additional donors to be able to push the rice to undeveloped corners of Africa and other continents to help stave off the growing need for food across the planet. 

The process was developed by Zhi-Kang Li, It involves the efforts of hundreds of researchers in dozens of countries across the world, seeking to isolate the desirable traits from indigenous strains and then backcross breed them to produce hardier varieties.

Particularly, Dr Ali said in a telephone interview, the method of producing the new strains of rice is as important, or perhaps even more so, than the strains of rice themselves, because it holds out the hope of a scientific method of increasing yields of other crops, making them hardier and more resistant to disease and insects and cutting the use of fertilizers and pesticides without resorting to genetic modification. Importantly, since it was developed by public institutions, it is not subject to the onerous conditions that major agri-chemical companies like Monsanto place on farmers, including the need to buy new seeds every year. 

The development comes at a time when food security has become a major political issue, not just in Asia but increasingly across the world as the price of commodities skyrocket. Disastrous floods in Pakistan, drought in Australia, fires and drought in Russia, all combined to spur concern that the world could be on the brink of a food crisis to rival that endured in 2007, when the price of rice shot from roughly US$250 to US1,100 per ton before falling back to hover around US$500 today. Imbalances in the demand-supply chain and hoarding by national governments have forced the World Food Program to initiate a number of emergency projects to continue the delivery of food to the world’s poor. Rice in particular faces problems from climate change. 

It has been a long, hard slog to come out with the concept of Green Super Rice, Dr Ali said. It started in 1998 with the launch of an international rice molecular breeding program originally involving more than 18 countries and 36 institutions. However, there was no funding to continue the program and it ultimately died out in all of the countries and institutions except for IRRI and the Chinese Academy.

Green Super Rice does not involve genetic modification. Instead, it involves taking hundreds of donor cultivars from dozens of different countries, identifying significant variations in plant response to drought, global warming and other problems, and "backcross" breeding – painstakingly crossing a hybrid with one of its parents or with a plant genetically like one of its parents, then screening the backcross bulk populations after one or two backcrosses under severe abiotic and biotic stress conditions to identify transgressive segregants that are doing better than both parents and the checks. 

This operation is done for all the backcrosses originating from 46 recurrent parents and 500 donors -- a mini-core collection - and reconfirmed before further pooling them across different traits by the use of molecular markers to improve rice tolerance – for instance, drought, salinity, submergence, rice blast fungus, bacterial leaf blight and the ability to out-compete weeds, reducing the need for fertilizers.

"The idea is that now we have a wider range of materials that can combat drought and submergence, we now have lines that are tolerant to all known races of blast and bacterial leaf blight at IRRI," Dr Ali said. "We have confirmed that we are on the third round for testing." 

The announcement comes on the 50th anniversary of what has been called the original Green Revolution, when IRRI, established by the Philippine government and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, introduced IR8, the first "miracle rice," as it was called then, to the world, at a time when India especially was on the brink of mass starvation. IR8, a semi-dwarf variety, yielded about 5 metric tons per hectare without fertilizer and as much as 10 tons under optimal conditions – about 10 times the yield of traditional rice. 

IR8 was subject to kernel breakage and other problems. But eventually, its successors revolutionized world food production, driving down the price of rice by more than 50 percent and turning India, Thailand and other countries into some of the world’s most successful producers and exporters. The Philippines, where IR8 was developed, became rice sufficient for several decades, with production increasing from 3.76 million tons to 7.7 million in two decades, before slipping into deficit again.

Rice is grown on some 142 million hectares in Asia, feeding more than 4 billion people. A semi-aquatic plant species that originated in tropical swamps, rice production typically consumes two to three times as much water as do other cereals. Thus water deficiency – drought – has been the single biggest limit in rain-fed rice fields, with drought at the early stages of growth causing delayed transplant or delayed germination. Drought at the reproductive stage also slows growth, according to a variety of papers made available by Dr Ali, resulting in low and unstable rice productivity. Also, IR8 yields have dropped by about 15 percent as hotter nights produced by climate change impede growth, according to Dr Shaobing Peng, an IRRI research scientist. 

IR8’s successors used far more fertilizers and pesticides than conventional strains, but produced substantially higher yields. The extensive crossbreeding, which was developed by Zhi-Kang Li when he was a researcher at IRRI before moving back to Beijing, was partly developed as an effort to reduce the dependency of the new rice strains on fertilizers and pesticides. It appears to be succeeding. 

In one study, for instance, researchers backcross bred three recurrent elite rice lines and 203 diverse donors, representing a significant portion of the entire genetic diversity of the primary gene pool of rice over six years to improve tolerances to salinity, submergence, zinc deficiency, resistance to brown plant hopper and other problems. 

Such efforts are coming under an umbrella organization called the Global Rice Science Partnership, under the acronym GRiSP, launched last November at the third International Rice Congress in Vietnam, which seeks to enable the world to coordinate its approach to rice science so that agencies can pool their resources, apply their expertise and collaborate in the delivery of the improved strains to poor rice farmers across the world. GRiSP is looking for the funds to expand into seven countries across Asia and seven in Africa. Some 260 people have been trained from public and private centers, including in Africa, on the use of the Green Super Rice breeding and seed production technology. 






Document Number: 6513
Single Gene Powers Hybrid Tomato Plants
Date: 30-Mar-10
Country: US
Author: JoAnne Allen


Galdino Gonzalez, 56, shows tomatoes to Reuters journalists at an urban vegetable garden in the Iztapalapa district, Mexico City, July 31, 2008.
Photo: Henry Romero

A mutation in a single gene can turn hybrid tomato plants into super producers capable of generating more and much sweeter fruit without genetic engineering, scientists said in a study released on Sunday.

The study also showed that using classic plant-breeding techniques can boost yield as dramatically as using genetically modified organisms, said researcher Zachary Lippman of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory in New York.

The mutation in one copy of the gene boosted tomato yield by up to 60 percent and increased sugar content, Lippman and colleagues reported in the journal Nature Genetics.

"When this gene is only working at half speed ... there's this rebalance of growth that's happening that occurs across the entire plant that gives you this increase in yield," Lippman said in a telephone interview.

The yield-boosting power of the gene known as Single Flower Truss, which controls when plants make flowers, worked in different varieties of tomatoes and in different environments, Lippman said.

"No matter what soil type, no matter what sort of irrigation you give it, no matter what fertilization you give it, you're always having some sort of effect," he said. "We try to keep it conservative and say 60 percent. Sometimes it's a little lower, sometimes it's even higher."

When both copies of the gene are working, the result is a completely normal plant. "But when one copy is working, you see the heterosis. This is the magic of the discovery," Lippman said.

Heterosis, or hybrid vigor, is the genetic mechanism that makes offspring of cross-bred plants more vigorous than their parents.

Lippman said the finding could have significant impact on agriculture, and the next step was to look at the effect in corn, soybeans and other crops.

"Our concept about using mutations in the hybrid condition extends beyond tomatoes, and I bet that if people start using this ... in other crops that they find similar effects," he said.

Lippman and colleagues at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Rehovot, Israel, screened gene mutations in more than 5,000 hybrid tomato varieties.

Plants were tested in fields in multiple locations in 2008 and 2009. Some farmers used pesticides and other did not. The boost in crop yields was consistent, Lippman said.

Tomatoes were one of the first genetically modified crops. Several companies, including Monsanto, did research trials on a weedkiller resistant "Roundup Ready" tomato, but the product was never commercialized, the company said.






Document Number: 6046

Fake Blood on the Maize
BY JONATHAN MATTHEWS
06.20.2005 | ACTIVISM
The PR exploitation of drought and hunger in Zambia shows that for the GM lobby there are no limits, even when it involves rewriting history and manufacturing crimes against humanity.

This year, following scanty and erratic rainfall, many of Zambia's maize fields have had the life scorched out of them. In some provinces the severity of the drought may mean a crop failure of 100 percent. With maize reserves falling short of the country's requirement, the Zambian government has banned the export of maize meal to neighbouring countries in a bid to forestall the looming food deficit.

This crisis is reminiscent of the crises Zambia faced in 2000 and 2002. It's not only the threat of hunger, though, that's reviving painful memories; it's also the way in which that threat is being exploited. For the genetically modified foods lobby, tragedy spells opportunity, with drought and crop failure providing the perfect platform to pressure the Zambian government over its resistance to genetically modified organisms.

So far, instead of going down the GM route, Zambia has been looking to alternatives to feed its population. Three years ago, when that strategy was first adopted, it led to Colin Powell's denunciation of Zambia at the Earth Summit in Johannesburg. And Powell's attack was just one element in a virulent US/industry campaign of pressure and dissimulation that continues to this day.

The backdrop in 2002 was crop failure across much of southern Africa. Famine was said to be looming in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho and Angola. The US had responded by offering as relief its surplus GM maize, but several countries including Zambia had rejected it.

Eventually, all but Zambia were pressured into accepting the GM grain, at least in a milled form which prevented replanting. But the Zambian President, Levy Mwanawasa, would only make his final decision after a team of Zambian scientists and economists completed a fact-finding tour of laboratories and regulatory offices in South Africa, Europe and the US. Their report concluded that studies on the safety of GM foods were inconclusive, and that the GM maize should be rejected as a precautionary measure.

From the start, the US responded forcefully. "Eat GM or starve, America tells Africa," ran one Reuters headline. "Beggars can't be choosers," an unnamed state department official told the Washington Post. When the Zambians replied that even beggars shouldn't be denied the dignity of self-determination, the Americans accused them of risking a "human catastrophe".

Despite US intransigence, alternative food supplies were found and starvation was averted, as President Mwanawasa noted when addressing a public rally in Zambia's Copperbelt recently. "In 2002, there was hunger in the country and [the] government had rejected GMO maize from donors who predicted that a considerable number of people would die of hunger, but this did not happen".

America's use of potential starvation as a bargaining chip shocked many, particularly when--as ActionAid's Emergencies Programme Adviser, Donald Mavunduse pointed out--African governments and civil society organizations had raised legitimate concerns about GM. "They worry about its safety for health and the environment, how it is controlled and by whom, and about the impact of GM on the future livelihoods of their citizens," said Mavunduse. "These concerns should be addressed, not ridden over roughshod."

Even among British government ministers and advisors, there seemed a palpable unease at what was happening. According to The Observer newspaper, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser denounced the United States' attempts to force the technology into Africa as a "massive human experiment". The paper reported that, "In a scathing attack on President Bush's administration, Professor David King also questioned the morality of the US's desire to flood genetically modified foods into African countries, where people are already facing starvation in the coming months."

But for the GM lobby, the failure to offload GM food even onto a country wracked by hunger made for a humiliating global spectacle, and they weren't about to back off. The tone had been set at the Earth Summit when Andrew Natsios, the head of USAID, had gone after the organizations opposing GM. "The Bush administration," Natsios warned, "is not going to sit there and let these groups kill millions of poor people in southern Africa through their ideological campaign".

Also on the US hit list were Zambia's leaders. The US Ambassador to the UN Food and Agriculture Agencies, Tony Hall, called for African leaders who had refused US food aid to be tried "for the highest crimes against humanity in the highest courts of the world." The US Trade Representative, Robert Zoellick had the European Union firmly in his sights. Zoellick linked Zambia's refusal of GM grain to sanctions he claimed the EU had threatened. The EU's Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, described this claim as "very simply immoral".

"Zambia is a sovereign country and makes its own decisions," Lamy said in an interview with Newsweek. "Zambians do not need to be heroic to assert their sovereignty. GM-free supplies are available in surplus in southern Africa. Europe's policy is to provide food aid procured in the region, rather than as a means of disposing of domestic stocks... The simple solution is for the US to behave as a real aid donor."

The EU's Development Commissioner, Poul Nielson, also waded in, describing the claim that the EU had threatened the Zambians as "a very negative lie." He told reporters that he wanted to propose a deal to the Americans: "The deal would be this: if the Americans would stop lying about us, we would stop telling the truth about them."

The reason for Zoellick's targeting of the EU became clearer a few months later when the US Trade Representative announced plans to sue the EU at the World Trade Organisation unless it opened up its markets to American GM products. The WTO case was filed in the name of Africa.

Around this time I was forwarded an email that had been sent to a leading environmental campaigner, demanding that he spell out his position on Zambia. The sender of the email was one "Max Russell-Bennett," ostensibly a private citizen, and he attached to his email a press release from the pro-GM lobby group AgBioWorld. The press release seemed to imply that a few years earlier thousands had died in the Indian state of Orissa--victims of resistance to GM food aid. AgBioWorld urged "activists" not to repeat "the mistakes of 'Orissa'".

In reality, the deaths in Orissa had been due to a devastating cyclone, and no one had died for want of GM food. And a check on the email's technical headers revealed it had originated not with a private individual but with Monsanto Belgium. This message, crafted by a multinational corporation in the guise of a fake citizen, with its deceptive history attached, seemed to capture the cynical mendacity that has marked the industry's Zambia campaign.

Just why the biotech industry was prepared to go to such lengths can be seen from the comments of Berndt Halling of the Brussels-based lobby group, EuropaBio. Halling told a reporter that "the green lobby" had over-reached itself and the food-aid crisis in Africa provided "the first issue that has the ability to destroy their credibility." Halling went on, "I want to know if they are going to accept responsibility for the people that will die as a result of the refusal of GM aid."

As with the EU, stories began to circulate about how environmentalists had blackmailed Zambia into rejecting GM food aid. The syndicated-columnist, Paul Driessen painted them as co-conspirators, "environmental radicals and the European Union are screaming 'genetic pollution' and threatening to withdraw aid and ban agricultural exports from any countries that plant or distribute the [GM] grains." In a speech Driessen added, "Radical Greens spread rumours that the corn was poisonous, and might cause cancer, or even AIDS. So it got locked up in warehouses, while children starved..."

Starving children and dead Africans were necessary collateral for the Zambia campaign, so Roger Bate, a Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, helpfully put a number on the death toll. Bate told his readers that aid workers in Zambia had had to take "food away from the mouths of starving children" and that "perhaps as many as 20,000 Zambians died as a result." Others went still further, claiming that "millions" of Zambians had been "left to starve".

The marketing of this heinous crime continues unabated. In early 2005, the former Head of Regulatory Affairs at Syngenta, Willy DeGreef, spoke of the need to identify those responsible for the "outrage" and "tragedy" of having "children starve" rather than eat "genetically enhanced foods": "How did we get that far; who was responsible for whispering (those) messages to those policy makers... That is something that I would rather sooner or later want to find out, because you're talking about literally crimes against humanity."

Even in a world awash with spin and disinformation, constructing a deceitful public relations campaign out of starving children seems peculiarly distasteful. Yet DeGreef's comments merely served as a springboard for Alex Avery, of the biotech-industry-backed Hudson Institute, to go a step further and actually name those that had the "blood of the starvation victims" on their hands.

At the top of Avery's list was Dr Charles Benbrook, a former Executive Director of the Board on Agriculture for the US National Academy of Sciences. Benbrook's crime had been to tell the Zambian scientists during their fact-finding mission that there was no shortage of non-GM foods which could be offered to Zambia and that, "To a large extent, this 'crisis' has been manufactured (might I say, 'engineered') by those looking for a new source of traction in the evolving global debate over agricultural biotechnology." Dr. Benbrook added, "To use the needs of Zambians to score 'political points' on behalf of biotechnology strikes many as unethical and indeed shameless."

Another of those with blood on his hands, according to Avery, was the British campaigner Robert Vint. Vint responded, "the people you are accusing committed the offence of participating in a consultation exercise organised by the US and UK Governments for Zambian scientists. Discussing scientific matters as part of a dialogue in which opposing views were heard hardly constitutes murder. The Zambian scientists listening to these various views were doctors and professors--mainly educated in American universities. Surely you don't believe that because they were black they could be easily brainwashed by Westerners? My specific crime, by the way, was to suggest to the Zambian delegation that they obtain and review the original safety research on GM foods. I'm a great supporter of sound science and empirical research. Oddly, both the US and UK Government representatives refused to provide this data--or even to confirm its existence. Maybe you could provide it?"

Clement Chipokolo from Zambia also took issue with Avery, telling him, "you mentioned that there were several deaths that resulted from the decision that the government took. May I put it to you that the only recorded deaths that we know of were before the GM saga came to the fore... your statements are typical of a well funded lobbyist who would do what ever it takes to achieve his mission, in this case promotion of GMOs."

He went on, "just on Tuesday our government announced that the country faces a maize deficit of 300,000 metric tonnes and has appealed for help. I was wondering what kind of help would come from your end. Please make sure it is not GM because it might just go back." Chipokolo ended by adapting a saying from the Book of Joshua, "Know today what you are going to eat, as for me and my country we shall eat no GMOs."






Document Number: 8837
'Rooting' out hunger in Africa -- and making Darwin proud

A farmer holds a bunch of cassava roots, dug up from his farm in Oshogbo, in Osun State in August 2010. Scientists in Nigeria and six other African nations are experimenting with a fast-yielding, disease-resistant species of cassava, a root useful in so many ways that Darwin, the father of evolution theory, once marveled at its diversity.

A laboratory worker arranges samples of different cassava species at the laboratory of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, in Oyo State in August 2010. Scientists in Nigeria and six other African nations are experimenting with a fast-yielding, disease-resistant species of cassava.

Farmers carry packets of cassava stems, which they received from officials of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Oshogbo in Osun State in August 2010. African farmers stand to make a potential profit from a new strain of cassava, whose industrial uses include the manufacture of tyres, adhesives, ethanol, pharmaceuticals, biofuels and livestock feeds.

Laboratory workers arrange samples of different cassava species at the laboratory of the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) in Ibadan, in Oyo State in August 2010. Developed in response to the 2008 global food crisis, the project is first aimed at tackling hunger in Africa -- particularly in drought-hit Chad and Niger.
AFP - The "magic" cassava roots the Nigerian farmer pointed to might have made Charles Darwin smile -- and they may also turn out to be part of the solution to hunger across swathes of Africa.

"If you uproot it, you can see six or seven tubers," said Bashir Adeyinka Adesiyan, a farmer from southwestern Nigeria, the world's largest producer of cassava. "The one we were planting before, you would only get two or three."

He called it a "magic plant."

Scientists in Nigeria and six other African nations are experimenting with a fast-yielding, disease-resistant species of cassava, a root useful in so many ways that Darwin, the father of evolution theory, once marveled at its diversity.

Workers have to frighten off porcupines seeking to feast on the chubby new cassava stems on Adesiyan's farm, where a crooked path divides the old species from the new, grown side by side to be able to compare them.

The results so far are glowing: the new plants stand taller, and appear stronger and more vibrant. When their tubers are pulled from the ground, they resemble fat, oversized fingers.

The cassava stems are not genetically-modified. They were obtained through a conventional process of breeding and selection over more than a decade.

Researchers at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) are distributing the stems to local farmers free of charge.

They hope to get the improved cassava into 75,000 farms by the end of the year to increase yields in seven selected Nigerian states.

It was a carnival-like scene recently in the farming town of Ifon in southwestern Nigeria as officials distributed 1,500 packs of the new cassava stems, with traditional Yoruba drumming and dancing.

Bintu Aderemi, a 55-year-old woman cassava farmer, said the stems "are God-sent. They thrive well and I am very happy."

Developed in response to the 2008 global food crisis, the project is first aimed at tackling hunger in Africa -- particularly in drought-hit Chad and Niger.

But the versatile cassava plant -- which has a wide range of industrial uses -- could also one day provide a much-needed raw material to meet China's growing needs, becoming a potentially lucrative export crop for Africa.

The first results have been promising, scientists and farmers say.

Financed by USAID, the project targets about 400,000 farmers directly in seven African nations: Sierra Leone, Ghana, Tanzania, Malawi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Mozambique and Nigeria, IITA officials said.

"We want to double their yields," said Richardson Okechukwu, IITA coordinator of the project in Nigeria.

The 5.3 million dollar project in Africa "will ensure food security for Nigerians and neighbouring northern countries like Niger and Chad, and will also provide more roots for large-scale cassava industries," he said.

Cassava is one of the world's largest sources of carbohydrates and is eaten in various forms in a long list of countries.

In Nigeria, it is ground up for traditional dishes such as "garri" and "fufu," which are types of porridge served with soup.

In some African countries, including Nigeria, Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Democratic Republic of Congo, cassava leaves are also consumed for their protein, Okechukwu said.

Long-term, African farmers also stand to make a potential profit from the new strain of cassava, whose industrial uses include the manufacture of tyres, adhesives, ethanol, pharmaceuticals, biofuels and livestock feeds.

"China could buy almost everything we produce. That is in the future," IITA director general Peter Hartmann said.

The crop could be an opportunity for farmers in Nigeria, where agriculture has played a diminished role in the economy dominated by oil.

Though Nigeria leads the world in cassava production -- 44.6 million tonnes in 2008, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation -- it is mainly for domestic consumption. Thailand is the world's largest exporter of cassava.

"We know that with climate change and the increased drought, definitely there is going to be more and more demand," Hartmann said.







Document Number: 9515
MELBOURNE, Jun 7 (IPS) - A relatively low-tech approach to managing pesticides promises to help hundreds of thousands of cotton farmers across Asia raise yields and reduce environmental contamination.

Melbourne scientists are already collaborating with groups across Asia to combat the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), an agricultural pest that causes five billion US dollars worth of crop damage each year and serious distress to farmers in countries like India.

Helicoverpa armigera is a major pest prevalent in 29 cotton producing countries across Asia, Australia, Africa and Southern Europe. Besides cotton, this moth attacks more than 100 different commercial crops including maize, wheat, sorghum, sunflower, chickpea, lupins, soybeans, tobacco, tomato, lettuce, sweet corn, capsicum and beans and flowers including chrysanthemums, gladioli and roses.

Derek Russell and Philip Batterham, professors at the 'Bio21 Institute' of the University of Melbourne have been working closely with Keshav Kranthi of the Central Institute of Cotton Research in Nagpur (India) and a number of other groups in India, China and Pakistan, to develop technologies to aid farmers in their fight against this destructive moth.

About 40 percent of the annual cost of growing cotton is spent on insecticides by the eight million cotton farmers spread across 11 states in India, while still failing to control the caterpillars. Cotton bollworm has often caused total crop loss driving hundreds of farmers in India to suicide.

Besides making the pest resistant, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides has created ecological havoc. Russell says, "By the mid 1990s, Indian cotton farmers were spending 43 percent of the variable costs of cotton production on insecticides, around 80 percent of that being for cotton bollworm control. Insecticide use on cotton was 50 percent of all insecticide use in the country and it was increasing at seven percent per annum. For many, perhaps even most, cotton production was being rendered uneconomic."

"In 1998-99, 14.6 percent of Indian cotton production was lost to insect -- mainly cotton bollworm -- damage. The Green Revolution had increased the area of more susceptible cotton bollworm hosts and the intensification of cropping patterns meant that these hosts were available all year round." he adds.

Kranthi and his collaborators, supported by Russell, have implemented a control programme in thousands of Indian villages, slashing insecticide use by 50 percent, which has led to increase in yields by 11 percent and profitability by 75 percent. In the Wardha district of central Maharashtra, where the programme was introduced in 1997, common insecticides once again kill cotton bollworms easily.

According to official figures maintained by the provincial government of Maharashtra, close 1,500 farmers, most cotton growers, committed suicide in 2006 and the trend has continued this year in spite of attempts at intervention by the government.

Apart from higher yields, selective use of insecticides has major benefits for the environment and human health. A 2004 survey found that under the programme the number of farmers poisoned by insecticides had decreased roughly tenfold.

Russell says, "There were seven major groups of insecticides being used. Now farmers are using four groups and rotating them intelligently, keeping human and environmental health in mind." The strategy is implemented in an integrated pest management context, not using insecticides that kill the biological control agents or disrupting control of other pest species in the cotton. The group has had some major successes, recently identifying resistance genes for two important classes of insecticides, the neonicotinoids and the spinosyns.

The collaborators have developed a number of test kits, similar to home pregnancy test kits, which allow the farmer to determine if an insecticide will be effective against the moth. It is now possible to test the quality or identity of the insecticide, thereby allowing a farmer to check whether he is getting what he paid for. Another test detects whether a population of moth will be affected by a particular insecticide.

As farmers' spraying habits tend to be heavily influenced by their neighbours, the scheme is introduced to whole villages at a time. The programme tells farmers how to check whether insecticides are needed and if so which type of insecticide to use and when best to use it, so that during each of the four month-long "windows" of the growing season, only one type of insecticide is used. The life cycle of the Helicoverpa armigera is about one month, so the offspring of any resistant insects that survive one round of insecticide are killed by a different one the next month.

Some aspects of the programme have been introduced in China and Pakistan. In Uganda, they have taken a different approach says Russell. "There is no effective agricultural extension support structure in Uganda, so, with donor and national collaborator support we have been running 9,000 demonstrations per year. By the end of 2007 we would have contacted every cotton grower in Uganda."

A similar test has been developed by Kranthi to check the integrity of Bt cotton -- a transgenic form of cotton that contains a bacterial insecticide. Seeds can be ground up and a dip-stick style test used to detect the presence of the toxin. Undoubtedly, Bt cotton has been a huge success with widespread adoption in a number of countries including Australia, China, India and the U.S, but public opposition to the genetic modification of food crops means that in the short-term genetically modified Bt plants are not a viable alternative for controlling the moth on the majority of the crop species it attacks.

The next crucial step is to sequence the moth's genome, to find its Achilles heel.

Prof. Philip Batterham from the Bio21 Institute wants to extend the kit technology by determining the full range of genes that can be involved in insecticide resistance. He says, "With this knowledge it will be possible to develop a diagnostic to predict the usefulness of different insecticides. We will be able to prescribe the best possible control treatment regime to control this pest."

"We believe it will be possible in the future to manage or prevent resistance so that farmers can keep their produce in the market. To maximise control over insect pests, we are w







Document Number: 6343
Health-promoting
Thursday, 08 July 2010 21:52
     
Need GM? articles:
Introduction
Drought resistance
Flood resistance
Pest resistance
Salt tolerance
Disease resistance
Health promoting
High yield
Biocontrols and aflatoxin
Tolerance to specific soil and weather conditions
Industrial use
Non-GM index
You will almost certainly have read claims about GM crops with supposed nutritional benefits. Two of the most hyped are Golden Rice and GM tomatoes with supposed anti-cancer properties. These crops have, however, to date not been commercialised, even though in the case of Golden Rice it has been promoted as a life-saver for over a decade.
But while stories about GM "miracles" are lapped up uncritically by the media, non-GM research into solving exactly the same kind of problems seems to get minimal if any reporting, even though it has been far more successful.
Of course, a note of caution needs to be struck about food faddism. The supposed benefits of foods we've been told are healthy in the past have often later been brought into serious question. Even beta carotene, the friendly substance found in yellow and green vegetables, is presented by different authorities as variously a cancer fighter and a cancer promoter.
But for those who are attracted by the idea of "neutraceutical" foods, we don't need GM. Here are some non-GM examples of supposed "superfoods".





Document Number: 5366
N.C. A&T food scientist develops process for allergen-free peanuts


				
		

 IMAGE: Dr. Mohamed Ahmedna
Click here for more information.
	
				

GREENSBORO, N.C. – An agricultural researcher at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University has developed a simple process to make allergen-free peanuts. The new process – believed to be a first for food science – could provide relief to millions of peanut allergy sufferers, and be an enormous boon to the entire peanut industry.

Doug Speight of the N.C. A&T Office of Outreach and Technology Transfer said food companies are showing a strong interest in licensing the process, which does not degrade the taste or quality of treated peanuts, and might even render them easier to process for use as a food ingredient.

Immunoassays showed 100 percent inactivation of peanut allergens in whole roasted kernels, and the processed peanuts showed no reaction in tests on human serums from severely allergic individuals. The inventor, Dr. Mohamed Ahmedna, is optimizing the process further to remove allergens from other foods.

“We are extremely pleased that we were able to find such a simple solution to a vexing problem that has enormous economic and public health ramifications, both for peanut sensitive individuals, and the food industry as a whole,” said Ahmedna, associate professor of food science in N.C. A&T’s School of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences.

Peanut and tree nut allergies are the most severe of all food allergies, affecting approximately 3 million Americans, and causing 100 – 150 deaths from anaphylactic shock annually and many more hospitalizations. In industrialized nations, the allergy has been rapidly increasing in children, for causes that are not entirely understood. One study showed that between 1997 and 2002, peanut allergies in children doubled in the United States. Today, an estimated one percent of all children suffer from the allergy.

Life can be stressful for families with peanut sensitive children, who must take extraordinary precautions to prevent contact with even small traces of peanuts or peanut dust. Tracking, record-keeping and labeling for peanuts is costly for industry, while schools and other institutions that serve the public have limited their use due to concerns about public health and liability.

Ahmedna’s work on peanuts has been funded through a United States Agency for International Development grant. During the course of the project, he has developed many other value-added products and processes for the benefit of the peanut industry worldwide, including a process to remove a common mold toxin from peanuts, a low-fat, high protein meat substitute, an infant formula, and antioxidants from red peanut skins. The allergy-free peanut is the first in a portfolio of peanut innovations to be available for commercialization from N.C. A&T.

Ahmedna’s process is expected to add value to a crop that is already economically and nutritionally important. Peanuts are the 12th largest crop in the United States, with a farm value of close to $1 billion a year. The Southeast is the main peanut producing region in the nation. Worldwide, the legume is even more important from an economic development standpoint. In developing nations, and Africa in particular, the soils and climate are especially suitable for peanuts.

Peanuts are not only important commercially, but nutritionally as well. Packed with proteins, healthy fats and a broad array of essential vitamins and minerals, they are considered an almost complete food. Their rich flavor, nutrition, fat and protein profile makes for a nearly perfect food from a food processing standpoint as well.

From his lab at Tuskeegee University in the early 1900s, the famed agricultural chemist George Washington Carver discovered approximately 300 food and non-food products from the legume. But despite their versatility, the allergy issue has caused the peanut to be viewed increasingly with caution. That might change, thanks to Ahmedna’s work at NC A&T.







Document Number: 1249
Healthy' purple potato goes on sale in UK supermarkets

Purple Majesty potatoes contain higher levels of the antioxidant anthocyanins
A purple potato that growers claim is healthier than the standard variety is going on sale in UK supermarkets.

The Purple Majesty has a distinctive deep colour and contains up to 10 times the level of antioxidant, anthocyanins, compared with white potatoes.

It was developed at Colorado State University from a traditional variety.

Despite its appearance, the potato now being grown by Perthshire producer Albert Bartlett after two years of trials, is not genetically modified.

Potatoes originate from the high reaches of the Andes and come in thousands of varieties, with many having developed deep red and purple colouring.

The trials found that the Purple Majesty could be grown in Scotland.

'Positive effect'
An initial crop of 400 tonnes of the variety will go on sale in Sainsbury's stores across Scotland and the south-east of England this week, with a larger yield expected next year.

Albert Bartlett, which has its headquarter in Airdrie, has been working with Queen Margaret University in Edinburgh and the Scottish Crop Research Institute to determine what health benefits there could be from eating the potato.

Dr Catherine Tsang, who took part in research, said: "Our research specifically looked at Purple Majesty potatoes which, unlike white potatoes, contain a natural pigment called anthocyanins.

"It's this pigment that gives the potato the purple appearance, but more importantly, it possesses antioxidant properties, which are maintained even after cooking."

She added: "We're all aware of the stories about red wine having a more positive effect on the heart than white wine, due to their higher levels of antioxidant.

Dr Tsang said anthocyanins contained antioxidant properties which some studies had suggested could have a positive effect on blood vessels and reducing blood pressure."

However, other studies have found little evidence of the conclusion.





Document Number: 8781
Italian producers unveil 'supertomato'
Mike Knowles | 05 July 2010 | Print | Download | Comment | Share
New, lycopene-rich tomato bred using natural techniques presented during Coldiretti farmers' assembly in Rome
Italian producers have unveiled a new 'supertomato' which they claim has the potential to slow the ageing process as well as offering better quality and taste.
Presented during Italian farming association Coldiretti's annual assembly in Rome, the as yet unnamed tomato variety is said to contain higher-than-normal levels of the red pigment lycopene (in excess of 50 per cent, in fact), an important anti-oxidant capable of neutralising free radicals in the human body.
According to reports, the product – which weighs around 70g and is slightly square in terms of its shape – has been grown naturally by cooperatives in Emilia-Romagna and Lombardy in northern Italy, with Coldiretti keen to point out that genetically modified organisms were not used in its development.
Economy Minister Giulio Tremonti, Agriculture Minister Giancarlo Galan and Labour Minister Maurizio Sacconi were on hand at the meeting to try out a pasta sauce made using the tomatoes.
"The anti-ageing super tomato is also effective in helping prevent cardiovascular diseases and tumours," said a spokesperson for Coldiretti.
A number of recent scientific studies have identified lycopene as having the potential to help combat medical conditions including heart attacks, strokes and prostate cancer.
Earlier this year, scientists at the Naples National Research Centre announced the development of Maxantia, another so-called 'super-tomato' containing high concentrations of lycopene.
Maxantia was bred using existing varieties San Marzano and the Black Tomato, an antioxidant-rich, purple fruit.





Document Number: 4847
HIGH BETA CAROTENE TOMATOES FOR WEST AFRICA
The Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center - The World Vegetable Center has released the results of the evaluation of 20 tomato lines for adoption in West Africa. The testing was a part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation-funded project on Vegetable Breeding and Seed Systems for Poverty Alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa. The testing  conducted in Mali showed two tomatoes CLN2366A and CLN2366B having a yield of 23 and 28 t/ha, respectively and grown under hot-wet conditions. The fruit of both lines is orange in color, an indication of high beta carotene, which was confirmed in laboratory tests to contain 10 to 12 times more than the normal red-fruited tomato. 

The lines are adapted to the hot-wet season in the region, they  flower early and have determinate vines. Sokona Dagnoko, a vegetable breeder from the Center's Subregional Office for West and Central Africa in Bamako, Mali is optomistic that year-round production and consumption of high beta-carotene tomatoes like CLN2366 and CLN2366B would help fight vitamin A deficiency in West Africa.







Document Number: 8561
Biofortified crops ready for developing world debut
Tatum Anderson
17 November 2010 | EN | ES

Orange maize boosted with beta-carotene will be released in Nigeria and Zambia in 2012
HarvestPlus/T. Rocheford
A range of crops rich in micronutrients will be launched from next year, but is the developing world ready for them, asks Tatum Anderson?

Millet rich in iron; wheat abundant in zinc; cassava tinged with extra beta-carotene. An array of crops bred to contain micronutrients that could fight the widespread problem of undernutrition is about to be unleashed on the developing world, beginning next year.  

The first meeting of international experts in biofortification heard last week (9–11 November) that, after almost a decade of research and development, high-iron pearl millet seeds will be released in India next year; and cassava and maize boosted with beta-carotene (which the body turns into vitamin A) will be released in Nigeria and Zambia in 2012.  Sweet potato containing extra beta-carotene is already on the market.

But will the undernourished embrace these solutions to the health problems that lack of nutrients brings? Experts at the meeting, the First Global Conference on Biofortification, are now turning their attention to winning over their customers — and they are realising there are many hurdles.

A lack of micronutrients such as iodine or zinc can lead to stunted growth, severe wasting, and intrauterine growth restriction and contributed to a large proportion of the 2.2 million deaths from undernutrition of children under five in 2005, according to a 2008 report by The Lancet.

People deprived of micronutrients usually rely on staple crops to give them sufficient calories to survive but miss out on other micronutrient-containing foods such as protein sources and vegetables. The hope with biofortification is that it could deliver these micronutrients via the very staple crops to which people do have access.

But these insights must now be explained to the outside world, says Ross Welch, a crop and soil scientist at Cornell University, United States, and a specialist in zinc-enriched wheat.

"You need to make sure the consumer will eat them, and the farmers will grow them. We need government policies to promote the planning of biofortification of crops."

Will, for example, Africans who have for generations opted for white-coloured staples, tuck into yellow and orange food rich in beta-carotene? Yellow-coloured maize varieties are often associated with animal feed.

Howarth Bouis, head of HarvestPlus, the organisation that has managed the development of many biofortified crops at a variety of research institutes around the world, thinks habits can be changed. Recent trials of biofortified orange-fleshed sweet potato in Uganda have revealed that if the benefits of vitamin A are explained to mothers, the food is consumed.

The problem, he concedes, will be spreading these messages cheaply. Talking directly to consumers is expensive and this part of the project could be more expensive than the initial breeding process, he says. 

The development community also needs persuasion. Many believe biofortification is an expensive technical fix — at a development cost of US$100 million per variety — to a problem that ought to be approached by tackling social and economic issues instead.

The key, it is thought, will be demonstrable improvements in health.

But there have been few large-scale studies seeking a direct link, in real-life settings, between eating biofortified crops and improved health. Such a trial involves feeding a small group of people to determine that levels of the micronutrient do indeed increase in their bodies.

Golden Rice, a crop biofortified with beta-carotene whose inventors hope it might help end the scourge of vitamin A deficiency-related blindness around the world, has been tested on fewer than 100 people so far. Participants have typically been given a single serving of the rice or vitamin A supplements or vegetables, to compare outcomes.

Only one effectiveness test has so far been performed on the HarvestPlus portfolio and results are not yet published.


Trials of biofortified orange-fleshed sweet potato in Uganda have revealed that, if the benefits are explained, the food is consumed
Flickr/telepathicgeorge
Trials such as this are needed because it is not enough for a nutrient to be present in a food. For it to pass into the bloodstream it must be in an absorbable form — it must be bioavailable.

Bioavailability is a complicated thing influenced by many factors that trials need to untangle — the soil in which the crop grows, the milling, storage, how the crop is cooked, and even the companion foods that are swallowed at the same time.  

The bioavailability of crops containing beta-carotene degrades once they have been harvested. Perhaps most elusively, existing bacteria in a person's gut appear to affect bioavailability, which means that, around the world, the absorption of nutrients from the same crop will vary.

A team at Iowa State University, United States, presented encouraging work at the conference showing that the beta-carotene in biofortified maize is converted in the body to vitamin A at a higher rate than that of normal maize and vegetables, including carrots.

Now scientists want to know why the beta-carotene disappears out of maize at different rates depending on the variety. They also want to understand the role of pre-biotics — substances that boost the body's rate of absorption of the micronutrients.

Inulin, for instance, is a non-digestible carbohydrate that can boost the body's absorption of iron, zinc and other minerals. Biofortifying crops with both nutrients and pre-biotics might improve bioavailability.

Assuming the nutrients are available and the locals are persuaded to eat the plants, there are other obstacles, too.

Generally the fruits of cutting-edge technology tend to be sold at a premium, yet the pricing of these crops must be pro-poor, says Marc Cohen, a senior researcher into humanitarian policy and climate change at Oxfam America, if they are to achieve their goals.

Will biofortification outperform other weapons in the war against under-nutrition, such as hugely successful vitamin supplements, or foods such as soy sauce and salt that are fortified through industrial processes?

Donors are even considering the merits of alternatives such as zinc or iodine-boosted fertilisers that might boost the micronutrient levels in food via the soil. 

There is also a resistance to biofortification arising from its link to genetically modified (GM) crops. Golden Rice has been developed using transgenic technology. But nothing in the HarvestPlus portfolio uses GM.

The GM debate has obscured constructive discussions over appropriate biofortification research and delivery strategies, according to Sally Brooks, a researcher at the STEPS (Social, Technological and Environmental Pathways to Sustainability) centre, housed at the UK's Institute of Development Studies.

Some believe that HarvestPlus and other global organisations have taken a top-down approach to biofortification research, in an effort to create generic technologies that might work all over the world. This means that developing country scientists and plant breeders have had little say on the kinds of crops that might be most appropriate and their insights have not been harnessed to drive the research agenda.

"There is a mis-match between a strong emphasis on impact at scale and working with local farmers," says Brooks. "They have very little say in what [a crop] looks like. It doesn't matter whether varieties are conventionally bred or GM. The issue is the same."

But HarvestPlus says it is now engaging enthusiastically with developing country farmers.








Document Number: 2355
Purple spud will put you in the pink

Published Date: 04 January 2009
By Jeremy Watson
THEY have remained an unchanging staple of the British diet for generations with hardly a nod to more health-conscious consumers.
But scientists may now have come up with the perfect chip, which not only tastes good, but could prolong your life. The only downside is that it is purple.

Highly pigmented purple spuds with health properties are currently being developed by plaADVERTISEMENT

nt scientists at the Scottish Crop Research Institute (SCRI) in Perthshire along with US researchers. 

The new tattie – based on a variety called Purple Majesty – will be rich in the antioxidants that protect the body against a range of conditions, including cancer and heart disease.

And as they have been developed from naturally occurring purple potato varieties, developers believe they will be more acceptable to consumers than genetically modified versions. 

Dr Mark Taylor, senior researcher at the Scottish Crop Research Institute near Dundee, said: "Yes, they will look unusual with their purple skins and purple flesh. There is a question about whether people will eat them or not, but if we can convince people they are good for you, then why not?"

Purple and blue-skinned foods, such as grapes, plums, aubergines and blueberries, are known to be rich in anthocyanin pigments that have the antioxidant effect. 

Purple foods are also believed to have anti-ageing benefits as they help to prevent the breakdown of skin collagen and slow the wasting of muscles.

A team at the Potato Research Institute of Colorado State University began experimenting with naturally occurring wild potato varieties from South America in 2000. 

They are now collaborating with the SCRI to identify the genes that give purple foods their health-related properties. The gene can then be incorporated into varieties that can be grown in cooler climates in commercial quantities.

Cecil Stushnoff, professor of horticulture and head of the research programme in Colorado, said that although cooking tended to destroy vitamins in potatoes, the evidence suggested that pigment levels were unaffected.

"Microwaving is best, but even frying seems to be OK. That means we could end up with healthier chips."









Document Number: 127
Scientists Find that ‘Orange’ Maize is a Good Source of Vitamin A
NEWSROOM
Media Contacts
In The Media
Resources
Events
WHAT'S NEW
New Strategy to Provide Maize for Millions
Jul 22, 2011
HarvestPlus Engages European Community
Jul 11, 2011
HarvestPlus Seeks Crop Development Manager
Jul 5, 2011
HarvestPlus Brochures Get a New Look
Jul 1, 2011
Vitamin A Maize on Offer at Experimental Biology 2011
Jun 21, 2011
ARCHIVE


For Immediate Release
September 7, 2010
Orange maize varieties often have higher amounts of vitamin A (Photo by: T. Rocheford)
Washington, D.C. Scientists have shown for the first time that ‘orange’ maize is a good source of vitamin A. This means that orange maize, a variety of maize bred to improve nutrition, could provide vitamin A through the diet to millions of poor people at risk of vitamin A deficiency.

Vitamin A deficiency blinds up to 500,000 children annually and increases the risk of disease and death, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa. Many people in this region are too poor to afford expensive vitamin A-rich foods such as orange fruits, dark leafy vegetables, or meat. However, they eat large amounts of white maize—up to a pound—daily. In this context, orange maize could provide a substantial portion of their vitamin A needs.

“Traditionally, white maize porridge is a popular food among children and adults,” says Dr. Wendy White, of Iowa State University, who headed the study. “It’s even, usually, the first solid food given to infants. We prepared the orange maize porridge in our study using traditional African methods in order to best approximate a real world situation.”

The maize was bred using conventional means (non-GMO) to have higher levels of beta-carotene, which gives it its orange color. The body converts beta-carotene into vitamin A. The study found that beta-carotene from orange maize was converted at a rate that was almost twice as high as previously assumed for maize, and even higher than from vegetables.

“We are encouraged that this higher conversion ratio has been scientifically established,” says Dr. Erick Boy, Nutrition Head of HarvestPlus, which supported the development of the maize. “In 2012, we plan to release orange maize in Zambia, in areas where almost half of children under five remain at risk of vitamin A deficiency. This new finding means that we should be able to provide far more dietary vitamin A through orange maize than previously thought possible. We’re looking at up to 30% of the daily requirement for children from two to six years old and 40% of the daily requirement for women of childbearing age.”

Maize is the third most important cereal crop in the world.






Document Number: 1787
Iron-fortified maize cuts anaemia rates in children

Fortified cereals can improve iron-deficiency anaemia
Morguefile
Fortifying cereals with a type of iron supplement reduces anaemia, iron-deficiency anaemia and general iron deficiency in children in developing countries, according to new research.

The study ― led by Pauline Andang'o of the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Centre for Public Health Research (CPHR) ― was published in The Lancet medical journal last week (26 May).

"Fortification of staple cereal flours could be a cost-effective, sustainable way to improve iron status in developing countries," write the authors.

The researchers studied 516 children aged 3–8 years from four schools in Marafa, Kenya.

The children were randomly assigned to four groups and given the same amount of porridge five times a week. The porridge was made from whole-maize flour, which is commonly eaten by poor families.

The porridge given to one group contained unfortified flour. The other groups received porridge fortified with either a high dose of the iron formulation sodium iron edetic acid (NaFeEDTA), a low dose of the same formulation, or a dose of electrolytic iron ― a commonly used iron supplement.

Concentrations of three blood compounds ― haemoglobin, plasma ferritin and transferrin receptor ― were analysed in samples taken at the start and end of the five-month study. These compounds are indicators of iron status.

The prevalence of iron-deficiency anaemia in children who received unfortified flour was ten per cent, 90 per cent higher than in children who had received high-dose NaFeEDTA. The high dose of NaFeEDTA also decreased the level of anaemia, and increased levels of all iron indicators.

Low-dose NaFeEDTA reduced iron deficiency but not anaemia. In contrast, the electrolytic iron had no effect.

According to David Mwaniki of the CPHR, the study has proved that this new formulation can improve nutrition significantly while the conventionally used electrolytic iron has little or no effect in improving iron status in the blood.

"This study will go a long way in addressing iron deficiency anaemia, not only in developing countries but the entire world," he said.

According to Mwaniki, iron is one of the most critical minerals in the body, used in carrying oxygen to the brain. Children who are anaemic have short attention spans; because their brain requires oxygen, they struggle in education.

Though the study only lasted five months, the authors say that because iron stores rapidly increase if supplements are continuously taken, the difference between the two forms of supplement would be even greater in the long term.






Document Number: 3230

Vitamin A equivalence of the β-carotene in β-carotene–biofortified maize porridge consumed by women?1,2,3
Shanshan Li, Angela Nugroho, Torbert Rocheford, and Wendy S White
+ Author Affiliations

1From the Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, Iowa State University, Ames, IA (SL, AN, and WSW), and the Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL (TR).
+ Author Notes

↵2 Supported by the US Agency for International Development and Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical.

↵3 Address correspondence to WS White, Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, 1111 Human Nutritional Sciences Building, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-1120. E-mail: wswhite@iastate.edu.

Abstract

Background: β-Carotene–biofortified maize is being developed through plant breeding as a sustainable agronomic approach to alleviate vitamin A deficiency.

Objective: Our objective was to quantify the vitamin A equivalence of the β-carotene in β-carotene–biofortified maize based on consumption of a single serving of maize porridge.

Design: Six healthy women each consumed three 250-g portions of maize porridge as follows: 1) β-carotene–biofortified maize porridge containing 527 μg (0.98 μmol) total β-carotene, 2) white maize porridge with a β-carotene reference dose containing 595 μg (1.11 μmol) added β-carotene, and 3) white maize porridge with a vitamin A reference dose containing 286 μg retinol activity equivelent (1.00 μmol) added retinyl palmitate. Each portion contained 8.0 g added sunflower oil. The porridges were consumed in random order separated by ≥2 wk. Blood samples were collected over 9 h. Retinyl palmitate was analyzed in plasma triacylglycerol–rich lipoprotein (TRL) fractions by HPLC with coulometric array electrochemical detection.

Results: Mean (±SD) areas under the curve for retinyl palmitate in the TRL fractions (nmol · h) were 24.0 ± 9.4, 89.7 ± 34.7, and 80.1 ± 24.8 after ingestion of the β-carotene–biofortified maize porridge, the white maize porridge with the β-carotene reference dose, and the white maize porridge with the vitamin A reference dose, respectively. On average, 6.48 ± 3.51 μg (mean ± SD) of the β-carotene in β-carotene–biofortified maize porridge and 2.34 ± 1.61 μg of the β-carotene in the reference dose were each equivalent to 1 μg retinol.

Conclusion: β-Carotene in biofortified maize has good bioavailability as a plant source of vitamin A.







Document Number: 6170
Addressing hidden hunger in Rwanda
Jean d'Amour Manirere, is the HarvestPlus Country Manager for high-iron beans in Rwanda.
During the last decade, Rwanda has made great progress, but food and nutrition insecurity still persist. Anaemia, for example, is widespread, with more than half of children under five and about 30 per cent of women suffering from anaemia, because their diet is based on cereals and tubers that are poor sources of absorbable iron. Such 'hidden hunger' occurs when families cannot afford enough micronutrient rich foods, like fresh vegetables or meat. However, as Country Manager for the HarvestPlus iron bean dissemination program, I believe we've found a sustainable, cost-effective way to increase the intake of iron for Rwanda's poorest citizens.
Adding iron to Rwanda's staple crop
A novel way to introduce more iron into someone's diet is to breed it into the crop that they most often eat. For us Rwandans this crop is beans. In Rwanda, beans are used to make a little food stretch a long way; most families boil a week's consumption at once, which is later mixed in at mealtimes with bits of potato, cassava, banana and maize. We eat about 200g per day, more than most other countries in the world. HarvestPlus and its partners (CIAT/PABRA and ISAR) have been adding more iron to beans through biofortification, a natural crossbreeding process. The target is to develop bean varieties that contain 94 micrograms of iron in every gram of bean. Eaten at every meal, such biofortified beans could give Rwandans up to 30 per cent of their daily iron requirement.

Biofortified beans could give Rwandans up to 30 per cent of their daily iron requirement
CIAT/Neil Palmer
Already in Uganda, sweet potatoes biofortified with vitamin A have been successfully distributed to farming communities through pilot programmes. With this crop, Ugandan children will receive the required amounts of vitamin A to protect them against infectious diseases and potential blindness. High-iron beans are moving quickly along the same path. Over the past year, many new varieties have been released with great success.
Feeding trials for the biofortified beans are planned for later in 2010. We believe these will prove that people can successfully absorb extra iron from eating these enriched beans, and a recent study has showed that biofortification promises to be a cost-effective strategy for reducing micronutrient deficiencies. Most importantly, iron-rich beans look the same as current varieties, they do not require any special techniques to grow, nor be treated any differently when cooked. This means that farmers are much more likely to grow the crop and Rwandans are more likely to eat it.
Raising awareness in communities

Farmer participation is the key to success
CIAT/Neil Palmer
We will, of course, need to train farmers in good agricultural practices and educate people on the benefits of eating iron-rich beans, and promoting and distributing biofortified beans in Rwanda is another major part of my work. I talk to farming leaders and consumer representatives to provide information and in partnernership with local and international organisations develop marketing campaigns on a national scale. For seed distribution, the Rwandan Ministry of Agriculture has created a national policy to release the seeds to farmers through NGOs. To further popularise the crop, "pro-biofortified' farmers will be chosen to grow the seeds and showcase the benefits.
All of these efforts bring us closer to my ultimate goal of high iron beans being widely accepted and eaten. National agricultural policies, partnerships with strong community support, and farmer participation are the keys to success. Once biofortified crops have the support of the people, I'm confident we'll have created a powerful and self-sustaining tool to end hidden hunger. This scientific progress is an important step for my country because, although Rwanda is a country of educated farmers and lush farmlands, few new bean cultivars have been developed since the genocide events of 1994. The release of these beans is a testament to Rwanda's recovery, resilience, and commitment to moving forward to make a better future out of a difficult past.





Document Number: 4725
New Hope for Improved Food Safety in Sub-Saharan Africa

This issue of the Story of the Month will run for both July and August . We wish all our readers a peaceful and restful summer.

Scientists at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) have developed a safe and effective method for biological control of aflatoxins. These are toxic chemicals of fungal origin, which contaminate maize and other major food crops, posing a chronic threat to human health in sub-Saharan Africa.	
See photos below story
With the new method, strains of the fungi that produce aflatoxin are overwhelmed through the introduction of related but entirely harmless strains. These were identified and tested through several years of meticulous research supported by the German Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) and carried out in collaboration with the Agriculture Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture, University of Arizona in the USA, University of Bonn in Germany and University of Ibadan in Nigeria.

Researchers found that inoculum containing the beneficial strains can be produced most efficiently on sorghum grain, resulting in a dry formulation, which can then be broadcast on moist soil in farmers’ maize fields. Laboratory and field tests have demonstrated that the harmless strains spread quickly from the soil to maize plants, where they reduce aflatoxin-producing strains on maize grain by 91 to almost 100 percent. A single application is sufficient to control the problem in the crop treated, though a few additional applications may be required to achieve long-term control in farmers´ fields. Large-scale testing of the new method is currently under way in Nigeria.

 An insidious threat

Aflatoxins are produced by various fungi, such as Apergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, which grow as molds on staple grains and root crops both before harvest and in storage. Contamination of maize causes particular concern, because it is sub-Saharan Africa’s most important cereal.

The toxins are especially damaging to children. Continuous exposure has been shown to stunt growth and even contribute to infant mortality when coinciding with kwashiorkor, a form of malnutrition caused by dietary deficiency of protein and other nutrients. The insidious combination of impaired development and undernourishment accounts for about half of the 4.5 million deaths of children under the age of 5 occurring annually in sub-Saharan Africa.

Aflatoxins are also believed to affect the human immune system, making people more vulnerable to infectious diseases, such as malaria and HIV/AIDS. In addition, the toxins are linked to liver disorders and can act in synergy with the Hepatitis B virus to cause hepatocellular carcinoma. This is the most common cancer in sub-Saharan Africa, accounting for as many as 10 percent of adult male deaths in parts of West Africa.

Aflatoxins further damage the well-being of Africa’s rural families by limiting exports of maize and groundnut in particular. Grain-importing countries maintain high food quality standards, with especially strict controls on aflatoxin content. African food and feed products showing levels of contamination above the acceptable limits cannot penetrate major grain markets, resulting in significant loss of agricultural income.

Except when people die of acute poisoning, as happened in Kenya during 2004-2006, aflatoxins seldom receive adequate attention in the region, even though they clearly have serious consequences and are quite widespread. In Benin and Togo, for example, researchers found that aflatoxin levels are about five times the safe limit of 20 parts per billion in up to 30 percent of household grain stores. According to other results from a study carried out in those countries and Nigeria, 99 percent of blood samples collected randomly from children contained aflatoxins.

 In pursuit of a biocontrol strategy

In an effort to reduce aflatoxin contamination, researchers at IITA and elsewhere have deployed various methods, involving, for example, modifications in grain drying, storage and food preparation practices. To complement strategies that have already proved effective, scientists have also actively pursued in recent years the option of biological control, building on the Institute’s long and extraordinary record of success in using this approach to combat major pests such as the mango and cassava mealybugs, cassava green mite, desert locust and banana nematodes and weevils.

The biocontrol strategy that appears to be effective against aflatoxin employs a mechanism that researchers refer to as “competitive exclusion.” This is made possible by the presence in nature A. flavus populations, not only of “toxigenic” strains, which produce copious amounts of aflatoxin, but also “atoxigenic” strains, which lack this capacity. In order for the strategy to work, researchers must identify and successfully introduce harmless strains that show a large competitive advantage over the dangerous ones.

In the resulting biological struggle, explains IITA plant pathologist Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, “the good strains of A. flavus virtually eliminate their highly toxic relatives and ensure that the ‘bad guys’ cannot re-emerge.”

Such a strategy has proved effective for controlling aflatoxin on cottonseed, groundnut and maize in the USA and on groundnut in Australia.

The challenge for scientists at IITA was to identify entirely safe atoxigenic strains of A. flavus that are indigenous to Africa and serve effectively as biocontrol agents. For this purpose, they first collected more than 4,200 samples of the fungus from different ecological zones of Nigeria. In these they identified 2,127 distinct strains, of which 1,000 proved to be atoxigenic. Only 26, though, were selected for further testing.

This involved an extremely laborious series of procedures, one of them, for example, involving.more than 30,000 crosses between different strains. The purpose was to group the selected strains according to “vegetative compatibility” and make sure they belong to groups consisting only of atoxigenic strains that cannot cross with toxigenic strains in nature. This procedure ensured that release of the biocontrol agents in the field would be absolutely safe, leading to a drastic reduction, rather than an inadvertent boost, in aflatoxin levels.

 Proven effectiveness

From the 14 unique atoxigenic groups identified, one strain each from eight groups was chosen for further evaluation for ability to compete with toxigenic strains. When maize grains were inoculated in the laboratory and field with both a highly toxigenic A. flavus strain as well as atoxigenic strains, one of the latter reduced aflatoxin levels by 91 percent and two others by nearly100 percent.

In experimental field plots, various atoxigenic strains proved capable of spreading quickly from the soil on which they were released to maize plants. One especially promising strain was found on nearly 99 percent of the maize grains analyzed.

The eight promising strains were further screened for their ability to get established rapidly after release, continue spreading and survive in plant debris. Strains showing these abilities can achieve effective biocontrol of aflatoxin-producing strains over multiple years, with only a few additional applications after initial release.

Having identified several excellent candidate strains to serve as agents of biocontrol, IITA researchers are further testing these in large-scale trials at various locations in Nigeria. To permit wide release of these biocontrol agents in the fields, researchers have developed safe, efficient and effective methods for producing and applying inoculum. IITA now seeks further support to disseminate the biocontrol technology as part of a “basket” of simple aflatoxin management practices that can reduce aflatoxin levels in Africa’s food and improve the health of its people.







Document Number: 4189
Scientists announce breakthrough in battle against aflatoxin

Author:
Date: 11/05/2009

Introduction:
Scientists of the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), Kenya, the United States Department for Agriculture (USDA) and International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, IITA, Nigeria, have developed a safe and natural method that could drastically cut aflatoxin contamination in African food crops by as much as 99 per cent. Under the biocontrol method, native strains of Aspergillus flavus that do not produce aflatoxins (called atoxigenic strains) can be applied in order to alter the fungal community on crops and throughout an area so that maize becomes less contaminated with aflatoxins. Farmers, policy makers, the food and feed industry and various NGOs have expressed their desire and support to convert this technology into a readily-available product in Nigeria and other countries in Africa. (Source: African Science News Service, 30 April 2009)






Document Number: 8914
Field trials offer hope of conquering food toxin
Semiu Babalola
26 June 2009 | EN

Maize growing in Nigeria
Flickr/MikeBlyth
[LAGOS] The elimination of deadly aflatoxin, which contaminates food crops in Sub-Saharan Africa, is a step closer now scientists have shown that a control method works well in large-scale field trials.

Aflatoxin is a poison produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus. It contaminates crops such as maize, ground nuts, cassava and yam, either in the field during times of stress — such as drought or insect infestation — or as a result of poor storage conditions.

More than 4.5 billion people in developing countries may be chronically exposed to aflatoxin in their food, putting them at risk of diseases such as cancer. Africa also loses about US$450 million in lost revenue from contaminated export grain.

Scientists from the Nigeria-based International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), the United States Department of Agriculture and the African Agricultural Technology Foundation in Kenya have been working together to develop a biological control method to reduce the amount of aflatoxin contamination in maize.

A study in 2007 (see Biological control saves maize from toxic invasion) showed that using A. flavus strains that do not produce the toxin to outcompete their toxin-producing cousins can dramatically reduce aflatoxin concentration.

In the past two years, larger field trials have been conducted at 11 sites using a mixture of four benign strains.

Ranajit Bandyopadhyay, a plant pathologist at IITA, told SciDev.Net that this biocompetitive method reduces contamination by 60–99 per cent. "[The trials] proved the robustness of the technology in many growing conditions and gave us more confidence about upscaling the technology widely in Nigeria," he adds.

Farmers in Burkina Faso, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Senegal and South Africa are showing interest in the technology but the benign strains developed are indigenous to Nigeria and may not be suitable for other countries, say the scientists.

IITA researchers will begin further field trials in Nigeria on another 100 hectares in August.

"Finding a donor that can fund this technology on a large scale is a priority," says Bandyopadhyay.

But Niyi Olayiwola, an agricultural economist at the Nigeria's Development Policy Centre, says that getting farmers to use the technology may not be easy. "It is a good development but farmers value their own traditional ways of doing things," Olayiwola says.







Document Number: 8292
Striga Resistant Varieties to Boost Sorghum Yields

Steven Tendo 9 June 2010

Email|Print|Comment
Share:
						
In April, scientists in eastern and central Africa embarked on identifying sources of resistance to Striga, a parasitic weed. Supported by the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (Asareca), the researchers from Sudan, Kenya, Eritrea and the International Crop Research Institute (ICRISAT) are using biotechnological tools in locating and identifying Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) that gives resistance to Striga.


 
QTL is a statistical method that links two types of information phenotypic data (trait measurements) and genotypic data (usually molecular markers)--in an attempt to explain the genetic basis of variation in complex traits.

According to Dr Charles Mugoya, the programme manager of the Agro biodiversity and biotechnology programme of Asareca, knowing the location and identification of QTLs for Striga resistance is a useful tool in aiding marker assisted breeding/selection (MAB or MAS) of Sorghum for Striga resistance.

MAS is an indirect selection process where a trait of interest is chosen not based on the trait itself but on a marker (morphological, biochemical or one based on DNA/RNA variation) linked to it. So far, QTLs underlying different resistance phenotypes have been identified and the scientists are now backcrossing populations to generate striga resistance QTLs into farmer preferred sorghum varieties.


 
Mugoya said Striga hermonthica, also locally known as the witchweed, is a major constraint to sorghum production in particular and cereal production in general, especially in more marginal areas like semi-arid regions, where continuous cropping as a result of population pressure, has led to widespread soil infertility.

The weed is genetically diverse and several factors contribute to its diversity. These include a high turnover of several generations of witch weed populations leading to high genetic diversity; hybridisation; broad geographic distributions; long distance dispersal and locally adapted host races.

"Owing to its great potential genetic diversity, efforts to control it, through conventional breeding to generate striga resistant varieties or agronomic practices to reduce the striga seed bank in the soil, have been ineffective and striga continues to be a menace, with reported cases of up to 100 per cent sorghum yield loss in the region," he noted.


 
Sorghum is ranked second, after maize as the most important cereal crop in East Africa and in the Asareca region. According to statistics from the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), sorghum is the fifth most important cereal crop worldwide and together with maize and pearl millet, it forms the most important dry land cereal crop for the semi-arid tropics particularly in Africa.

It is grown in at least 86 countries, on an area of 47 million hectares, with annual grain production of 69 million tonnes and average productivity of 1.45 tonnes per hectare. Sorghum yields in Africa however range between 500-800 kg per hectare compared with yield levels of up to 7,000kg (7 tonnes) per hectare in the developed world.

The bulk of African sorghum production is centred around the savannah areas of east, west and central Africa, where it forms a major component of the daily menu for millions of people, either as porridge or as traditional beer. Uganda is using sorghum for the beer industry. In addition, in many developing countries, sorghum stover is used to feed cattle.

Relevant Links
East Africa
Uganda
Food and Agriculture
Striga infested areas in Africa is estimated at 21 million ha. In many parts of East Africa, people lose half of their crop production to Striga and total yield losses occurs in infested farmer's fields especially during drought periods. The change in farming systems from shifting cultivation to more permanent cropping, concomitant with loss in soil fertility, and frequent cultivation of susceptible host plants, are main factors responsible for increased Striga infestation.

The project promises to increase sorghum productivity in order to address food insecurity and poverty in East and Central African semi-arid zones and boost yields by at least by 20 per cent.

Widespread cultivation of striga resistant varieties is expected to reduce labour demand, since weeding to control striga seeds will not be necessary. In addition, control of striga by the application of herbicides will become unnecessary, thus saving the environment.





Document Number: 7082
Salt tolerance
     
For years, GM proponents have been claiming breakthroughs in developing crops that tolerate saline soils. But as of 2011, none have been commercialised. An article from 2009 said only that GM scientists "are close to developing crops that are tolerant of salt".
The difficulty is that the genes that salt tolerance in plants is regulated not by one or two genes but by a complex network of genetic functioning that cannot be replicated by the crude methods of the genetic engineer.
GM salt tolerant crops, if they existed, would be a band-aid solution to a problem that intensive and chemical agriculture has caused. The sensible answer to salination of soils is prevention by sustainable farming and water management techniques. If it's too late for prevention, then the soil must be rebuilt by incorporating plenty of organic matter into it and planting different crops in stages according to its recovery.
As any coastal grower knows, there is no shortage of naturally salt tolerant plants and crops. In India, Dr Vandana Shiva's biodiversity organisation Navdanya has collected indigenous varieties of salt tolerant crop seeds for years. Following the 2004 tsunami, scientists said that local farming would have to be put on hold for five years because too much salt had been washed into the soil. But Navdanya dug into its seed bank and distributed salt-tolerant crop seed to farmers, enabling them to keep producing.





Document Number: 1073
Wheat variety thrives on saltier soils
Wagdy Sawahel
28 April 2010 | EN | ES

Unlike bread wheat, durum wheat is generally intolerant to salinity
Flickr/ Aske Holst
A variety of wheat that thrives on salty soils has been bred by scientists who say they will make it freely available to the developing world.

The enhanced durum wheat is 25 per cent more productive in saline soils than its normal counterpart, according to Rana Munns, chief research scientist at the Australia-based CSIRO Plant Industry.

Munns and her team isolated two salt tolerance genes from an old species of wheat (Triticum monococcum) and, using non-GM methods, introduced them into commercially important Australian durum wheat (Triticum durum)lines.

The genes limit the passage of sodium from the roots to leaves, where it can be toxic to the plant.

Some 17 million hectares of durum wheat are cultivated worldwide, with 60 per cent of cultivation taking place in developing countries in regions including the Middle East, North Africa, Latin America and central India, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization.

Some soils are naturally salty, for example in India and in semi-arid regions such as the Middle East, but salinity can also be caused by irrigation. Around one third of the world's food is produced on irrigated land, and is thus susceptible to salinity problems. Introducing salt-tolerance genes to crops is one way of dealing with this issue (see Genetic change could make crops thrive on salty soils).

"The [salt tolerance] gene is now present in an Australian durum wheat line," Munns told SciDev.Net. "This line is available to breeders in developing countries for backcrossing into local durum wheat cultivars."

Unlike bread wheat, durum is generally intolerant to salinity so the first salt-tolerant durum line is a great achievement, said Francis Obgbonnaya, researcher at the International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, Syria.

"The additional significance is that it is non-GM and CSIRO Plant Industry is willing to share it with developing countries," he said. 

Rodomiro Ortiz, a consultant for Mexico-based International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), said that the work illustrates the power of using non-GM approaches to make use of natural genetic variety to improve crops.

But Hans-Joachim Braun, global wheat director at CIMMYT, said: "Breeding salt tolerant plants for such systems will provide a short term solution but in the long term this will only make the situation worse as it allows farmers to continue with sub-optimal practices that increase salt concentration. Such salt problems must be addressed through engineering and agronomy practices".





Document Number: 1206
New Rice Strain Could Help Atopic Dermatitis, Diabetes
A Korean research team has cultivated a new strain of rice containing highly concentrated Cyanidin-3-Glucoside or C3G which is known to ease symptoms of atopic dermatitis and diabetes.

"The rice is cultivated by traditional methods and not genetically modified, so it doesn't have any stability problems as a food product," said Ryu Su-noh, a professor of agricultural science at Korea National Open University.

Clinical tests on rats showed that the new strain has about 10 times more C3G than in ordinary black rice. The test also showed that the rice reduces itching by about 70 percent while reducing sugar levels and increasing insulin levels in the blood just as effectively as conventional treatments.

Kim Dong-hyeon, a professor of pharmaceutical science at Kyung Hee University said, "We tested the effects of constraining inflammation or itchy symptoms, and the effect of the rice was much greater than normal rice."

The team plans to register the rice at the Korea Seed and Variety Service next year. Incomes for farmers are expected to increase once mass production of the rice begins.





Document Number: 8822
ould flood-resistant rice be the way forward?

Photo: Jason Gutierrez/IRIN
A farmer inspecting his rain-fed rice field in Sagada, in the northern Philippines
LOS BANOS, 5 February 2009 (IRIN) - Year after year, tropical storms bring economic disaster to rice farmers across Asia whose fields are submerged in pools of brown stagnant water. A season's rice harvest can rot, and along with it, the family's prospective income. 

However, a solution may be at hand. At the Philippines-based International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), scientists are developing a rice variety with high tolerance to submersion under water for extended periods. 

IRRI has produce three widely grown varieties of rice that are flood tolerant - the Swarma and Mahsuri from India and the IR64 produced at IRRI’s facility in the Philippines (in Los Banos, Laguna Province) - David McKill, the head of IRRI’s plant-breeding division, told IRIN. 

Three more varieties from Laos, Bangladesh and India are being developed at Los Banos, he said. 

"These new varieties do not show any differences from the originals, except for submergence tolerance," Mackill stated in a research article in IRRI's in-house journal Rice Today, noting that work on the genetics of submergence tolerance began in the 1990s when researchers first mapped rice DNA to isolate a gene responsible for the phenomenon - Sub1 gene. 

"Rice is considered a semi-aquatic plant, and it thrives in the wettest agricultural environments," he said. "However, most rice varieties will be heavily damaged and die if they remain underwater for more than four days." 

The new varieties being developed are designed to withstand up to three weeks of submergence and recover after flood waters subside, according to Mackill. 

"This is important for the vast rain-fed lowland areas of Asia where intermittent flooding causes frequent submergence," Mackill said. "Estimated crop losses (due to flooding) are around US$1 billion annually." 

He said some of the varieties are now being tested in areas in India and Bangladesh, noting that "submergence stress" is more common in areas where poverty is also a major problem, principally because such poor areas lack proper flood control infrastructure. 

Cautious welcome 
The potential impact is huge. Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall and substantially limit import needs
But while flood-resistant rice is a breakthrough for the scientific community, traditional farmers like 57-year-old Trinidad Domingo, of CabanatuanProvince on Luzon Island,are welcoming it cautiously as past experiences with hybrid rice have not always been successful, she told IRIN. 

"I think it may be a big help to farmers like us, because we invest everything in our farms and seeds and if your field gets flooded, the rice plants die in a matter of two days," Domingo said. "If you are a small or subsistence farmer, you will lose much, including food for your family." 

However, she said she knew farmers who had used hybrid rice - distributed by the government and intended to boost yields - but it had produced empty grains and had stunted growth. They were forced to plough back their fields and absorb huge losses, she said. 

"I hope once they introduce the flood-resistant rice, it will not have the same problem," said Domingo, whose earnings from her farm provide an income to her, her 10 siblings and over 40 grandchildren. 

Opposition to GM rice 

Che de Jesus, a policy officer at the Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE), which campaigns against genetically modified plants, said flood-tolerant rice should not be touted as something “that would solve the world's hunger". 

"These crops are not really proven to be safe to humans [yet]; they have only been tested on animals," said de Jesus, whose group includes farmers’ organisations in the region. "Farmers throughout the years have managed to naturally develop their own rice varieties that could adapt to different conditions, be it in rain-fed areas or dry areas." 

But IRRI's Mackill said recent field testing of waterproof rice in Bangladesh had been completed "with flying colours." Bangladesh and Indian seed certification agencies are also now close to releasing the crop variety and both countries are hoping to cut losses from flooding, he said. Such crop losses are estimated at four million tonnes a year - enough to feed 30 million people for nearly a year. 

"The potential impact is huge," Mackill said. "Submergence-tolerant varieties could make major inroads into Bangladesh's annual rice shortfall and substantially limit import needs." 
Mackill contends that in creating the water-tolerant rice seeds, they were not genetically modified, thus he believes they can be put to use fairly soon as they need not go through years of regulatory testing. 






Document Number: 9838
War in rice fields: To GM or not to GM
Commodity Online, 5 October 2007 
http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/newsdetails.php?id=585

NEW DELHI: India's rice fields are witnessing a strange battle now - a fight of the traditional versus the modern.

While the genetically modified (GM) crops represent the modern, the age old methods and seeds of the common Indian farmer stand for the traditional side.

The war recently took an ugly turn when farmers in Haryana and Tamil Nadu destroyed the filed trial plots of the GM rice. The farmers were protesting against the sly move to introduce the genetically modified rice variety into the country. These experimental rice fields were being monitored by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco) on behalf of the American agro-business firm Monsanto.The campaign against the GM rice got a shot in the arm a few weeks ago following the decision of certain European Union countries to ban the import of American rice, fearing contamination by the GM rice strain Liberty Line (LL-601). In fact, it was the detection of few grains of GM rice in the American rice consignments that forced the EU countries to suspend the trading in American rice. As a result of this, the world’s largest rice importer Ebro Puleva stopped trading in the US grown rice.

Indian farmers who campaign against the GM rice trials celebrated their first victory recently following the Union commerce ministry’s decision to tell Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) not to approve field trials of GM crops in Basmati rice growing states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttarakhand and western Uttar Pradesh.

The decision was taken at a meeting convened by the commerce ministry. The meeting was attended by chairman of Agricultural and Processed Food Export Development Authority (Apeda), Sashi Sareen of Export Inspection Council of India, advisor to the department of biotechnology KK Tripathi and representatives of the All India Rice Exporters Association (Airea).

The meeting also decided to ask GEAC not to approve field trials of GM crops in all the 60 agri-export zones (AEZs). Apeda has been asked to submit a detailed list of the 60 AEZs.

Explaining the reason, Airea sources said Airea is neither against nor in favour of GM crops. The main concern is maintaining the country's export prospects. Recently when the US and Chinese rice were contaminated with GM trace, major importing countries refused rice consignments from these two countries. India does not want such a situation to occur here.

Airea also suggested a transparent and scientific procedure for such field trials and that the GM crop field trials should be conducted under a validated event-specific protocol and in a transparent manner. It also said the trials should be conducted by a lead scientist whose details should be disclosed.

According to scientists, GM rice supporters may argue that since rice is a self-pollinated crop, genetic contamination is excluded. But genes travel to related plots on their own which is called gene flow. In 1966, gene flow was discovered to be much more common than it was previously thought. The process of putting alien genes into plants and animals to favour certain traits or confer resistance is, at best, an inexact science, with unpredictable consequences. Genes don’t necessarily control a single trait, argue experts.

The EU countries' decision to stop importing American grown rice could be utilised by the Indian rice exporters. The EU countries used to import about 300,000 tonnes of rice from the USA to meet a part of its annual requirement running up to 12,000,00 tonnes. And the rice of Indian and Pakistani origin imported by the EU countries used to account for around 3,00,000 tonnes.

Indian exporters of Basmati rice who have already established a presence in the EU countries hope to boost their export by expanding their portfolios to include non-basmati rice varieties. Pakistan and Thailand are the other major exporters of rice to the EU countries. And in terms of quality and price, Indian rice has certain advantages over its Asian competitors.

Meanwhile, with a view to step up rice production to meet the needs of a fast-growing population, India is laying special emphasis on increasing the area under hybrid rice cultivation. Currently, over a million hectares of land is under hybrid rice in India. But in China around 15-million hectares are under hybrid rice cultivation.

Navadanaya, a New Delhi-based NGO, has together with farmers from nine Indian states developed a register documenting over 2,000 indigenous rice varieties. According to Navadanya, the genetically modified rice strains are not only costly to cultivate but also are a poor match to the native strains in fighting pests, diseases and environmental fluctuations. Several indigenous rice strains adopted by the Indian farmers can withstand extremes of climatic conditions, survive submergence for a fortnight and even withstand salinity with a high degree of success.

Meanwhile, Pakistan is planning to embrace the GM-regime in a big way. Last week, Kausar Abdullah, member Planning Commission on Agriculture, revealed that efforts were underway for approval of all BT (Bio-technology) varieties as soon as possible to adopt them in an organised manner for cultivation all over the country.





Document Number: 6504
Non-GM "snorkel rice could feed millions"
Thursday, 27 August 2009 16:07
     
NOTE: Below's a very interesting comment by the molecular biologist Dr Michael Antoniou on the widely reported paper published last week in Nature (VOL.460 NO.7258) on so called "snorkel rice", involving genes that allow rice to survive in deepwater flooding by shooting up in height.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v460/n7258/edsumm/e090820-14.html

The paper was reported in both the science and popular media with headlines that were often dramatic, eg "Snorkel rice could feed millions" (BBC). Some of these reports mistakenly claimed that this was a GM rice. 

One widely circulated popular science piece, for example, was headlined, "Genetically Engineered Rice Plants Grow 'Snorkels' To Survive Floods."
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/snorkel-genes-allow-rice-plants-survive-floods
http://esciencenews.com/sources/popsci/2009/08/19/genetically.engineered.rice.plants.grow.snorkels.to.survive.floods

Jon Hamilton, a correspondent for National Public Radio's science desk, had his report on "snorkel rice" billed as: "Scientists are racing to genetically engineer strains of rice that can prevent the deadly famines that come with drought and floods in Asia. One new strain causes part of the plant to elongate, acting as a snorkel."
http://www.npr.org/templates/rss/podlayer.php?id=2100615
http://www.wbur.org/news/npr/people/2100615

Such reports may have been behind comments claiming that "snorkel rice" provides, "A perfect example of the benefits of genetic modification of staple crops and why we need to fund research on them." 
http://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/9cgv4/genetically_engineered_rice_grows_snorkel_during/

And blog comments such as:

"But it's genetically modified food. We can't have that! Who cares if it feeds the world, it's still not organic and we all know organic foods keep us from getting sick. Or do we.."
http://steve-lewis.blogspot.com/2009/08/snorkel-rice-could-feed-millions.html

As Dr Antoniou's comments make clear, "snorkel rice" is very far from being a "perfect example of the benefits of genetic modification". In fact, the paper leads to the conclusion that non-GM biotechnological approaches, like marker assisted selection (MAS), can successfully deliver new crops with complex traits. 

Of course, "snorkel rice" is not the first flood-resistant rice to be passed off as a GM rice when it's not. The UK's former Chief Scientist, Prof Sir David King, even pulled this trick in a BBC radio programme. There is a submergence tolerant (flood resistant) rice on the market but it is non-GM. The researchers, in fact, tried to use a GM approach to develop it and failed. 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/dec/09/david-king-gm-crops
---
---
COMMENT by Dr Michael Antoniou, Head of the Nuclear Biology Group at King's College London

The article by Hattori Y et al. in Nature (volume 460, pages 1026-1031) describes the mapping of the "Snorkel" genes (designated  SK1 and SK2) that stimulate a high rate and length of stem growth in rice under flood conditions. A DNA marker statistical analytical (quantitative trait loci - QTL) approach was used initially to roughly identify the location within the plant total DNA (genome) where the flood response genes were located. A total of 3 QTL regions were identified on three different chromosomes (numbers 1, 3 and 12) with one of them (on chromosome 12) being particularly important (QTL12). QTL12 was followed up by a direct gene mapping (positional cloning) approach to specifically identify genes that may be involved in deepwater response residing in this region of the genome. This identified two candidate genes (subsequently named SK1 and SK2). The SK1 and SK2 genes were then confirmed as having a functional role in the deepwater flood response by transgenic (GM) techniques in a "gain-of-function" analysis; i.e., add the genes to a rice variety which lacks them (T65) and see if it now acquires a flood-induced growth response; it worked!

I mention all this because it is important when it comes to understanding the transfer of the genes to a high yielding variety.

On page 1028 of the article in Nature the authors state:

"Deepwater rice is mainly cultivated in lowland areas, and it is the only crop that can be grown in flooded areas in the rainy season. One problem with the cultivation of deepwater rice is its low yield (2). Deepwater rice bred for these areas must possess not only internode elongation ability under deepwater conditions, but must also produce higher yields. To date, we have identified three QTLs on chromosomes 1, 3 and 12 that regulate the deepwater response (9,10). To evaluate the deepwater responses of these QTLs, NILs and QTL pyramiding lines (21,22) were produced. Four QTL pyramiding lines were produced, possessing two QTLs on chromosomes 1 and 3 (NIL-113), 3 and 12 (NIL-3112), 1 and 12 (NIL-1112), and three QTLs on chromosomes 1, 3 and 12 (NIL-113112) in a T65 genetic background (Fig. 4c, d). In particular, the QTL pyramiding line NIL-113112 showed almost the same deepwater response as C9285. These results indicate that introducing these three QTLs into non-deepwater rice enables it to behave like deepwater rice. Therefore, the QTL pyramiding strategy is a powerful and efficient tool for breeding rice varieties for flood-prone areas. Recently, genes that regulate yield have been identified (21,23-26). The combination of deepwater and yield QTLs has the potential to help breeding in these areas."

What does this all mean you may ask? Basically the researchers CROSSED the deepwater, flood responding but low yielding rice (C9285) with the non-deepwater responding T65 rice variety. Using the fact that they had identified the DNA regions that regulate deepwater response as QTL markers, they were able to use an MAS strategy to identify progeny from this cross which contained various combinations of the three QTL markers within an otherwise T65 variety genetic background. They found that the T65 cross that contained all 3 QTL markers showed the same flood response to that of the parental C9285 type.

So, the message is that although various non-GM and GM biotechnological methods were used to identify the genomic regions and two of the genes responsible for the flood response, it is MAS [non-gM Marker Assisted Selection] that was used to exemplify the transfer of the flood response gene loci to an otherwise non-responsive line of rice. It is interesting that the authors in their statement above seem to imply that their cross-breeding (QTL pyrimiding) strategy is the way forward to exploit their findings and do NOT mention a transgenic approach, probably because what is involved is so complex that GM could not deliver what is required. We have to remember that THREE QTL regions were identified as being linked with the flood response. So the QTL12-linked SK1 and SK2 are only part of the story albeit a very important one. So I presume the authors chose a QTL pyramiding cross-breeding plus MAS strategy to make sure they got all three QTL regions in place in the new variety; something totally beyond what GM can even dream about doing!

This is another example of how an MAS and NOT a GM transgenic approach can successfully deliver new crops with complex traits.





Document Number: 338
ndian farmers adopt flood-tolerant rice at unprecedented rates	 	 	 
Tuesday, 14 September 2010
Farmers cultivating rice on 12 million hectares of flood-prone areas in India are planting flood-tolerant rice varieties at unprecedented rates, thanks to faster seed multiplication, targeted dissemination, and linking of partners.
Dr. Umesh Singh, senior scientist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), said, “Earlier, we only provided and field-tested IRRI rice lines that were tolerant of flooding. Now, we assist government agencies and private seed companies to multiply and distribute seeds to farmers at a faster pace.” 

Field-testing a rice variety normally takes 4–5 years before it is released and another 2–3 years before it reaches farmers. Through targeted dissemination, IRRI is helping state governments identify specific flood-prone areas where seeds of the submergence-tolerant variety can be distributed, without having to wait until it is multiplied and distributed en masse.

IRRI, celebrating its 50th year of conducting rice research, has been working with India's national and state governments, nonprofit organizations, farmers' organizations, research institutions, and public and private seed companies to promote Swarna-Sub1, a flood-tolerant version of the widely grown Swarna variety.

“Even before the seeds are released, different research institutions are already multiplying these seeds,” Dr. Singh explained. “Immediately after release, we encourage state governments, as they distribute the seeds to other channels for large-scale multiplication, to also disseminate the seeds directly to farmers in target areas. Farmers need not wait for 2–3 years for mass distribution.”

Swarna-Sub1 incorporates the SUB1 gene into the Indian mega-variety Swarna, making it resilient to flooding of up to 17 days while retaining the desirable traits of the original variety,“ said Dr. David Mackill, senior scientist at IRRI who helped identify the SUB1 gene and develop Sub1 varieties.

Under submergence, Swarna-Sub1 provides a yield advantage of about one ton per hectare over Swarna,” Dr. Mackill added. “Since this is an improved version of an existing variety, scientists only had to test its tolerance of submergence, lessening the time for field-testing by a year.”

"Swarna-Sub1, released in August 2009, is the first submergence-tolerant, high-yielding rice variety in India,” said Dr. Singh. “It was released in record time and is spreading at an unprecedented speed.” Swarna took 25 years after its release to be planted on six million hectares, reaching its current “mega” variety status.

“We are hoping that Swarna-Sub1 will reach the same status in only five years,” Dr. Singh added. “It could entirely replace Swarna and spread to other flood-prone areas all over the country.”

IRRI identifies flood-prone areas with very low agricultural productivity and where technology diffusion is usually slow. State governments distribute “minikits” or 5-kg packets of seeds to farmers in these areas. To date, 70,000 minikits, or an equivalent of 350 tons of seeds, have been distributed during kharif or monsoon. Within one year of release, this variety has reached more than 100,000 farmers in India.

IRRI links with the National Food Security Mission, a mega-scheme of the Ministry of Agriculture, government of India, state governments, NGOs, and public and private seed producers and breeders to multiply and  disseminate Swarna-Sub1 seeds. The supply will aid various states in India that do not have enough seeds to distribute to farmers.





Document Number: 9042
Optimal Pesticide Use Can Save Cotton Farmers
By Neena Bhandari

MELBOURNE, Jun 7, 2007 (IPS) - A relatively low-tech approach to managing pesticides promises to help hundreds of thousands of cotton farmers across Asia raise yields and reduce environmental contamination. 

Melbourne scientists are already collaborating with groups across Asia to combat the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera), an agricultural pest that causes five billion US dollars worth of crop damage each year and serious distress to farmers in countries like India. 

Helicoverpa armigera is a major pest prevalent in 29 cotton producing countries across Asia, Australia, Africa and Southern Europe. Besides cotton, this moth attacks more than 100 different commercial crops including maize, wheat, sorghum, sunflower, chickpea, lupins, soybeans, tobacco, tomato, lettuce, sweet corn, capsicum and beans and flowers including chrysanthemums, gladioli and roses. 

Derek Russell and Philip Batterham, professors at the ‘Bio21 Institute' of the University of Melbourne have been working closely with Keshav Kranthi of the Central Institute of Cotton Research in Nagpur (India) and a number of other groups in India, China and Pakistan, to develop technologies to aid farmers in their fight against this destructive moth. 

About 40 percent of the annual cost of growing cotton is spent on insecticides by the eight million cotton farmers spread across 11 states in India, while still failing to control the caterpillars. Cotton bollworm has often caused total crop loss driving hundreds of farmers in India to suicide. 

Besides making the pest resistant, indiscriminate spraying of insecticides has created ecological havoc. Russell says, "By the mid 1990s, Indian cotton farmers were spending 43 percent of the variable costs of cotton production on insecticides, around 80 percent of that being for cotton bollworm control. Insecticide use on cotton was 50 percent of all insecticide use in the country and it was increasing at seven percent per annum. For many, perhaps even most, cotton production was being rendered uneconomic." 

"In 1998-99, 14.6 percent of Indian cotton production was lost to insect - mainly cotton bollworm - damage. The Green Revolution had increased the area of more susceptible cotton bollworm hosts and the intensification of cropping patterns meant that these hosts were available all year round." he adds. 

Kranthi and his collaborators, supported by Russell, have implemented a control programme in thousands of Indian villages, slashing insecticide use by 50 percent, which has led to increase in yields by 11 percent and profitability by 75 percent. In the Wardha district of central Maharashtra, where the programme was introduced in 1997, common insecticides once again kill cotton bollworms easily. 

According to official figures maintained by the provincial government of Maharashtra, close 1,500 farmers, most cotton growers, committed suicide in 2006 and the trend has continued this year in spite of attempts at intervention by the government. 

Apart from higher yields, selective use of insecticides has major benefits for the environment and human health. A 2004 survey found that under the programme the number of farmers poisoned by insecticides had decreased roughly tenfold. 

Russell says, "There were seven major groups of insecticides being used. Now farmers are using four groups and rotating them intelligently, keeping human and environmental health in mind." The strategy is implemented in an integrated pest management context, not using insecticides that kill the biological control agents or disrupting control of other pest species in the cotton. The group has had some major successes, recently identifying resistance genes for two important classes of insecticides, the neonicotinoids and the spinosyns. 

The collaborators have developed a number of test kits, similar to home pregnancy test kits, which allow the farmer to determine if an insecticide will be effective against the moth. It is now possible to test the quality or identity of the insecticide, thereby allowing a farmer to check whether he is getting what he paid for. Another test detects whether a population of moth will be affected by a particular insecticide. 

As farmers' spraying habits tend to be heavily influenced by their neighbours, the scheme is introduced to whole villages at a time. The programme tells farmers how to check whether insecticides are needed and if so which type of insecticide to use and when best to use it, so that during each of the four month-long "windows" of the growing season, only one type of insecticide is used. The life cycle of the Helicoverpa armigera is about one month, so the offspring of any resistant insects that survive one round of insecticide are killed by a different one the next month. 

Some aspects of the programme have been introduced in China and Pakistan. In Uganda, they have taken a different approach says Russell. "There is no effective agricultural extension support structure in Uganda, so, with donor and national collaborator support we have been running 9,000 demonstrations per year. By the end of 2007 we would have contacted every cotton grower in Uganda." 

A similar test has been developed by Kranthi to check the integrity of Bt cotton - a transgenic form of cotton that contains a bacterial insecticide. Seeds can be ground up and a dip-stick style test used to detect the presence of the toxin. Undoubtedly, Bt cotton has been a huge success with widespread adoption in a number of countries including Australia, China, India and the U.S, but public opposition to the genetic modification of food crops means that in the short-term genetically modified Bt plants are not a viable alternative for controlling the moth on the majority of the crop species it attacks. 

The next crucial step is to sequence the moth's genome, to find its Achilles heel. 

Prof. Philip Batterham from the Bio21 Institute wants to extend the kit technology by determining the full range of genes that can be involved in insecticide resistance. He says, "With this knowledge it will be possible to develop a diagnostic to predict the usefulness of different insecticides. We will be able to prescribe the best possible control treatment regime to control this pest." 

"We believe it will be possible in the future to manage or prevent resistance so that farmers can keep their produce in the market. To maximise control over insect pests, we are working towards next generation solutions - pest-specific insecticides," Batterham adds. (END) 





Document Number: 4210
Experimental Chickpeas Fend off Caterpillar Pest

By Jan Suszkiw
August 25, 2009
Chickpeas, high in protein, fiber and other nutrients, are important legume crops the world over. But humans aren't the only consumers: the larval stage of the beet armyworm moth likes to eat the crop's leaves.

But new lines of resistant chickpeas developed by Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists and their collaborators could put the kibosh on this crop-damaging pest's voracious appetite, and potentially save on chemical insecticides used to fight it.

The so-called "CRIL-7" chickpeas were conventionally bred from a cross between wild and cultivated species by a team of scientists from the ARS Plant Germplasm Introduction and Testing Research Station in Pullman, Wash.; Washington State University's Department of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, also in Pullman; and the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT) in Patancheru, India.

ARS entomologist Stephen Clement led the project under a three-year grant from the U.S. Agency for International Development that concluded in December 2008. The Pullman lab was an apt choice because of its scientific expertise and extensive collection of desi and kabuli chickpeas from around the world.

Fred Muehlbauer, now retired from ARS, crossed the wild species Cicer reticulatum, known for its broad insect resistance, with the susceptible cultivar FLIP 84-92C. From seven generations of offspring plants, Clement selected 42 lines offering the best combination of agronomic characteristics and resistance to the beet armyworm, a major pest in India, which in 2005 led the world in chickpea production with 6.6 billion tons.

In 2006-07 greenhouse trials, 28 to 62 percent of beet armyworms that fed on the leaves of resistant chickpeas died within a few days of hatching from eggs. The surviving worms were smaller and shorter than usual. The CRIL-7s outperformed commercial cultivars used for comparison of resistance, but still require agronomic testing under field conditions as the next step towards commercialization, adds Clement.

Clement co-authored a paper reporting the discovery of resistance in the Journal of Applied Entomology.







Document Number: 3069
David Andow's report on Monsanto and Bt brinjal: Press Release and Report
Sunday, 26 September 2010 13:52
     
David Andow's report on Monsanto and Bt brinjal: Press Release and Report
Brief and Press Release
Full Report
Reports home
BRIEF & PRESS RELEASE including Comments by Aruna Rodrigues
Bt Brinjal Event EE1: The scope and adequacy of the GEAC environmental risk assessment

“The GEAC set too narrow a scope for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of hybrid Bt brinjal, and it is because of this overly narrow scope that the EC-II is not an adequate ERA”. -–“most of the possible environmental risks of Bt brinjal have not been adequately evaluated; this includes risks to local varieties of brinjal and wild relatives, risks to biological diversity, and risk of resistance evolution in BFSB”.  Prof David Andow
David Andow is an acknowledged international expert on the environmental risks of GM crop plants. This 80 page comprehensive critique of Monsanto's Dossier and the Bt brinjal Expert Committee II Report (EC II), is an authoritative and meticulous scrutiny of the raw data of the Dossier. Andow lists some 37 studies of which perhaps 1 has been conducted and reported to a satisfactory level by Monsanto:  “Briefly, EC-II relied on dubious scientific assumptions, did not focus on realistic environmental concerns, inadequately evaluated some important environmental concerns, and ignored other real environmental concerns”.  I pick out the following critical points from his definitive environmental appraisal of Bt brinjal:
India is the centre of the world's biological diversity in brinjal with over 2500 varieties grown in the country and as many as 29 wild species. Some local varieties have significant religious and cultural value.
The EE-1 transgene may be a second-rate Bt brinjal product. Efficacy of EE-1 is low. It provides only 73% control of BFSB in the MST (multi-site trials) field trials (Dossier vol. 6). Given these considerations, it seems clear that the applicant has invested little in the development of a useful Bt brinjal product for India. Indeed, an inflammatory characterisation of the process so far would be a case of “transgene dumping.”
Nearly all brinjal farmers in India are small-scale resource-poor farmers, who farm <1ha for all of their crops (DES 2008). They grow brinjal in small (~65 m2) plots, and sell to local village and town markets. For these farmers, brinjal production is essential for their overall economic security and well-being (APEDA 2009).
Brinjal fruit and shoot borer (BFSB) causes significant economic damage to brinjal throughout India for all farmers --averaging about 30% yield loss (a comparison of yield with pest management versus no pest management).  Farmers are prone to overestimate the loss to BFSB, precipitating an over-use of insecticides significantly beyond that justified by the actual economic significance of BFSB.  Real losses from BFSB are higher for large-scale commercial producers than for small-scale resource-poor producers because of the way damaged fruit can be used by the small-scale resource-poor farmers.  EC-II vastly over-estimated losses to BFSB.
Insecticide use can be reduced substantially using integrated pest management (IPM). Useful alternative production systems for control of BFSB are being tested, actively used, and promoted in India:  IPM, traditional pest management, organic production and other locally-derived methods that reduce costs associated with external inputs.
Many of the experiments submitted by Mahyco in the Dossier provide little relevant information about the potential impact of Bt brinjal on species in India and do not assess any real concern in India. The soil studies were not designed to evaluating effects on soil health, brinjal productivity, or the productivity of other crops grown by brinjal farmers, which are the real concerns for Indian farmers. Instead, they measure microbial populations, which have little relevance for assessing these real concerns.
Resistance: Any major pest control practice will select for resistant individuals in the target pest population. If enough individuals become resistant, the control fails, the pest becomes abundant and crop yields decline. The evolution of resistance to Bt crops is a real risk and is treated as such throughout the world and the evolution of resistance in BFSB to overcome Bt brinjal is a real risk that must be managed. EC-II does not acknowledge this risk and the Dossier does not propose effective means to manage it.
Event EE-1 Bt brinjal poses several unique challenges because the likelihood of resistance evolving quickly is high. Without any management of resistance evolution, Bt brinjal is projected to fail in 4-12 years.
EE-1 Bt brinjal is proposed as a hybrid, and is unlikely to fit well in the small-scale production systems relying on open-pollinated varieties (OPVs) of brinjal. For small-scale resource-poor farmers brinjal is critical for creating economic security. Farmers are expected to retain only 10% of the increase in profitability from Bt brinjal, but are expected to retain 63% of the increase from brinjal IPM.
The assessment does not comply with CODEX: the Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA Plants (Codex, 2003, CAC/GL 45-2003). The lack of compliance of EC-II to Codex highlights a serious deficiency in the EC-II assessment.
Comments by Aruna Rodrigues:
This risk assessment raises the key Q: on what basis did the EC II recommend Bt brinjal and the GEAC uphold that recommendation and approve it on 14 Oct. 2009? Either our regulatory bodies (GEAC/RCGM) did not bother to look at the raw data of the dossier, or are incapable of analysing such data. Either way, the Regulators and the ‘Rules’ governing GMOs pose an unacceptable risk to India’s bio-safety on the many dimensions of the irreversible risks of GM crops and in this specific case, the risks from Bt brinjal
Beyond this, it is clear that the conflict of interest favouring GM crops, at the level of the STATE, not merely the proven case within the regulatory bodies, has allowed a situation where the only bio-safety dossier produced for any crop, viz. Monsanto’s Bt brinjal, is quite simply fraudulent. Much more serious is the Government Regulators' role in upholding that dossier.
Can it get worse? Yes, because the claim was that the dossier complied with the ICMR guidelines for the risk assessment of GM crops, which were supposedly in compliance with the spirit and letter of our international obligations under Cartagena and the Codex.  Both are false and manifestly so.
What we need are 'Rules' for GMOs which DO THE CORRECT THING BY INDIA, not merely regulate this technology to the substandard ICMR guidelines, but approach it with the required sceptical analyses, an absolute requirement for risk assessment protocols for this lab-based technology which presents unique risks.
Can it get even worse? Yes it can. According to Andow’s research, Brinjal farmers in India have a quite low suicide rate, because brinjal helps cash flow and buffers income variation in other crops. Yet, what will happen to these farmers with the advent of Bt brinjal, when we have crop failures projected to occur in 4-12 years because there is no recognition of ‘resistance’ of the BFSB? (In the Supreme Court, the risks for farmers, arising from ‘resistance’ has been the focus of the Petitioners for over 3 years. The Apex Regulator has actively denied the fact of resistance -- a thoroughly unscientific and untenable claim).  We already have high rates of suicide among Bt cotton farmers attributed squarely to Bt cotton for an assortment of reasons. It would appear that the government regulator is prepared to risk our small-scale resource-poor farmers to promote GM crops and back Monsanto.
There is the further problem of insect shifts which we have already seen since the commercialisation of Bt cotton and which has apparently devastated the Bt cotton crop in several States. The potential for secondary pests in Bt brinjal has been examined only "cursorily" by EC II despite the “common occurrence of secondary pests on Bt crops around the world”. Given the economic plight of our small-scale brinjal farmers, a thorough evaluation of this problem was mandatory. It should have been done first for Bt cotton before examining the similar potential of a secondary pest on Bt brinjal.
“Imagine if the government claims there are no risks of secondary pests, and then a secondary pest arises. The government might be perceived as favouring GM seed companies at the expense of small-scale farmers”. (Andow, pg 37).
Finally, Andow’s thinking and analyses rightly go beyond science, as do the Cartagena Protocols and Jairam Ramesh, when he judged the evidence that underscored his decision to impose a moratorium on Bt brinjal; he was both “responsive” to society and “responsible” to science. Andow elegantly recognises that “Brinjal plays a unique role in Indian society, and it will be important to evaluate if and how Bt brinjal may affect these values-- The narrow utilitarian analysis used by the GEAC in EC-II and the Dossier assumes that the only relevant human value is related to money, -- Human flourishing is reduced to whatever money can buy, and issues of equity and fairness are irrelevant to this way of thinking”. (pg 6 & 47).
For civil society, Andow’s environmental appraisal must signal a high alert. Critically, a regulator should be supported either by its own internal capacity to perform safety testing or by a specialist community of fundamental safety researchers with clear career pathways that allow them to work without the need for industry or political associations. This is presently not the case.
My own reaction is one of profound unease for our country: The Regulators' approval of Bt brinjal is a breathtaking impertinence. They thought they could use their statutory powers to pull one over the entire nation, to hand down a decision that amounted to an unacceptable betrayal of India.
Aruna Rodrigues, 15 September 2010






Document Number: 1573
Growers kick off campaign against UK field testing
Sunday, 31 July 2011 19:24
     
1.Delivering the answer to GM spuds in Norwich 
2.Potato lobbywatch

NOTE: Some nice images with the Indymedia article. Check them out. Also:http://www.flickr.com/photos/chickenpea111/5982312807/in/set-72157627303039592
---
---
1. Delivering the answer to GM spuds in Norwich
Indymedia, 30 July 2011 
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2011/07/482850.html

*Growers from across the country kick off the campaign against field testing.

Saturday 23rd July saw growers and supporters from all over the UK and beyond descend on Norwich to help deliver 40 boxes of organic blight-resistant potatoes to the Sainsbury Laboratory to highlight the re-emergence of open-air field testing, and the GBP1.7 million of public money being spent in the hunt for a GM blight-resistant spud. Folk came from Wales, France, London, Devon, Lancaster, Manchester, Dorset, Liverpool, Bristol, Yorkshire, Bungay and Norwich itself. You can see photos of the event by clicking on http://www.flickr.com/photos/chickenpea111/sets/72157627303039592/ 

Backing from celebrity foodie Antonio Carluccio, combined with grassroots organising and the sheer absurdity of the GM research, meant that the event got extensive press coverage (see the links below). 

Most of the speeches were conducted in the city centre, next to the farmers' market, and featured the head of policy at the Soil Association, the Director of GM Freeze and a selection of farmers, who explained why GM is a risky, expensive and outdated technology, which is still failing to deliver commercial crops of any benefit to farmers or consumers. Peter Lundgren, a conventional farmer from Lincolnshire, described the ongoing research as "flogging a dead horse". “Why are we throwing good money after bad when we already have six varieties of blight resistant potatoes in the marketplace available for growers? The GM industry makes a great effort to suggest that existing varieties don't taste good.” “Look” he said, pointing to the children in the crowd tucking into hot blight-resistant potatoes being served by the local Greenhouse café. “That's the real test." The crowd of growers, councillors, senior citizens and kids then headed out to the John Innes Centre to deliver the organic spuds under the watchful gaze of several vans of riot cops and a police helicopter. 

Prof. Jonathan Jones (or JJ to us…) Field notes from close quarters. 

The most unusual aspect of the demo which followed was the intimate approach adopted by the Sainsbury's lab researchers. Normally industry scientists are more than coy about engaging with critics. Stop GM attempted to organise a standard public debate in Bramham near Leeds University a couple of months ago. The village is next to the only other open-air trial site in the country at Leeds University, but Prof. Atkinson refused to attend, saying that he didn't believe adversarial debates inform the public. 

Up until 6 days before the Norwich rally Jones was issuing threats against anyone attempting to make a delivery to his door and refusing our offer of a modest platform. So it was curious that JJ brought not only a small army of security, but also what appeared to be a not insignificant part of his research team, his PA, and his wife to the party outside the Sainsbury Lab gates, who all mingled with the crowd and attempted to engage in a variety of ways. Jones gave us some useful insights into what to expect from the industry when cornered. The intro to his speech actually included a substantial 'I used to subscribe to the Ecologist in the 70's you know' section. He also talked a lot about the support he had from local farmers, none of whom were actually in attendance, and he didn’t acknowledge viable alternatives to GM, other than to say that the potatoes that had been delivered were "not popular with consumers" (Unlike, say, GM foods - the only product ever to be universally banned by supermarkets from their own lines in response to mass consumer opposition). He attempted throughout to paint himself as a champion of impartial public science dedicated to reducing chemical use, reducing carbon emissions and feeding the world. This from a man who’s other day job is that of co-founder of Mendel Bio-technology. This is taken from their website: "Mendel is dedicated to being a premier biotechnology company serving large agricultural companies with new genetic and chemical solutions and to becoming the leading seed company serving the bioenergy industry." Those chemical solutions and large agricultural companies he so carefully aligned himself against in Saturday's speech? Mendel has three strategic partners: Monsanto (the largest), BP and Bayer Crop Science. 

JJ defending his Monsanto links in the Guardian: 
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links 

For more on Jones and his commercial bio-tech and lobby group links see: http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Jonathan_Jones 

Jones is also on the board of directors of the ISAAA, a GM industry lobby group. ISAAA's annual review of GM crops is often used to promote the technology, as no one else is putting similar data out. 

The rally was followed by some fine shapes being thrown around the campfire at the excellent after-party, and day of grassroots organising where we gathered inspiration from our amazing French friends and further evolved campaign ideas started at Gathering Momentum in January. Watch out for our stall and workshops at the Green Gathering in Chepstow this weekend. Drop in and say hello if you’re passing. For more information about non-GM blight-resistant potatoes see www.savari-trust.org 

A summary of some of the news coverage- 

TV - 
ITN:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REZwCEZqoSU&feature=player_embedded 
BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-14277147 
Radio: BBC Norfolk: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/p00hxv3f 
Press – 
http://www.fwi.co.uk/Articles/2011/07/25/127998/Campaigners-protest-against-GM-spuds.htm 
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/anti_gm_protesters_descend_on_john_innes_centre_in_norwich_1_972864
http://www.newmarketjournal.co.uk/news/regional/protesters_meet_gm_crop_scientists_1_2896750
http://www.southnorwichnews.co.uk/news/rally-heads-for-research-park/ 
http://www.farmersguardian.com/home/latest-news/norwich-protest-over-gm-potatoes/40434.article 

JJ also got a pre-emptive piece in the on-line Guardian. For those who aren't aware, the Guardian has started receiving Gates Foundation funding. The Microsoft billionaire’s fondness for biotech appears to have rendered several previously impartial organisations slightly blinkered in their engagement with GM issues. Whilst some of the media coverage is undoubtedly unbalanced, the Sainsbury laboratory do a lot of PR anyway, and this rally is the first time in many years that they have been forced to defend rather than just promote their work. 

At their site [on the Norwich Research Park] they seem to have expended a fair bit of energy in defence as well, with a convenient contamination containing 'tent' over the trial site, and earth barricades at every entrance. 

The campaign continues - come and get involved. Contact   info@stopgm.org.uk 
---
---
2. Potato Lobbywatch 

+ ANTI-GM PROTESTORS DESCEND ON JOHN INNES CENTRE, NORWICH
A group of more than 60 protesters descended on the gates of the John Innes Centre (JIC) in Norwich as part of a campaign against the JIC's GM potatoes, which are engineered to resist blight. At the heart of the protest was a tractor pulling 20kg of organic blight-resistant potatoes that were left at the centre. The protestors said that researchers at the laboratory have spent GBP1.7m trying to develop a potato resistant to the fungal disease, though the JIC said this money has been spent across five projects. The protestors added that there are six non-GM varieties that are already blight-resistant, making this publicly-funded work "absurd".
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13336
TV news report on the protest on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REZwCEZqoSU&feature=player_embedded
Images from the protest:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/chickenpea111/5982312807/in/set-72157627303039592
http://yfrog.com/kjooeeej
http://yfrog.com/gz2n9whvj
http://yfrog.com/gzglptaj

+ PLENTY OF NON-GM BLIGHT-RESISTANT SPUDS AVAILABLE
A GM blight-resistant potato is not needed, points out a 2006 briefing by GM Freeze. The briefing says that of 120 trialed non-GM potatoes from the UK official list, 20% have good resistance to blight. Ten are classed as having high resistance.
http://www.gmfreeze.org/publications/briefings/70/

+ NON-GM BLIGHT RESISTANT POTATOES DO NOT NEED TO BE SPRAYED
The internet has been swarming with GM pushers claiming that the alternative to the GM spud is non-GM spuds heavily sprayed with fungicides to control blight. But a researcher at the Sarvari Trust, the UK leader in developing non-GM blight-resistant potatoes, said the Trust's potatoes can be grown sustainably without any need to spray 15-20 times a year to control blight.
http://www.gmfreeze.org/publications/briefings/100/

+ MONSANTO-LINKED SCIENTIST PUNTS GM FOODS AGAIN
Jonathan Jones, the John Innes Centre scientist with links to Monsanto via his company Mendel Biotechnology, promotes the JIC's GM potatoes in an article in The Guardian. Jones correctly says that it's hard to get private investment for GM foods because of the commercial risks - and comes up with the solution of raiding public funds to put GM traits into our food supply! He also seems to suggest using public sector status to push GM crops through the regulatory process. Jones's article is entitled, "The cost of spurning GM crops is too high". Does he mean the cost to himself, we wonder? Incidentally, Jones is now on the board of directors of the notorious GM industry backed lobby group, ISAAA.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/21/gm-debate?commentpage=all#start-of-comments
See also:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12370
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Jonathan_Jones  

+ JONES CLAIMS CONSUMERS DON'T LIKE NON-GM BLIGHT RESISTANT SPUDS
While a farmer at the JIC protest described the non-GM blight resistant potatoes as "Really wonderful", genetic engineer Jonathan Jones claimed that consumers won't accept them. But at a public tasting, the non-GM potatoes proved very popular. Who to believe? A GM Freeze briefing says that the GM industry has been denigrating the non-GM potatoes to large growers and supermarkets, claiming they don't taste good or boil well.

The "conservative consumers" argument is a perennial one used by GM promoters. It was also used to justify the need for the JIC's GM purple tomato, engineered to contain high levels of supposedly cancer-fighting anthocyanins. Many foods naturally contain high amounts of anthocyanins, including, for example, blackcurrants, raspberries, blueberries, red cabbage and aubergines. But the JIC claim that consumers wanting to consume more anthocyanins are too conservative to include any of these foods in their diet. But the JIC appear to believe that through some magical reversal, these same consumers would suddenly drop their conservative attitudes when faced with a GM purple tomato! In their topsy turvy world, it is unimagineable that raspberries could ever be "popular with consumers", unlike GM foods - the only product ever to be universally banned by European supermarkets from their own lines in response to mass consumer opposition!
http://www.gmfreeze.org/publications/briefings/100/
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13336







Document Number: 6451 

			

	Anti-GM protesters descend on John Innes Centre

		Saturday, 23 July 2011 18:37	
NOTE: Some images from the protest:
Jonathan Jones, the head of the John Innes Centre's Sainsbury Laboratory, who addressed the rally (see the last image above), is the controversial cofounder of Mendel Biotechnology, a biotech firm with Monsanto as its main customer. See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/18/gm-scientist-defends-monsanto-links
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=12370
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Jonathan_Jones
Anti-GM protesters descend on John Innes Centre, in Norwich
Eastern Daily Press, July 23 2011
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/anti_gm_protesters_descend_on_john_innes_centre_in_norwich_1_972864
[PICTURE CAPTION: Norfolk Police were out in force at the protest]
A group of more than 60 protesters descended on the gates of the John Innes Centre in Norwich today as part of a campaign against genetically modified potatoes.
The group met at The Forum before travelling down The Sainsbury Laboratory, near the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, by bike or marching in a group.
At the heart of the protest was a tractor pulling 20kg of organic potatoes that were left at the centre.
It was part of a demonstration by the anti-GM group against scientists' work to trial blight-resistant GM potatoes.
They said that there are six natural varieties that are already blight-resistant, making this publically-funded work 'Absurd'.
Professor Jonathan Jones, of the centre, said that the idea of replacing the industrial agriculture with the organic potatoes was "never going to happen".
He said that the organic variety of potatoes were not popular with consumers and that the GM potatoes would help the environment as they would reduce CO2 emissions as they would not need to be sprayed so often.
For more details, see Monday's paper.

			






Document Number: 9049 

			

		Thursday, 21 July 2011 13:17	
2.Bangalore: No Permission for GM Trials
NOTE: Previously, Karnataka has not been among the more pro-active Indian States in opposing GM trials.
http://www.deccanherald.com/content/177877/no-gm-trials-state-katti.html
*Firms keep govt in the dark over conducting experiments, he says
Bangalore - Agriculture Minister Umesh Katti has declared that the Government will not allow trials of genetically modified (GM) crops in the State.
Speaking to reporters on Wednesday in Bangalore, the Minister said Karnataka had opposed Bt brinjal, and if media reports on Bt maize and Bt paddy trials in Bijapur and Koppal were true, the Government would oppose them as well.
Katti said the State is firmly opposed to testing, research or field trials of GM crops.
Officials of the Agriculture Department who have been asked to look into the allegations of the trials being conducted, would submit a report in a day or two. In case trials have been conducted, notices would be served to the parties concerned.
Companies and universities that obtain permission from the Centre to conduct the trials, have to inform the State Government as well.
"However, till date, no company has informed us about conducting trials. We will also request the Centre not to allow trials in Karnataka," Katti said.
Katti's remarks assume significance in the wake of reports of some agriculture varsities being keen on conducting GM crop trials, while farmers' associations and activists are opposing them.
Herbicide-tolerant maize has been proved as a successful crop and the university wanted to conducted trials in a small field.
Patil claimed that cultivating Bt cotton has proved to be beneficial for farmers in India. Cotton production has gone up from 225 lakh bales to 350 lakh bales.
As much as 20 lakh bales were exported last year, he said. The Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), the apex body constituted under the Ministry of Forests and Environment, had received complaints that Monsanto had carried out experimental seed production of maize in Bijapur. Following this, GEAC, on July 6, asked the State to inspect the site and send a report.
Bangalore: No Permission for Trials, Research on GM Crops: Katti
Daijiworld Medial Network , July 20 2011
http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=109104
Bangalore, Jul 20: With farmers launching a determined campaign against genetically modified (GM) crops, Karnataka’s Agriculture Minister Umesh Katti has firmly ruled out giving permission for private companies for undertaking trials and research on GM crops.
Addressing presspersons after a meting with bankers and officials of the Agriculture Department here on Wednesday, the minister said action would be taken against those who had undertaken trials on GM crops in Bijapur and other districts without the permission of the Government.
The department had not given permission to undertake trials to any multinational or local companies, he said.
It was alleged that Monsanto has conducted trials on biotech maize in Bijapur and the Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha has been opposing testing GM crops.
Katti said the no private firm has approached the government seeking permission to conduct trials on GM crops.
Reading out media reports about trials on GM crops, he said officials have been strictly instructed to act on such reports and asked them not to show any leniency.
Meanwhile a meeting convened here by the State Agriculture Department to discuss the issuance of a no-objection certificate (NOC) to undertake trials and research on biosafety evaluation on genetically modified (GM) crops on Wednesday has been postponed. 

			






Document Number: 7664 

			

	Aussie police shut Greenpeace HQ in raid

		Thursday, 21 July 2011 12:18	
Aussie police shut Greenpeace HQ, seize evidence
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-technology/aussie-police-shut-greenpeace-hq-seize-evidence-20110721-1hqm7.html
Australian police shut down the Sydney offices of environmental group Greenpeace on Thursday after its activists destroyed a genetically modified wheat crop at an experimental farm run by the government.
Police in Canberra, the Australian capital and the site of the experimental farm, said "an amount of property was seized as evidence" during the Sydney raid and it will undergo forensic analysis. No arrests were made.
Greenpeace activists, wearing mock hazard suits, scaled the fences of the experimental farm last Thursday and destroyed a crop of genetically modified wheat with brush cutters. The wheat has been altered to lower its glycemic index in an attempt to see if the grain could have health benefits such as improving blood glucose levels and lowering cholesterol.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Greenpeace says it took the drastic action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding experiments at the farm, which were to include the first human trials of the crop.
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, Australia's national science agency, says the experimental crop did not introduce any new genes to the plants and was safe for humans. It says it had already fed the genetically modified wheat to rats and pigs.
Greenpeace's head of campaigns, Steve Campbell, said the organization is "assisting the police with their inquires." However, Greenpeace will continue its campaign to put the spotlight on genetically modified wheat in Australia, he said.
"It's a really important issue for Australia, for our environment, for our future," Campbell said.

			






Document Number: 1856 

			

	Glyphosate: The all-round killer - German press articles

		Tuesday, 19 July 2011 23:38	
GMWatch comment: The following is a merger of two almost identical articles that appeared in the German press, and which have been translated into English.
The Earth Open Source report mentioned in the articles is "Roundup and birth defects – is the public being kept in the dark?"
This report showed that industry (including Monsanto) knew from its own studies conducted in the 1980s that glyphosate caused birth defects in lab animals at high doses; from the 1990s, industry knew that these effects also occurred at lower and mid doses. 
The German government, the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate, knew from 1998 from its own reading of these same industry studies. Germany explained away the birth defects by redefining them as "developmental variation[s]" - along with other 'creative' reasoning.
The EU Commission knew from 2002, when it approved glyphosate, incorrectly claiming that the birth defects only occurred at high doses that poisoned the mothers. This is the 9-year-old document referred to so blithely by the German government official in the article below--who suggests that it fully informs the public of the risks of glyphosate!
Only last year, the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL) told the Commission that there was "no evidence of teratogenicity" (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate. In making this claim, BVL was ignoring not only independent studies showing that glyphosate and Roundup cause birth defects, including at low realistic levels, but industry's own studies from as long ago as the 1980s.
In the light of all this, it's interesting to read BVL's defence, below.
Glyphosate: The Problematic Victory
Frankfurt a. M. – It is the most widely applied herbicide in the world and closely linked with genetic engineering in agriculture. But now glyphosate is suspected of posing a health risk to humans.
Known by the brand name Roundup, glyphosate began its conquest of the market back in 1974, when the US agribusiness giant first promoted it as a complete herbicide.
But it was the development of genetically engineered soybeans in 1996 that really ensured its victory. Since then, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets have been developed that are Roundup resistant. At this point, fully 83 per cent of genetically modified plants are resistant to this herbicide.
biota, aquatic life forms, and even the plants it is designed to protect, for instance, by increasing the incidence of fungal attacks. And that’s not all. Other plants have also developed resistance to it, which means more spraying, not less.
Now new investigations have revealed another dimension to the problem. Apparently, glyphosate is more damaging to mammals and other vertebrates, including perhaps humans, than was previously assumed. And there’s more: such undesirable side effects have apparently been known to EU authorities and German regulatory authorities with EU responsibility since the end of the 1990s.
To cite one example, Argentine Professor Andrés Carrasco published a study in 2009 that substantiated the dangers of Roundup spray. He concluded that the herbicide caused dysplasia in frog and chicken embryos even at doses lower than levels commonly used in agriculture The consequences observed in animals are comparable to those found "in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy."
The report by the EU health commissioner in charge at the time downplayed possible embryo abnormalities, opining that such deformities would only ensue if the mothers had ingested a deadly dose of the herbicide.
In response to a question from the German daily Frankfurter Rundschau, the German Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (BVL), which is also the EU rapporteur, called the criticism "baseless", stating that no important information was withheld from the public. Andreas Tief, spokesperson for the BVL, added that Antoniou had relied on "a document that is available to the public, and has been for nine years now".
Copyright © 2011 Frankfurter Rundschau
Copyright © 2011 Berliner zeitung
1. The German original of this article was published on 11 July 2011 in two almost identical versions simultaneously in Frankfurter Rundschau (FR) and Berliner Zeitung (BZ), two daily broadsheet newspapers that are well known beyond the regional limits where they are published. The online source for FR is
2. Translation from the original article in German by Larass Translations, Ottawa (
http://www.larrasstranslations.com
); the two versions have been integrated.

			






Document Number: 7119 

			

	Resistant weeds leave farmers desperate

		Monday, 18 July 2011 11:43	
Resistant weeds leave farmers desperate
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/article_f01139be-ace0-502b-944a-0c534b70511c.html#ixzz1SNadASFT
*As effectiveness of herbicides wanes, some try mixtures of older, more toxic chemicals, others pay itinerant workers to weed by hand.
Farmers in the state's south are resorting to some old-fashioned tactics.
Weeds in cotton fields have gotten so tenacious - some with stems 4-inches around - that farmers are paying itinerant crews to chop them down by hand.
"In the Bootheel they're hiring people to go out there with hoes," said Blake Hurst, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau. "I swung a hoe for 15 years, and I fail to see the romance in it."
The problem, farmers and weed scientists say, is getting worse: Weeds are becoming increasingly resistant to Monsanto's Roundup, sold generically as glyphosate, forcing farmers to use other herbicides or "multiple modes of action." But during this season especially farmers are finding that these other modes of action aren't working either - and there appears to be little relief on the horizon. In Missouri, herbicide dealers have sold out of Cobra, one of the herbicides most widely used in tandem with glyphosate.
"Are they running out of options?" asked Aaron Hager, a weed scientist with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. "The simple answer is yes."
Farmers across the Midwest and South are, increasingly, using herbicide cocktails to combat weeds in cotton, corn and soybean fields.
"They're using about every bullet they have in their gun," said Derek Samples, a dealer with Agro Distribution in Portageville, about 150 miles south of St. Louis. "It's just been a nasty year."
That worries environmental scientists who say these combinations employ older, more toxic herbicides that glyphosate was marketed to replace. In some areas of the state, certain weeds have become resistant to three herbicides. In Illinois, some weeds have become resistant to four.
"It's rather ironic that we were sold glyphosate as an alternative to these older pesticides, and now farmers are using them again," said Brett Lorenzen, a legal analyst with the Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based environmental advocacy group. "But that's part of the pattern of the pesticide industry."
Farmers say they're frustrated, not least because these additional herbicides and strategies are costing them profits. They admit, however, that commodity prices are high enough to justify the additional expenditure.
"It's easily costing $30 an acre for the hand weeding, and the pre-emergence herbicides are costing $10 and $20 an acre," said Tom Jennings, who farms cotton, rice, soy and corn near Sikeston. "If we see the markets drop back down, the economics are going to get a lot more difficult. As high as it is, we can afford some hand labor."
Over the past 15 years glyphosate has become a ubiquitous product on American farms. Its rise has coincided with unprecedented crop yields and profits for farmers and has helped propel Creve Couer-based Monsanto into the world's most dominant seed maker.
But reliance on glyphosate, scientists say, has led to an explosion in weeds that are genetically adapting to withstand its application. These weeds adapt faster and more vigorously than their weed cousins, choking fields and clogging irrigation ditches so badly water can't pass through.
"Pollen can transfer the resistant trait; that's the problem," said Kevin Bradley, a weed scientist with the University of Missouri. "There's not much we can do about pollen flying through the air, and that's why we see such rapid spread of resistance."
In recent years, Monsanto has slashed prices, offered rebates to farmers and given incentives to buy other herbicides, even those of the company's competitors. The company has acknowledged the situation and admitted that, perhaps, it could have more aggressively worked to get the message out about alternative strategies. Farmers, too, have accepted some of the blame.
"It was so effective and so cheap compared to everything else, that's all you used," Jennings said. "Now we have problems out here and we don't have new herbicides. Before Roundup you had a new product every two or three years. Almost all the new products are just combinations of old products. There's no new chemistry."
Critics of the industry point out that Monsanto and its competitors have known about glyphosate resistance since the mid-1990s, when crops genetically engineered to withstand its application first hit the market. They say the companies should have more clearly warned about over-reliance on glyphosate sooner. Government-required labels urged farmers to use other herbicides in conjunction with glyphosate, but these suggestions were tucked away in fine print.
"It's hard to read a 54-page booklet," Lorenzen said. "Monsanto has been saying don't just use glyphosate, but farmers don't have time to read the label."
Lorenzen and other industry critics worry that the new herbicide cocktails farmers are using haven't been tested. The Environmental Protection Agency reviews individual herbicides, not combinations. "Nobody tests what happens when all those chemicals are combined together," he said. "Nobody knows."
Analysts, too, worry that the problem could hit profits.
"They've taken a big hit with [Roundup] already," said Jeff Windau, an analyst with Edward Jones. "So moving forward there could be more pressure on sales."
Windau also said that if farmers start spending too much to combat weeds then the benefits of genetically modified seed could diminish and they will stop buying it.
"There definitely could be issues there," he said.
There is, however, some hope in the pipeline. Monsanto is working on developing soybeans and cotton that are resistant to the chemical dicamba. The cotton could be on the market within three years.
Until then, farmers say, they're going to be spending more time in their fields, applying more chemicals, tilling and hoeing.
"Fortunately," Jennings said, "weeds haven't developed a resistance to cold steel."

			






Document Number: 3215 

			

		Monday, 18 July 2011 11:36	
NOTE: A recently published study showed that Bt cotton could be very problematic for India's small and marginal farmers, who usually intercrop cotton, with expensive Bt cotton seeds not only requiring higher expenditure on pesticides but producing more variable results.
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=13288
But GM supporters continue to make incredible claims for the supposedly beneficial impact of Bt cotton on the country. So it's important to note that the source of the concerns about Bt cotton reported in the articles below is Keshav Kranthi, the director of India's Central Institute for Cotton Research, who is pro-GM and a longstanding supporter of Bt cotton. 
EXTRACTS: ...productivity [from Bt cotton] has been stagnant for the past five years, according to the chief of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Keshav Kranthi.
More worrying, says Kranthi, is the increasing problems of sap-sucking insects, such as leaf hoppers, aphids, whiteflies and thrips, on the vast majority of susceptible Bt hybrids. New pathogens, such as ‘leaf streak virus’, have started affecting the new Bt hybrids. Insect populations of mealybugs, gall midges, mosquito bugs and safflower caterpillars, which were hitherto unknown, have also emerged as concerns. 
When Monsanto says “Indian farmers are the world’s fastest adopters of Bt cotton technology”, it actually highlights the problem. US anthropologist Glenn Stone, who has been studying the questions surrounding the use of Bt technology in India for over a decade, finds that “farmers are on a seed and pesticide treadmill, and this is right at the heart of the problem.”     
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/busting-bt-cotton-myths
Gujarat’s check dams and novel pesticides helped to boost cotton productivity, says India’s top cotton scientist
For years it was believed that the genetically modified Bt cotton was responsible for the remarkable transformation of India’s cotton story from failure and despair to a resounding success story of increasing yields that it made the country one of the top producers and exporters of cotton in the world. Bt cotton was made resistant to its main pest, the bollworm, by transferring a gene from a naturally occurring bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt into cotton plants.
But it was not Bt alone that was responsible for changing the fortunes of India’s cotton farmers says Keshav Kranthi, director of India’s premier cotton research establishment, the Central Institute for Cotton Research. He dropped this bombshell recently when he wrote in Cotton International that a number of other factors were responsible for this outcome. Taking stock of 10 years of Bt cotton in India, Kranthi wrote in the journal’s June issue he wrote some of the issues highlighted by activists had also turned out to be valid.
Kranthi is clearly a scientist who is not afraid to tell it as it is. As an entomologist who has studied Bt cotton for a decade, he believes that the role of Bt in effectively protecting the crop from bollworms, especially the American Bollworm, Helicoverpa armigera, should not be underestimated. Neither should it be hyped.
Chief among the factors responsible for the spike cotton production and productivity was the increase in cotton area in Gujarat from 1.5 million hectares in 2000 to 2.6 million hectares in 2009. Note also that maximum productivity gains were notched in the new areas under cotton in Gujarat which had the benefit of more than 100,000 newly constructed check dams. Besides, these were highly fertile soils that had shifted from groundnut cultivation to Bt cotton.
New pesticides, new hybrids, new micro-irrigation systems and new areas along with Bt cotton would have effectively contributed to the cotton success story, says Kranthi. In an interview to Down To Earth, the CICR director said another major contributory factor was imidacloprid, which was used to treat seeds to protect them against sap-sucking insects. This insecticide, popularly known as Gaucho, was in use since 2000 and had helped to push up yield by 25%-30% in conventional hybrids long before Bt cotton was introduced. Kranthi points out that even the most naïve of researchers would know that without this insecticide the vast majority of Bt hybrids would not have been able to withstand the leaf hopper infestation.
Farmers attest this. Ajay Jakhar, a farmer with large cotton holdings in Ferozpur district of Punjab, says: “Imidacloprid was used prior to Bt cotton but its use has increased since its introduction.” Jakhar converted to Bt cotton in 2005 in one go “as a desperate act after years of cotton failure” and since then yields have been great: rising from 600-700 kg per acre to 800-1,000 kg per acre. (Note: These figures denote output of seed cotton (seed+fibre). The weight of fibre or lint is about one third of the seed cotton).
The worry now is that the use of imidacloprid has risen to from Rs 597 crore in 2002 toRs 880 crore last year and that leaf hoppers have developed resistance to imidacloprid, warns Kranthi. Besides, a number of new pests have begun to attack the cotton crop.
Jakhar, who is president of the Bharat Krishak Samaj, confirms this. He finds that millybugs which earlier infected orchards –first mango, then sugarcane and later citrus – have started attacking cotton. Although the pest has been a problem in the last few years, it is not prevalent every year in cotton.
What this portends is increasing use of pesticides.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cotton-saga-unravels
*Flat yields for five years and rising insecticide use are jeopardising the success of Bt cotton technology     
Cotton has been the biggest success story in Indian agriculture since the Green Revolution. In a country struggling with stagnant yields in most crops, cotton has been the one bright spot. Production has soared from 13.6 million bales (each bale is 170 kg) in 2002-03 to 31.2 million bales in 2010-11 - a figure that catapulted India into the big league, enabling it to account for as much as 23 per cent of global production last year. Poor quality cotton with high trash content has given way to the kind of lint that the world is ready to pay good money for, allowing the country to export between 600,000 tonnes and 1.5 million tonnes of raw cotton each year after 2005.
How did all this happen? The popular narrative is that the introduction of Bt cotton brought about this remarkable transformation. The genetically modified Bt cotton contains Cry genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (hence Bt) that is highly toxic to bollworm caterpillars, identified as the main cotton pest. The Bt technology, first developed by Monsanto Company in 1986, came to India in 2002 when the American seed giant entered into an agreement with its Indian partner, Maharashtra Hybrid Seed Company or Mahyco. The joint enterprise they set up to purvey this technology enjoyed rapid fire success with Indian seed companies jostling for Bt technology despite steep upfront charges and royalty fees. The result: the commercial release of several hundred Bt hybrids containing the same Cry genes that was approved by the then regulator, the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC). Most of these were snapped up by farmers keen to try out the new technology.
Within four years of its introduction, Bt cotton reduced insecticide use to half the previous level. And for farmers the returns were extraordinary. Some researchers estimate the net average gains from Bt cotton to be in the range of $76 (Rs 3,370 at current conversion rate) to $250 (Rs 11,086) per hectare.
One statistic in this triumphal march, however, has not kept pace: yields. While yields did go up from an average 302 kg per hectare in 2002-03 to 554 kg in 2007-08 (see table above), productivity has been stagnant for the past five years, according to the chief of the Central Institute for Cotton Research (CICR), Keshav Kranthi. CICR is the country’s leading research institution for cotton and has been trying to develop its own transgenic varieties. “The main worry is the stagnation in productivity at an average of 500 kg lint per hectare for the past five years. The gains have been unaffected by the sharp increase in area of Bt cotton from 5.6 per cent in 2004 to 90 per cent in 2010,” he warns. 
The yield was 463 kg per hectare when the Bt cotton area was 5.6 per cent in 2004 and reached a mere 506 kg per hectare when the area under Bt cotton increased to 9.4 million hectares, that is 85 per cent of the total 11.1 million hectares currently under cotton cultivation. More worrying, says Kranthi, is the increasing problems of sap-sucking insects, such as leaf hoppers, aphids, whiteflies and thrips, on the vast majority of susceptible Bt hybrids. New pathogens, such as ‘leaf streak virus’, have started affecting the new Bt hybrids. Insect populations of mealybugs, gall midges, mosquito bugs and safflower caterpillars, which were hitherto unknown, have also emerged as concerns.
One reason for this, according to the cotton scientist, could be the huge number of Bt hybrids - estimated to be over 780 - that has flooded the market. As a result farmers are not able to choose the Bt hybrids most suitable for their soils and farming conditions. Recommendations on a proven package of practices and the suitability of hybrids for specific agro-ecological sub-zones would have greatly helped push up productivity. Instead, lack of stewardship has resulted in progressive problems and stagnation of production and productivity.
But Kranthi makes it clear that these are issues related to the stewardship and have nothing to do with Bt technology which he believes is good. But he worries about the issues that have become a major concern with farmers. Prime among them is the steady increase in insecticide use. Farmers now pay as much as they did in 2002 for management of the new pests (see table).
Kranthi’s findings are important because they warn of a looming crisis. However, seed firms do not appear to be unduly concerned. K K Narayanan, managing director, Metahelix Life Sciences, says, “These pests are not new to cotton. They were always there, but were considered minor. Now, when there is an effective solution to take care of the major pest (bollworm), the other ones become relatively more prominent.” Metahelix, Nath Bio-Genes and JK Agri Genetics are the other technology developers whose hybrids are also competing in the market against Monsanto’s. Narayanan also dismisses Kranthi’s contention that there has been indiscriminate release of Bt hybrids. “I do not agree with these ‘experts’. The farmers of this country are wise enough to choose the best hybrids that produce more and give higher incomes. It does not matter how many hybrids are released.”
Monsanto, too, is unfazed. It points out, “India has a stringent system in which new hybrids are rigorously tested and evaluated by state governments for performance under different agro-climatic regions.” As for the new pests, a spokesperson says, “The intensity of any pest attack is a combination of weather, growth of weeds and other environmental conditions. Farmers need to manage other factors responsible for production as they start becoming economically relevant.”
When Monsanto says “Indian farmers are the world’s fastest adopters of Bt cotton technology” it actually highlights the problem. US anthropologist Glenn Stone, who has been studying the questions surrounding the use of Bt technology in India for over a decade, finds that “farmers are on a seed and pesticide treadmill, and this is right at the heart of the problem.” Both technologies have some inherent unreliability and both change quickly in India, and the problems in each technology exacerbate the problems in the other, he points out.
Indian cotton clearly needs some urgent remedies.
Keshav Raj Kranthi, an entomologist by training, is director of the Central Institute for Cotton Research, Nagpur. He has developed an extensive database on bollworm resistance to insecticides and Bt-toxins. Kranthi's analysis unsettles both industry and activists fighting genetically modified crops. He speaks to Latha Jishnu on the disturbing trends in Bt cotton cultivation. 
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/technology-needs-stewardship

			






Document Number: 747 

			

	Rothamsted cuts to agroecology &quot;Swimming against the tide&quot;

		Friday, 15 July 2011 22:46	
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Rothamsted_Research
Rothamsted Cuts to Agroecology "Swimming Against the Tide"
The decision by Rothamsted Research to close three major departments central to their agroecological research base has been described by GM Freeze as, "Swimming against the tide of scientific opinion across the world."
The closures, which will affect the Departments of Plant and Invertebrate Ecology, Applied Crop Science, and Plant Pathology and Microbiology, are reportedly [1] due to "reduction in effort" in areas including entomology, nematology and herbicide resistance. 
The decision comes less than two years after the Royal Society reported that several core agroecological disciplines are in "decline" and called for funding bodies and universities to reverse this trend. [2]
Director of Rothamsted Research Professor Maurice Maloney, who made the decision to cut the Departments, was quoted in the recent House of Lords report Innovation in EU Agriculture as supporting, "[A] need to boost soil science, which had been neglected in recent decades." [3] Professor Maloney was appointed in 2010 after a career working in the genetic modification of crops. [4]
Many international and European studies have highlighted the need to focus on agroecological research to enable farmers to meet the challenge of increasing food supplies in the face of increasing energy prices, growing demand for fertilisers and water, and diminishing supplies of raw materials, as well as the need to restore biodiversity and other natural resources such as soil, fresh water and the marine environment. [5] 
GM Freeze will be contacting the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee to ask them to investigate Rothamsted's decision.
Commenting on the Rothamsted Research cuts, Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
"Rothamsted appears to be swimming against a tide of scientific opinion across the world, which is saying we need to improve our knowledge of the sciences vital to ensuring agricultural ecosystems function to their highest potential and are restored to a condition that will enable future generations to maintain food production. It is a sad day when important areas of research, on which Rothamsted has led for so many years, are axed just when we need them most.  
"We hope this doesn't signal a move toward more research on GM, which is increasingly viewed as a blind alley by scientists around the world. We need a shift toward research aimed at producing healthy soils and cropping systems better able to withstand shocks like drought and attacks by pests and diseases. If we are not careful the UK will lag further behind in developing these vital research skills and knowledge urgently needed wherever land is farmed."
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341 065
[1] See “Research cuts threaten future food sustainability”, Farmers Guardian, 15 July 2011.
[2] The Royal Society, 2009. Reaping the Benefits. Science and the Sustainable intensification of global agriculture. October 2009. Recommendation 5.
[3] House of Lords European Union Committee, 19th Report. Innovation in EU Agriculture. 7 July 2011, Paragraph 53, page 22.
[4] See “Major Concern About Appointment of GM Scientist as CEO of Rothamsted Research”, GM Freeze, 26 January 2010. 
International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, Agriculture at a Crossroads. Synthesis Report. A Synthesis of the Global and Sub-Global IAASTD Reports. 
Report submitted by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food Olivier De Schutter to the UN General Assembly, 17 December 2010.  (pdf 280 Kb) 
European Commission Standing Committee on Agricultural Research (SCAR), The 3rd SCAR Foresight Exercise, Sustainable Food Consumption and Production in a Resource-constrained World, February 2011.


			






Document Number: 1697 

			

	Welcome to the age of GMO industry self-regulation

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 12:12	
NOTE: Multiple embedded links in the Mother Jones original.
Welcome to the Age of GMO Industry Self-Regulation
http://motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2011/07/welcome-age-gmo-industry-self-regulation
[image caption: USDA chief Tom Vilsack: not exactly baring his fangs in his role as GMO-industry watchdog.]
As I reported last week, the USDA's recent surprise decision not to regulate genetically modified bluegrass poked yet more holes in an already-porous regime for overseeing GM crops—essentially to the point of regulatory collapse.
There were a few important strands I wasn't able to wrestle into the story. The main one is an odd letter that USDA secretary Tom Vilksack sent Scotts Miracle-Gro as an addendum to the agency's response to Scott's GM bluegrass petition. Vilsack's letter, dated July 1, acknowledges concerns that GM bluegrass will contaminate non-GM bluegrass—that is, that the Roundup Ready gene will move through wind-blown pollen and work its way into non-modified varieties. This is the process known as "gene flow," and it has already been well-established for GM corn and other modified crops.
Since bluegrass shows up (among other places) in cow pastures, organic dairy and beef farmers face the risk of suddenly having their animals nosh on fields full of a GM crop, which would jeopardize their organic status. As the the secretary put it in his letter:
    "The USDA recognizes that if this GE variety were to be commercially released, producers wishing to grow non-GE Kentucky bluegrass will likely have concerns related to gene flow between the GE variety and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass. Exporters of Kentucky bluegrass seed, growers of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass seed, and those involved in the use of non-GE Kentucky bluegrass in pastures will likely have concerns about the loss of their ability to meet contractual obligations."
So, Scotts is going to release a product that will potentially cause real and arbitrary harm to market actors. What's Vilsack's response?
    "USDA therefore strongly encourages Scotts to discuss these concerns with various stakeholders during these early stages of research and development of this GE Kentucky bluegrass variety and thereby develop appropriate and effective stewardship measures to minimize commingling and gene flow between GE and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass."
Thus, in lieu of taking action to stop Scotts from doing harm or penalize it if it does, the USDA is encouraging Scotts to talk to stakeholders to avoid harm. In other words, go forth and regulate yourself ... please?
Vilsack's letter is deftly summarizes of the agency's paradigm for overseeing the introduction of new GM crops: Yes, they have the potential to cause serious harm; no, we can't do anything about it. In one sense, that approach represents progress. Before Vilsack, the agency was loathe to admit that GMOs posed any threat to the environment or to farmers. But as I reported last week, the Roundup Ready bluegrass decision also signals an even higher level of laissez faire: Whereas before the agency regulated novel crops weakly, it now seems content not to regulate them at all.
This is a critical change. The National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) requires that the USDA conduct an environmental impact study for all the crops it deregulates. But to deregulate a crop, the agency has to regulate it first. As I explained last week, the USDA has two "regulatory hooks" under which it can regulate GM crops: "plant pest" status and "noxious weed" status. In the bluegrass decision, the USDA signaled that it won't be applying those hooks to a broad variety of novel crops.
That leaves new crops unregulated—and not subject to NEPA requirements for environmental impact statements. We should recall that it was the requirement to conduct such assessments that forced the USDA to acknowledge some of the pitfalls of GMOs in the first place.
Take the case of the Monsanto's Roundup Ready alfalfa. The agency deregulated it in 2005 without an impact statement, but because its "regulatory hooks" had caught the crop in the first place, the watchdog group Center for Food Safety was able to sue the agency for violating NEPA. A federal judge ruled that the release of GM alfalfa be delayed pending an impact statement.
In December 2010, the USDA finally got around to releasing it. The agency's vast environmental impact statement for GMO alfalfa (PDF)—so sprawling I had to download a new version of Adobe Reader to read it—was blunt on two points: 1) "gene flow" between GM and non-GM alfalfa is "probable," and threatens organic dairy producers and other users of non-GMO alfala; and 2) there is strong potential for the creation of Roundup-resistant "superweeds" that require ever-higher doses of Roundup and application of ever-more toxic herbicides. The report noted that 2 million acres of US farmland already harbor Roundup-resistant weeds caused by other Roundup Ready crops.
The analysis was so stark that soon after the report's release, Vilsack felt moved to explain it. He issued an "open letter to stakeholders" that acknowledged the "the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa—a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad." And he signaled that the agency was moving toward a "new paradigm based on coexistence and cooperation" between GM and non-GM players.
The remarks were significant, because no USDA chief had ever acknowledged that the novel technology could do real damage to organic agriculture. Rumors stirred that the agency was going to impose restrictions on plantings GM alfalfa—something it had never done before. Food-industry critics applauded. NYU professor Marion Nestle declared the notion that Vilsack was even considering restrictions a "breakthrough." The biotech industry, meanwhile, reacted to the specter of restrictions on a GMO crop with fury, backed up by farm-state senators.
But soon after, the agency abruptly reversed course and fully deregulated Monsanto's novel crop without restrictions, brushing aside concerns raised in its own analysis. Just as the bluegrass decision came down late on the Friday before a long holiday weekend, the USDA announced its alfalfa call in that sleepy week between Christmas and New Year's.
A Wall Street Journal report suggested that the White House had intervened in the decision, preventing the USDA from imposing restrictions on GM alfalfa as part of an effort to combat "burdensome" regulation. Certainly, the GMO industry maintains a powerful voice in Obama-era Washington, just as it has under every president dating to Reagan. A recent Food &amp; Water Watch report documented the gusher of cash the biotech industry spends on D.C. lobbying. The industry spent more than a half billion dollars on lobbying between 1999 and 2009, FWW reports. In 2009 alone, the GMO giants dropped a cool $71 million pushing its agenda. It's also worth noting the number of Monsanto-related people who have worked in key policy ag-policy postions in Obama's adminstration.
Whatever the motivation, the alfalfa dereuglation set a pattern for how the USDA views GMOs: Yes, GMOs cause harm; no, we don't plan to do anything about it. Last week's bluegrass decision, by creating an avenue through which the USDA can avoid conducting environmental impact statements, raises that attitude to the level of policy. 
Clearly, the USDA has neither the appetite nor the regulatory tools to properly oversee novel GMOs. The only remedy I can see is congressional intervention: a new set of laws governing the oversight of GMOs to replace that the failed ones now in place. But in the money-dominated US political system, the prospect for such reform is dim.
Tom Philpott is the food and ag blogger for Mother Jones. 

			






Document Number: 8750 

			

	GM contamination may cost millions

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 12:02	
1.GMO maize damage may total billions, says expert
2.GE contamination – it's not worth the risk
EXTRACT: The only way to protect our food and environment is to stop releasing GE crops into the environment – and this has to include field trials.
GMO maize damage may total billions, says expert
http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/?tx_ttnews
The damage to Hungary's agriculture caused through sowing genetically modified seeds and to the country's GMO-free status will total billions of forints [millions of euros], an expert told MTI on Wednesday.
Ecologist and forensic expert Imre Lanszki insisted that Hungary will not be in a position to reject GMO in the future, and Hungarian seeds will be at a disadvantage, which may compromise the productivity of national farming.
Lanszki said that the GMO maize ploughed under early this month would have affected animal farming when used as fodder; moreover, the maize could have been used for human purposes.
Some 400 hectares of maize were destroyed throughout Hungary after the crops had been found to have been grown with GMO maize.
Authorities have been checking for GMO crops since the beginning of this year as a new regulation came in force this March which stipulates GMO checks before seeds are introduced to the market. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free.
Farmers in Baranya County in south-western Hungary had to plough under around 160 hectares of maize after the crops were found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, regional radio MR6 reported on July 8.
Lajos Bognar, a senior official at the Rural Development Ministry confirmed the report, adding that the GMO seeds came from several foreign producers, and had been used elsewhere in Hungary as well.
Radio MR6 learnt that the two biggest international seed producing companies were affected [implicated] in the matter.
GE contamination – it's not worth the risk
Blogpost by Janet Cotter - July 14 2011
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/ge-contamination-its-not-worth-the-risk/blog/35728/
The growing of genetically engineered (GE) crops is something that Greenpeace has long opposed, due to the risks posed to both human health and the environment, and unwanted contamination of our food due to the difficulties of controlling the spread of these crops. In recent months, news has emerged about how chemical and pharmaceutical giant Bayer has been forced to make massive payouts after conventional US rice crops were contaminated by Bayer’s experimental GE rice in 2006. As a result, Bayer has agreed to a US $750 million settlement for US 11,000 farmers (1). Then, in March of this year, a court ordered Bayer to pay US $137 million in damages to Riceland, a rice export company, for loss of sales to the EU (2).
Back in 2006, Bayer's experimental herbicide-tolerant and GE "Liberty Link" rice (tolerant to herbicides such as Basta, or Liberty) was found to have contaminated conventional US long-grain rice - including rice for export. Shipments of supposedly non-GE rice, tested and found to be positive for GE rice, were turned back from regions such including the EU, costing companies millions of dollars and prompting lawsuits in the US.
But why does this contamination matter, and why should we be worried about traces of experimental GE crops in our food? This does matter and we should worry, because GE experimental crops have, by definition, undergone little or no safety testing to determine their possible impacts on either the environment or human health. Experimental GE crops can contaminate conventional crops during field trials or even illegal plantings. It is often unclear how contamination occurs, and in many cases it could be caused equally by cross-pollination (e.g. via insects) or by human error. Bayer claims that both kind of contamination were an "Act of God".
There are now a number of documented contamination cases caused by experimental GE crops. For example, experimental GE virus-resistant papaya in 2004, experimental GE maize in 2005 (avariety known as Bt10) and experimental GE rice from both US and China (4). Worryingly, these cases are only the ones we know about. We do not know what is being field-trialled as much of the information is kept confidential - including crucial information on how to test for GE contamination in neighbouring crops. This makes it very hard for anyone to check for contamination. The papaya and the Chinese GE rice, for example, were both discovered by Greenpeace – but who else is keeping watch? There are no formal requirements for checking for contamination.
As you read this, biotech companies are in the process of genetically engineering plants so they literally can "grow" drugs and vaccines in the plants (GE pharmaceutical or pharm crops). Similarly, crops can be genetically engineered to produce various substances (industrial compounds), e.g. for biofuels. Though such GE crops aren't intended for human consumption, they could contaminate crops just like Bayer's experimental GE rice did. If the GE gene is passed to a food meant for the table, then humans would unknowingly be eating either drugs or industrial compounds.
The only way to protect our food and environment is to stop releasing GE crops into the environment – and this has to include field trials.
Dr. Janet Cotter is a senior scientist at the Greenpeace International Science Unit, at Exeter University, UK
Image of organic black rice © Greenpeace / Athit Perawongmetha
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-01/bayer-to-pay-750-million-to-end-lawsuits-over-genetically-modified-rice.html
(2)  Fox, J.L. 2011. Bayer's GM rice defeat. Nature Biotechnology (News) 29: 473.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/gm-ge-contamination-report290208
(4)  See www.gmcontaminationregister.org Genewatch and Greenpeace together catalogue incidences of GE contamination as they occur.

			






Document Number: 2984 

			

	CSIRO in bed with multinationals

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 10:56	
NOTE: Profile of the organisation running the controversial GM wheat trial in Australia.
EXTRACT: "Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies [MNCs]." - CSIRO's former chief executive
CSIRO in bed with multinational corporations
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is promoted as Australia's pre-eminent public scientific research body. Although ostensibly 'publicly funded' CSIRO has, in reality, been encouraged to get 30% of its funding from business with the CSIRO top management encouraging its staff to go to 40%. As a point of comparison, only about 10% of the funding of Europe's leading plant biotech institute, the John Innes Centre, is thought to come directly from industry although the JIC is considered highly industrially aligned.
According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief executive, 'Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the context of market access. There are very few Australian companies that have developed market access in the United States, in Europe and in Japan, the world's major marketplaces. Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies.' (Australian Broadcasting Commission, 1992).
Richard Hindmarsh in an article in the Journal of Australian Political Economy (No 44.), 'Consolidating Control: Plant Variety Rights, Genes and Seeds', describes CSIRO as having a long history of involvement with intensive agricultural R&amp;D and collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, and as having become increasingly dependent upon industry funding. The effect of this is 'to generate convergence between private sector and public sector plant breeding operators.' Hindmarsh notes, 'The CSIRO, in keeping with its position of being at the forefront of scientific research, prioritised genetic engineering research in 1979. CSIRO scientists have since been very active in the promotion of GE to the Australian community, and especially to other scientists (Hindmarsh, 1996). In addition, multinational companies are seen as the key avenue to the international commercialisation of biotechnology products and research of both Australian public sector institutions and biotechnology firms.'
Hindmarsh also notes, '...the indications are that a Byzantine web of formal contractual obligations and informal connections has emerged between the CSIRO and other public-sector agencies..., universities, small or new biotechnology firms (NBFs), and multinational corporations.'
The corporations listed by Hindmarsh as having direct financial connections with CSIRO include: Agrigenetics, Monsanto, Rhone Poulenc and AgrEvo (later part of Aventis and then Bayer). A collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first major GM commercial crop. On the day of the announcement of the commercial approval for Bayer's GM canola (oilseed rape) in Australia, CSIRO announced that Bayer would be extending its lucrative investment in CSIRO 'to develop modern biotechnology tools applicable to cotton and other crops'. The press release said, ' For Bayer CropScience, the alliance with CSIRO is regarded as a model for global cooperation.' 
For some it is a model of everything that's wrong in the relationship between public science and private interests. An article in the journal Australasian Science written by a former CSIRO senior executive accused the head of CSIRO of subverting the CSIRO's traditional role of public research in favour of lucrative consulting work for government and the private sector. Research into GM crops, with its promise of intellectual property and revenue streams, is 'in' at the CSIRO, he reportd; research into organic farming is 'out'. He described morale among staff as at rock bottom. 

			






Document Number: 810 

			

	State veto clause on GM crop trials revoked

		Friday, 29 July 2011 12:28	
1.State government approval clause in GM crops' GEAC guidelines to be revoked
2.State nod for GM crop trial hits research
3.GM forum flays mandatory prior nod of states for GM trial
NOTE: With Jairam Ramesh having been removed as India's environment minister, it looks like India's regulators (the GEAC) are back to business as usual, i.e. doing industry's bidding. In this case, they are dismantling a clause giving States a right of veto over GM crop trials held in their territory. 
The clause, which had been instigated under pressure from Ramesh, is being revoked after heavy lobbying (see items 2 and 3) by the industry pressure group ABLE-AG: the Association of Biotech Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group. Members of ABLE-AG include:
*MAHYCO [Monsanto's Indian partner]
EXTRACTS: ...Former union environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh in March had asked the GEAC to immediately withdraw its permission to Monsanto for field trials of Bt maize in Bihar. Ramesh's move came after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar told him that he was opposed to field trials of Bt maize. Jairam had asked the GEAC to give state government at least one month to agree or disagree on field trials for GM crops, given the fact that agriculture is a State subject. "In fact, ideally, prior approval of the State concerned should be taken before allowing such trials," he had stated. (item 2)
"It's a detrimental clause...it will delay the process of adoption of GM technology in the country..." Ram Kaundinya, Chairman of ABLE-AG told reporters. (item 3)
...Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa and Kerala [were identified] as among those against GM technology. (item 3)
State government approval clause in GM crops' GEAC guidelines to be revoked
http://www.fnbnews.com/article/detnews.asp?articleid=30294&amp;sectionid=1
Mumbai - Respite is likely to come to those looking to initiate trials in genetically-modified (GM) crops as an important clause requiring state approval for conducting GM trials is likely to be revoked.
This was confirmed by a source from the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), the apex body constituted in the ministry of environment and forests focussing on manufacture, use, import, export and storage of hazardous microorganisms / genetically-engineered organisms or cells, under the Environment Protection Act,1986. The source said that the decision to revoke the clause was a recent one.
Groups like ABLE-AG (Association of Biotech Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group) have been opposing this clause in the upcoming GEAC guidelines, which makes it mandatory to seek prior permission from the states for trial of GM crops.
According to the Group, it was a detrimental clause, which was likely to delay the process of adoption of the GM technology in the country to multiply yield of food grain crops.
Interestingly, Bihar and Karnataka had recently forced winding up trial of Bt maize by an international seed company on this ground.
Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal, Orissa and Kerala were some of the states which opposed this new technology whereas, states like Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Haryana were favourably inclined towards GM crops.
Overall, field trials of 10 GM crops are in the pipeline in different parts of the country, according to media reports. 
State nod for GM crop trial hits research, says andip Das 
Financial Express, July 28 2011 
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/state-nod-for-gm-crop-trial-hits-research-says-biotech-body/823468/
New Delhi: With the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) making it mandatory for the agri bio-tech companies to get no-objection certificate (NOC) from the states prior to the launch of any trial of GM crops has been termed as 'regressive' by a consortium Association of Bio-tech Led Enterprises - Agriculture Group (ABLE-AG) consisting of 12 companies has also said that getting nod from the states has put back research in genetically modified (GM) crops by many years.
"There is no way we can conduct any field trial this kharif season and because of ambiguity on the part of the government on GM crops, the research has come to a standstill for the last 13 months," VR Kaundinya, Chairman, ABLE-AG said.
...Former union environment and forests minister Jairam Ramesh in March had asked the GEAC to immediately withdraw its permission to Monsanto for field trials of Bt maize in Bihar. Ramesh's move came after Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar told him that he was opposed to field trials of Bt maize. Jairam had asked the GEAC to give state government at least one month to agree or disagree on field trials for GM crops, given the fact that agriculture is a State subject. "In fact, ideally, prior approval of the State concerned should be taken before allowing such trials," he had stated. 
GM forum flays mandatory prior nod of states for GM trial
Press Trust of India, July 28 2011
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-28/science/29824216_1_field-trials-gm-crops-gm-technology
NEW DELHI: A broad-based forum representing Indian Biotechnology sector Wednesday contested new GEAC guideline making it mandatory to seek prior permission from states for trial of GM crop.
The forum said it was talking to states having "wrong" notions about the newer plant technology.
"It's a detrimental clause...it will delay the process of adoption of GM technology in the country to multiply yield of food grain crops," Ram Kaundinya, Chairman of ABLE-AG (Association of Biotech Led Enterprises-Agriculture Group) told reporters.
Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) is the apex body constituted in the Ministry of Environment and Forests focusing on Manufacture, Use, Import, Export and Storage of Hazardous Microorganisms/Genetically Engineered Organisms or Cells 1989', under the Environment Protection Act,1986.
Bihar and Karnataka had recently forced winding up trial of Bt maize by an international seed company on this ground.
"Because of this the country could not take advantage of this advanced plant technology in the current kharif season," Kaundinya accompanied by M Vinod Kumar, Manager, Regulatory Affairs, India, added.
The ABLE-AG said they are talking to states opposed to GM crop technology mainly on political grounds.
He identified Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Orissa and Kerala as among those against GM technology.

			






Document Number: 5531 

			

	Greenpeace's Q &amp; A on GM wheat trial action

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 10:51	
Q &amp; A on GM wheat trial action
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/what-we-do/Food/resources/FAQs/Q--A-on-GM-Wheat-trial-action/
*What have Greenpeace done today?
Greenpeace activists have taken non-violent direct action to stop Australia's environment and food supply from being contaminated by genetically modified wheat. The GM wheat that has been released across Australia has not been proven safe. It hasn't been tested for toxic and allergic effects. All evidence shows that GM wheat cannot be contained; it will contaminate our food supply and the environment.
The Australian Government has refused to protect Australians from harm caused by the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat. GM organisms are living organisms that can multiply and cross-breed. They pose a threat of irreversible damage to Australia's environment and our food supply. Greenpeace has taken action to prevent contamination of our food supply and environment.
*Why is Greenpeace opposing research – isn't research necessary to test the impact of GM?
Greenpeace does not oppose safe research; we oppose open, risky experiments with something as fundamental as our food and the environment we depend on for life. Greenpeace does not oppose GM research in the lab, but we do oppose experiments known as 'GM field trials'. These 'GM field trials' involve open, genetic experiments in the environment.
Greenpeace opposes field trials of GM organisms as the risks from such open experiments cannot be contained. The many incidents of contamination of the food chain with GM arising from field trials (e.g. the case of the experimental GM rice LL601, which had not undergone any prior assessment for its safety for feed, food or environment)* provide a clear illustration of the wider risk to the environment and society.
GM field trials cannot be justified on the basis that they support impact assessment as the impacts are then already real, potentially widespread and may be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse.
*Why is Greenpeace targeting CSIRO?
Greenpeace's work is targeting the release of unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. The CSIRO is working with foreign GM companies to release unsafe GM wheat into our food supply. These foreign GM companies include Limagrain, one of the biggest investors in GM in the world, and Arcadia Biosciences.
CSIRO's closeness with foreign GM companies has created a clear conflict of interest within the CSIRO. The GM wheat field trial which Greenpeace has removed from the environment was proposed and approved while two directors of Nufarm were serving on the board of the CSIRO.  Nufarm is the exclusive distributor of Monsanto's Roundup Ready products in Australia and Monsanto owns 90 per cent of GM products worldwide. Monsanto and its GM partners stand to make billions from the genetic modification of Australia's wheat.
CSIRO's closeness to these GM corporations compromises their ability to make decisions in Australia's public interest and has resulted in the release of unsafe genetically modified wheat into the Australian environment.
*Why aren't these GM wheat trials safe?
Open, genetic experiments in the environment are never safe, because they can’t be contained. There are massive gaps in the safety assessment that allowed experimental GM wheat to be released into the field.
-All evidence shows GM contaminates. The Government’s own data documents extensive GM contamination in Australia. The biggest GM contamination incident in global history started from a small field trial like the one Greenpeace has taken action to contain.
-GM hasn't been proven safe to eat. No evidence has been produced to demonstrate that GM wheat does not have toxic or allergic effects on humans or animals, and yet the Government approved release of GM wheat into the environment anyway.
-There was no proof that the GM wheat released into the field was genetically stable. Genetic instability is one of the greatest risks associated with genetic modification. The Australian Government acknowledged this risk, stating that, "Gene technology has the potential to cause unintended effects due to the process used to insert new genetic material or by producing a gene product that affects multiple traits." They approved release of GM wheat regardless of such a serious risk.
*Are the CSIRO really planning to test GM wheat on humans?
Yes, the CSIRO planned to test potentially unstable, experimental GMOs on Australians in the first ever human feeding trial of GM wheat in the world. They planned to test GM wheat on Australians even though there is no evidence that GM does not create toxic and allergic effects. Nor did the CSIRO intend to use these human feeding studies to test for any toxic and allergic effects of GM wheat. All of the available information indicates the CSRIO only intended to test the corporate parameters of the GM wheat; or put simply, that the product did what it was genetically modified to do, regardless of any unintentional effects.
Greenpeace entered a request under Freedom of Information laws for the ethics and health and safety papers relating to these human feeding trials. The CSIRO rejected this request and ask that Greenpeace remove any request for documents that related to CSIRO and its partners 'corporate interests'.
*Hasn't Greenpeace created a GM contamination risk by penetrating the controlled research grounds?
Greenpeace has followed strict HAZMAT protocols in removing this experimental GM wheat from the environment. Our action was also taken prior to the GM wheat plants flowering. Greenpeace’s action has been taken to reduce the risk of contamination by GM wheat during field trials.
*Has Greenpeace destroyed a farmer's crop?
No. Greenpeace has removed a GM wheat experiment that is owned by the CSIRO and run in partnership with foreign GM corporations.
*Has Greenpeace destroyed GM food that could feed the world's hungry?
The GM industry has done nothing to feed the world's poor and contrary to GM industry claims, the independent evidence shows that GM seeds do not produce more food. Hunger is not caused by a shortage of food. In 2010, almost one billion people went hungry, and millions died from malnutrition, despite the food system producing enough food for double the global population.
Hungry people need money to buy food or land to grow it. GM provides neither. In 2008 a UN report on the future of agriculture by 400 leading international scientists found no evidence that GM increases yields. The report warned that GM in fact hurts  poor farmers, because the patents attached to GM crops are expensive and stop farmers from saving seeds, which they have done for generations.
*GM companies are saying there is nothing to worry about, is the threat of GM bread a reality?
The GM industry has responded to Greenpeace's concerns about GM field trials by saying that GM bread is seven to ten years away. However, CSIRO documents claim that GM wheat will be ready for the market by 2015. If CSIRO and their corporate partners adhere to this timeframe, Australia could be facing GM field trials on a commercial scale within the next two years.
It suits the GM industry to have minimum scrutiny of their GM wheat commercialization push. Until the Australian Government commits to no further field trials of GM wheat, Greenpeace will continue to raise the alarm about the threats GM wheat commercialization poses to Australia.
*Why should people trust Greenpeace over the CSIRO?
Greenpeace supports transparency and accountability.  We encourage people to ask questions and to be informed.    In this case, we have exposed the corporate links to these GM wheat trials and the compromised position of CSIRO in order to better inform the public about where their taxes are going. CSIRO has done the opposite – rejecting all requests by Greenpeace made under Freedom of Information legislation for information relating to their contracts with GM corporations and their intention to test experimental GM wheat on Australians.
*There's no proven health risk of GM, aren't Greenpeace just scaremongering?
There is evidence of health risks for animals like rats, which have been fed GM plants under test conditions. Some of the health impacts identified in animal feeding studies include increased organ size, reduced fertility and increased allergic responses. The CSIRO's own animal feeding study documented that GM caused an allergic response in mice and prevented the animals from gaining weight.
These studies raise significant concerns about the potential impact of GM on people. The safety of GM for humans is unknown and our current testing regimes are inadequate. GM crops are also subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of living, GM products. The Australian Government has been negligent in investing in the commercialization of GM wheat without any evidence that it is safe.
*CSIRO claims that this GM wheat could prevent bowel cancer. Can GM really stop bowel cancer and is Greenpeace preventing work that could reduce bowel cancer rates?
No, GM wheat will not stop bowel cancer. According to the Public Health Association of Australia and earlier statements made by the CSIRO themselves, no one food can reduce the risk of disease, which is affected by total diet and lifestyle.
*CSIRO is currently claiming that its GM wheat could help reduce bowel cancer rates because it has more 'resistant starch' in it. Resistant starch is good for digestive health.
There are already a lot of safe, healthy food products available with high resistant starch contents that haven't been genetically modified and don’t come with the risks attached to GM. CSIRO themselves have already developed a number of high resistant starch products without using GM. Hi-Maize and BarleyMax for example, are already on the market.  These non-GM products have a higher amylose content than the GM wheat CSIRO is spending millions of taxpayer dollars to develop.
A non-GM wheat product high in resistant starch is not needed to supplement Australians already diverse, natural diet in Australia. If CSIRO wanted to develop high-amylose wheat, it could do so easily without using risky GM techniques. Non-GM methods however, would not attract big biotech company dollars, as corporations are only interested in GM products that can be patented for super profits.
CSIRO is also on the record arguing that only a balanced diet and exercise can reduce the risk of disease. This is in line with policy form the Public health Association of Australia, which states that the reduction in risk for disease is affected by the total diet and lifestyle pattern, not by use of an individual food.
*How does Greenpeace expect CSIRO to test for health risks if they don't test it on humans?
It is never safe to test GM products on humans, because GM crops are subject to unexpected and unpredictable results. That means that no amount of preliminary testing can guarantee the ongoing safety of GM products.
The testing regime CSIRO has proposed to follow for testing experimental GM wheat on Australians is inadequate. CSIRO documents state that GM wheat will be tested on humans in stages of just one day, for example. This is incredibly lax when compared with pharmaceutical regimes, for example, where experimental products are first tested on animals for two years, to to provide evidence of potential carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive dysfunctions.
The lax standards surrounding CSIRO's testing regimes raise the concern that CSIRO testing will be nothing more than a PR exercise for the GM industry.
*Greenpeace agrees with most of the science on climate change, but when it comes to GM tells us not to trust a lot of what scientists say. Is this a contradiction?
Greenpeace encourages people to read science critically and to be aware of vested interests.  There are many vested interests of concern in relation to the development of GM wheat.  Greenpeace's recent report on the corporate links to the GM wheat trials highlights some of these.
*Greenpeace is saying that the trials are linked to Monsanto, but in fact they are funded by CSIRO. Aren't you being misleading?
These GM wheat trials are being conducted by CSIRO in collaboration with Limagrain. Other GM wheat trials being conducted by CSIRO are done in partnership with Arcadia Biosciences, a company that is linked to Monsanto. The web of public-private partnerships that sits behind these research programs is misleading and makes it challenging for the public to know where and to whom their tax dollars are being spent. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for the public to exercise its right to hold the government to account.
This difficulty is exacerbated by the secrecy surrounding government documents related to GM plants.  Greenpeace's Freedom of Information request for documents about the commercial partnership between CSIRO and Limagrain was refused. The documents are 'commercial in confidence'. Australian taxpayers cannot properly exercise their rights to hold the government to account under these conditions.
Greenpeace is asking the Australian Government to:
-halt all field trials of GM wheat;
-increase transparency around public spending on agricultural research and development, disclosing all details of public-private partnerships
-increase support for Australia's world-leading sustainable farming industry
Help us tell the Australian Government to stop all GM wheat trials and keep Australian bread healthy, safe and fair. Go to www.greenpeace.org/australia/wheatscandal and write to the Australian Government and demand an end to the GM wheat trials. 

			






Document Number: 5570 

			

	Greenpeace destroys GM wheat trial

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 10:49	
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-14/20110714-greenpeace-gm-protest/2794272
Video: Greenpeace protest video (ABC News)
Photo: Greenpeace protesters have used string trimmers to destroy an entire crop of GM wheat. (Greenpeace )
Greenpeace protesters have broken into a CSIRO experimental farm in Canberra to destroy a crop of genetically modified wheat.
In the early hours of this morning a group of Greenpeace protesters scaled the fence of the CSIRO experimental station at Ginninderra in the capital's north.
Greenpeace says activists were wearing Hazmat protective clothing and were equipped with weed string trimmers.
They say the entire crop of genetically modified wheat has been destroyed.
About half a hectare of GM wheat is being grown on the site, as part of Australia's first outdoor trials.
No genetically modified wheat strain had ever been approved for cropping in Australia before.
Last month the CSIRO received permission to conduct Australia's first trial in which humans will eat GM wheat.
The wheat's genes have been modified to lower the glycemic index and increase fibre to create a product which will improve bowel health and increase nutritional value.
Animal feeding trials of up to three months have been conducted, with human trials at least six months away.
Greenpeace says it has taken action because of concerns over health, cross-contamination and the secrecy surrounding the experiments.
Campaigner Laura Kelly says the Federal Government needs to put an end to testing GM wheat in Australia.
She says parts of the United States and many countries throughout Europe have already rejected the crop, and Australia should do the same.
"No one is looking after the health of Australians. Julia Gillard isn't standing up to foreign GM countries to protect our daily bread so Greenpeace has to," she said.
CSIRO chief director of Plant Industries Jeremy Burdon says the organisation is still assessing the extent of the damage.
He says it is a setback to an important global food security program.
"Until we actually know what the assessment comes out at it's hard to say but if it sets it back by a year it's a significant amount of effort by those people involved," he said.
ACT Greens MLA Shane Rattenbury used to work for Greenpeace and says he is not surprised the group has taken such action.
"It's always very controversial these sorts of actions, but you have to stand up for what you believe in sometimes," he said.
"Greenpeace has clearly formed a view that the best way to both draw attention to this issue and to potentially protect the human food chain in Australia is to take this action."
Mr Rattenbury says Greenpeace has a track record of breaking the law to highlight problems.
"I've certainly been involved in action in the past where Greenpeace has broken the law and that has been necessary to highlight what we've considered at the time to be a greater issue than perhaps a simple trespass," he said.
ACT police have confirmed they are investigating but have not released any further information.

			






Document Number: 2774 

			

	WWF and GM soy: dubious dealings with the panda

		Thursday, 14 July 2011 10:39	
WORLD WIDE FUND FOR NATURE: Dubious Dealings With the Panda
http://www.fr-online.de/wirtschaft/panda-im-zwielicht/-/1472780/8655336/-/index.html
[English translation by Larass Translations]
Can genetically altered soybeans be sustainable? The discussion is heating up over a shipment of this raw material that is to arrive in Europe these days. There are accusations against the environmental organization WWF, which issues its certificate for genetically modified plants.
The attempt by the international agriculture and foodstuff industry to brush up its image is entering a new phase. After years of preparations, the first shipment of allegedly sustainably produced soybeans is to reach Europe in the next few days by ship: 80,000 tons of soybeans produced by the Brazilian producer André Maggi, destined for the farmers of the large-scale dairy enterprise Friesland-Campina and the meat-processing company Vion, both Dutch companies. Another 5,000 tons are going to the US, to the food manufacturer Unilever.
The dispute about whether these soybeans were actually produced in a sustainable manner has been ongoing for months and is now about to start in earnest because this raw material, allegedly grown in an environmentally friendly manner, contains genetically 
 soy. In Europe, that is not considered sustainable at all, especially since there are more and more reports about the health risks involved in the growing of genetically modified soybeans. Because of the Brazilian shipment, genetically modified oil and meal will end up in milk, in feed for pigs and chickens, or even in margarine and dressings - and the companies pretend to be green.
Behind this shipment is the RTRS Association (Round Table on Responsible Soy Association), which was founded in 2006 in Switzerland with the help of the international environmental organization WWF, and which is supported by companies such as Monsanto, Unilever and Bayer Crop Science. Their certificate, which could soon also be on German food products, expressly allows the growing of genetically altered soy. Genetically altered soy, however, has a significant impact on the environment due to the use of the total herbicide Round-Up, which contains glyphosate. Recent studies confirmed that it also affects human health. Says Heike Moldenhauer, expert for genetic engineering of one Germany's most respected nature protection organizations (BUND), "this has nothing to do" with sustainability.
WWF, however, is a co-founder not only of the RTRS initiative, but also of a similar association, RSPO (Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil), for allegedly sustainable palm oil production and tries to placate the parties that show concern. According to expert Ilka Peterseon, the first shipment of the RTRS-certified soy is not genetically 
 soy, because the soy had not been mixed with genetically altered products until later. Regardless, the guaranteed non-genetically 
 soy has to be certified in a very time-intensive manner due to the feared contamination with genetically 
 soy during transport, which is why it is so expensive. Moldenhauer also believes that this first RTRS shipment to Europe is questionable: "If it really were not genetically 
All product advertised as RTRS soy is labelled "sustainable" if it is able to save the rainforest or other biologically valuable habitats. The RTRS catalog specifically permits genetic engineering. Environmental organizations, lead by Greenpeace and BUND, have thus been accusing the WWF for quite some time now of green-washing, label fraud, and, according to BUND President Hubert Weiger, the "misuse of the term sustainability." In a letter signed among others by BUND, Demeter, Naturland and the ABL (German Small Farmers' Association), but only distributed internally, the organizations coin the term of a "green mantle" for the genetically engineered plant, with the help of the WWF. It would, in fact, protect a few valuable habitats, but "certainly not the environment as a whole". The environmentalists accuse the WWF of "stabbing" international initiatives that fight against genetic engineering and that, at least in Europe, are quite successful "in the back."
The environmental organizations do, however, hesitate to level these charges publically. They do not like to attack each other, because "in the end, the environmental movement is too small for that," managing director of Greenpeace Brigitte Behrens told Frankfurter Rundschau.
An "open campaign platform" of Greenpeace does, however, prominently display the Panda, the trademark of the WWF. New allegations against the WWF, for example that it is collaborating with the powerful corporation instead of the environment, became one of the top trending issues on the platform "Greenaction.de/campaigns."
What contributed to this interest was a film by journalist Wilfried Huismann, the "Pact with the Panda," which was first aired on the ARD channel on June 22 at midnight. In his film, the journalist accuses the WWF of acting as a green fig leaf for the industry. Saving the rainforest or the orangutan is only of marginal importance; instead, the industry can count on the support of the WWF because the palm oil contained in bio-fuel in the European Union has to be sustainably cultivated. The RSPO label could provide this proof.
The German WWF, in the meantime, is fighting the film with cease-and-desist undertakings. It claims that some of the main allegations are inaccurate. It claims that one plantation shown in the film is not RSPO certified, and if it were certified one day, not 80 hectares, but 4,000 hectares and therefore one-third of the plantation area would remain protected forest. The German WWF also distances itself from allegations of genetic engineering: It claims that it is not cooperating with Monsanto. Rather, it says, the corporation is merely a member of the RTRS, without any influence from the WWF. Anyone active in countries such as Argentina, where 90 percent of the soy cultivated is genetically engineered, would also have to be in dialogue with Monsanto, explained WWF speaker Astrid Deilmann.
The German WWF now has a problem: It is mainly a branch of the international organization and, different from American WWF organizations, is opposed to genetic engineering. Unlike WWF Brazil, the German branch does not have a seat in the RTRS. Whereas US WWF Vice President Jason Clay clearly comes out in favour of genetic engineering in the Huismann film, the German WWF speaker Deilmann warns companies against using RTRS soy. The corporations have a different opinion: Meat producer Vion wants to switch all of its Dutch farmers to RTRS soy and expand the concept to Germany by 2015. The company's announcement says nothing about the fact that RTRS soy meal may contain genetic engineering.
The case is similar for palm oil: As early as November 2009, 80 internationally acting environmental organizations, from Acción Ecológica in Ecuador and Deutsche Freunde für die Naturvölker [German Friends of Primitive People] to the World Rainforest Movement had opposed the WWF's support of the RSPO. The main allegation: The RSPO would tolerate the displacement of local populations from future palm oil plantations and destroy swamps and rainforests. "Finally,"  Freunde für die Naturvölker commented, "someone was courageous enough to address the WWF and its schemes with the industry." In the film, a speaker of Friends of the Earth says that the organization is helping the palm oil industry expand and "green-wash" destructive production.
The film, "Pact with the Panda," will air again on the German station SWR on Wednesday, 13 July from 8:15 - 9:00 pm. The WWF, very established in the social media, is prepared, and has organized a live chat with its experts for that day  
Europe imports 35 to 38 million tons of soy raw materials per year, which is 70 kg for each of the 470 million EU citizens. Approximately 90% of all foodstuff traded in the EU are labeled as genetically modified, even though it is not clear whether the sack actually contains genetically 
 soy. Importers label the product to prevent any claims for recourse.
Estimates suggest that actually 50 - 60% of the product comes from genetically altered plants or is contaminated with genetically 
 soy. 15-19 million tons are free from genetic engineering. Non-genetically altered product can often only be purchased from some regions in Brazil. Certifications that accompany the shipments on vessels and trucks ensure that this clean product did not have any contact with genetically altered soy.
In Germany, approximately five million tons of soy oil, or soy meal, are consumed. In 2010, 94% of this amount went into food or foodstuff. Ten years ago, it was 98%, but today, 5% of the soy is now used for the production of biodiesel. Biodiesel contains 10% of soy methyl ester. During the warm season, biodiesel in Germany can contain up to 5% palm oil. Of the 53 million tons of palm oil that were produced in 2010, 71.1% percent were use for food and 4.7% were used for energy purposes (electricity, heat, or fuel). 
Biofuels and plant oils have to demonstrate their sustainability in cultivation and production with the help of certification systems. Only then can they be applied to the biofuel components or be subsidized under the EU's Renewable Energy Act. Consequently, the cultivation of biomass for biofuels and plant oils must not entail the conversion of areas with high levels of carbon resources or high biodiversity.
Certification systems such as the Round Table on Responsible Soy (RTRS) or the Round Table on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) can be used as a basis for such demonstration. RTRS soy has already been recognized by the EU as evidence of sustainable production. 
Copyright © 2010 Frankfurter Rundschau

			






Document Number: 7503 

			

	GM salmon study reveals danger of escape

		Wednesday, 13 July 2011 20:56	
1.First study into GM Atlantic salmon mating reveals danger of escape to wild gene pool
2.Op-ed response to Bryan Walsh's recent article "End of the Line", in Time Magazine
First study into GM Atlantic salmon mating reveals danger of escape to wild gene pool
Public release date: 13-Jul-2011
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
If genetically modified Atlantic salmon were to escape from captivity they could succeed in breeding and passing their genes into the wild, Canadian researchers have found. Their research, published in Evolutionary Applications, explores the potential reproductive implications of GM salmon as they are considered for commercial farming.
"The use of growth-enhancing transgenic technologies has long been of interest to the aquaculture industry and now genetically modified Atlantic salmon is one of the first species to be considered for commercial farming. Yet, little is known about the potential impact on wild salmon populations if the GM species were to escape captivity," said lead author Darek Moreau from the Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada.
One of the key concerns about a transgene escape is the "Trojan gene effect", caused when a GM fish outcompetes or reproduces equally against wild rivals, however if the resulting offspring are genetically inferior this could lead a species towards eventual extinction. Until now there is no empirical research to demonstrate the ability of transgenic Atlantic salmon to breed naturally and infiltrate the wild gene pool.
In the wild, reproducing males present two main forms of rivals which any escaping transgenic male would have to compete with; large males which have migrated and returned from the sea and smaller male parr which have matured in freshwater. The large males are aggressive and develop attributes to fight off their rivals, while the smaller male parr use cryptic colouring and 'sneak fertilisation' to compete.
To measure the ability of transgenic males to complete with wild males during the reproductive season the team monitored breeding behaviour in a naturalised laboratory setting and used genetic analysis to determine the success of competing individuals at producing offspring.
Large, migratory wild males outperformed their captivity-reared transgenic counterparts in terms of a variety of spawning behaviours. Moreover, despite being less aggressive, non-transgenic male parr were also able to outperform their GM rivals in terms of spawning behaviour, and as a result, achieved higher overall fertilisation success.
"While the transgenic males displayed reduced breeding performance relative to their non-transgenic rivals they still demonstrated the ability to successfully participate in natural spawning events and thus have the potential to contribute modified genes to wild populations," said Moreau. While the study provides an estimate of breeding performance under only a single set of physical and demographic environmental conditions, it does mimic a likely invasion scenario where the genetic background of the transgenic population differs from that of the wild population.
"Our study provides the first empirical observations on the natural reproductive capacities of growth hormone transgenic Atlantic salmon," concluded Moreau. "While the resulting ecological and genetic effects of a transgene escape remain uncertain, these data highlight the importance of preventing reproductively-viable GM salmon from entering natural systems." 
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-4571.2011.00196.x/full
Op-ed response to Bryan Walsh's recent article "End of the Line", in Time Magazine
We all know there is a great appetite for salmon, but the solution is not to 'farm' genetically engineered versions to put more on our dinner tables; the solution is to support and work to bring our wild salmon populations back.  Bryan Walsh’s recent article "End of the Line" (printed in Time Magazine on July 7, 2011) which details the purported benefits of "frankenfish" would be more aptly titled "End of the Line for the Engineered Red Herring."
The genetically engineered Atlantic salmon discussed in Walsh's article and currently under review by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was developed by AquaBounty Technologies, which artificially combined growth hormone genes from an unrelated Pacific salmon with DNA from the anti-freeze genes of an eelpout.  In its misguided decision to go ahead with its approval process for genetically engineered (GE) salmon, FDA has regrettably failed to take into account the plethora of economic, human health, environmental and societal risks posed by this fish.  Now consumers, investors and even our journalists are being led to believe that genetic engineering is needed to solve the problems our oceans currently face: over-fishing, dead zones, chronic pollution and the loss of marine life.  None of these problems can be solved by engineering salmon and in fact GE salmon only stand to make them worse.
The farming of carnivorous fish like salmon requires massive quantities of wild forage fish for use as fishmeal and fish oil, inputs that cannon be sufficiently replaced by vegetarian alternatives.  It can take from 3 to 10 lbs. of forage fish feed to produce just 1 lb. of farmed salmon.[i] This is a massive discrepancy that stands to be made worse by GE salmon designed to grow faster as they will likely need more food, thus increasing the pressure on wild fish stocks that are already over-fished for use by aquaculture operations.  Keep in mind that the forage fish being used in substantial quantities for aquaculture feed are the same prey fish that wild species like dolphins, tuna, sharks, whales and wild salmon depend on as their main source of food.  Forage fish like sardines, herrings and anchovies are also a vital component of the diets in most places of the world where prices for salmon (farmed or wild-caught) remain out of reach.    The public is being led to believe that
salmon will reduce the pressure on wild stocks and they are being deceived.
Unlike Mr. Walsh who asserts that our seas must embrace farming the same way we have on land, I look at our oceans with hope and promise.  Roughly 70% of the world is covered by oceans and they support a wide array of life in a way that our terrestrial ecosystems like deserts, which make up roughly one fifth of the Earth’s surface, cannot. Give the pressures for arable land, it is unsurprising that we as a species adapted to farming on land.  We need not resort to farming in the seas if we muster the political will to protect them and manage them.  
Taking a cue from Alaska which prohibits aquaculture and instead invested in management, when properly supported wild fisheries can flourish and produce abundant food as well as generate jobs and economic benefits throughout sectors.  The seafood industry in Alaska is the largest private sector employer creating 56,600 direct and 22,000 indirect jobs annually, more jobs than oil, gas and mining combined.[ii] Research published by Andrew Dyke and U. Rashid Sumaila notes that wild fisheries can also have significant economic impacts in other sectors, such as agriculture, forestry, manufacturing and financial services.  They found that regionally, every $1 of fisheries-sector output supports more than $3 of output throughout the North American economy.[iii]  Many of Alaska’s salmon processors are based in Seattle and elsewhere in Washington, Oregon or California, meaning that revenue and value is generated and spread across many states.  
Approval of GE salmon to be grown across our borders in Canada, which the company is seeking, is not in our country's best interest.  The possibility for escape is too high and the costs associated with it would be devastating given the tremendous investment that has been made by Federal and State agencies to restore wild salmon fisheries in the Northeast where Atlantic salmon is currently on the endangered species list.  A recent poll by Lake Research Partners showed that in near unanimity, 91% of Americans felt FDA should not introduce GE fish and meat into the marketplace.[iv]  If China decides to move forward with GE fish production as Mr. Walsh suggests then it is up to China and its citizens, experts and government to debate that. However as the most influential country in the world, the U.S. must represent the highest common denominator for economic, environmental and social sustainability and not cater to the lowest.  
Colin O'Neil is a regulatory policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety a non-profit public interest organization based in Washington, D.C.
[i] Naylor, R.L and Burke, M. (2005) Aquaculture and Ocean Resources: Raising Tigers of the Sea. Stanford University Annual Review of Environment and Resources, Vol. 30, page(s) 185-218; Pinto, F. and Furci, G. (2006) Salmon Piranha Style: Feed Conversion Efficiency in the Chilean Salmon Farming Industry, Edited by R. Pizarro, Terram Publications.
[ii] Northern Economics of Anchorage (January 2009) The Seafood Industry in Alaska’s Economy. Commissioned by the Marine Conservation Alliance, At-sea Processors Association and the Pacific Seafood Processors Association.
[iii] Dyck, A.J. and U.R. Sumaila. 2010. Economic impact of ocean fish populations in the global fishery. Journal of Bioeconomics. DOI: 10.1007/s10818-010-9088-3  [See attached summary by PEW Environment Group]  
[iv] Lake Research Partners, Commissioned by Food and Water Watch, 9/20/10
http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/release-FWW-Omnibus.pdf
For Bryan Walsh's original Time Magazine article 'End of the Line' 
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2082630,00.html

			






Document Number: 605 

			

		Wednesday, 13 July 2011 14:38	
NO TO CORPORATE CONTROL OF INDIAN AGRICULTURE!
Call for a Nationwide DAY OF ACTION on Aug. 9, 2011 (Quit India Day); &amp; KISAN SWARAJ WEEK, Aug. 9TH to Aug. 15TH 2011
"No food shall be grown, that we do not own" – that is the reported objective of Monsanto, the multi-national seed and agro-chemical company notorious for suing and jailing farmers for the "crime”" of reusing seeds they purchased from the company! If you are shocked by Monsanto's aim of controlling the entire world's food production system, what is more mind-boggling is how much progress it has already made towards its goal. Monsanto is today the world’s largest seed company, already controlling 23% of the proprietary seed market. The annual profit of this single company is Rs. 22,500 crores, more than the GDP of 48 countries! Known for its unscrupulous practices, it is  now re-writing the laws and manipulating politicians and officials in the developing world to push its GM (genetic modification) technology, herbicides and proprietary hybrids. Recently, gross violations were exposed in its field trials of GM maize in Karnataka showing the impunity with which the company defies biosafety concerns.
If we as a nation want to protect our food sovereignty, if we want to retain control on what we grow and what we eat, this is the time for us to act decisively. This is a call to all like-minded organizations, alliances and individuals to come together for simultaneous actions on Aug. 9th, 2011 across the country with the outcry “Monsanto Quit India!”, and other actions observing Aug 9th-15th as Kisan Swaraj Week – sending a strong signal nationwide that citizens will not tolerate corporate domination of our food systems and agriculture.
The question of who controls our agriculture – our crores of farmers or a few big corporations – has deep ramifications for the whole society. We all have a big stake in whether unsafe genetically modified foods will be thrust on us, whether unsafe agri-chemicals would further damage our water, soil and health, whether 10 crore farmer families will lose their livelihoods, whether our rural and urban areas will be sustainable and whether we would have safe, diverse and nutritious food to eat.  This Day of Action aims to strengthen the broader struggle against corporate domination of agriculture by focusing on its most potent symbol. More information including a leaflet can be accessed from the links under "Resources" below.
How you can participate in the August 9th nationwide Day of Action &amp; Kisan Swaraj Week (Aug. 9th to 15th)
You can either participate in an event being organized in your area, or organize an event yourself. If you plan to organize an event on behalf of your organization or jointly with ASHA (Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture), please contact Kavitha Kuruganti, Kiran Vissa or Rajesh Krishnan. The contact information including coordinators of various states is given below.
Here are some suggestions for what to organize:
*Demonstration at a Monsanto/Mahyco centre
*Padayatra to create awareness amongst farmers and consumers
*Protest against your government if it is partnering with Monsanto using public funds
*Seed Diversity Festival or a Traditional Foods festival
*Demonstration against field trials of GM crops in your state
*Film screening or awareness event about corporatization of our food system
*Seed Exchange among farmers &amp; felicitation of Seed breeders
*TV or radio programs, press conference
*Release of local language material on Monsanto and its crimes
*Workshop/Round-table on how to stop corporate control of agriculture
You can also take part in a nation-wide post-card campaign in the lead-up to August 9th with a simple message to Monsanto: “Monsanto: We do not need or want your hazardous &amp; unsustainable technologies in agriculture; we will not allow you to control our agriculture and seed resources; we refuse to have your poison served to us. MONSANTO, QUIT INDIA! Post cards with this message can be sent to: Monsanto India Limited, Ahura Centre, 5th Floor,  96, Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 093. Phone: 022-28246450/67029851; Fax: 022-28244707.
If you have better ideas, do share with us and we will propagate them! 
- Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)
Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) is an all-India network of about 400 organizations of farmers, agricultural workers, consumers, social activists and academics, working to promote ecologically sustainable agriculture and secure livelihoods for farmers, and stop corporate domination of our agriculture and food system. ASHA organized the nation-wide Kisan Swaraj Yatra from Sabarmati to Raj Ghat in Oct-Dec 2010 for "Food, Farmers, Freedom".
(1)    Leaflet for Monsanto Quit India events
http://www.kisanswaraj.in/wp-content/uploads/leaflet-monsanto-quit-india.doc
(2)    Report on Monsanto-izing Indian Agriculture
http://www.kisanswaraj.in/wp-content/uploads/Monsanto-ising-indian-agri.pdf
(3)    Monsanto: Corporate Manipulation and Deception
http://www.naturalnews.com/z029325_Monsanto_deception.html
(4)    Gross violations in GM field trials in Karnataka
http://www.prokerala.com/news/articles/a232125.html
(1)  Poison on the Platter (Mahesh Bhatt): 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8q5TZTFgIM
(2)  Poison on the Platter (Hindi):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qk9leT5kzY
(3)  World according to Monsanto: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YH4OwBYDQe8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnD-DiDRIJA
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Andhra Pradesh: Kiran Vissa (ASHA);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Bihar: Pankaj Bhushan (GM Free Bihar Movement);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Delhi: Rajesh Krishnan (Greenpeace);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Karnataka: Kodihalli Chandrasekhar (Karnataka Rajya Raita Sangha);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Kerala: Sridhar Radhakrishnan (Coalition for a GM-Free India);
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Madhya Pradesh: Nilesh Desai (Beej Swaraj Abhiyan),
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Maharashtra: Aarti Pakharaj (Hamara Beej Abhiyan, Maharashtra), 094224 60587; Tejal V. (GM-Free Maharashtra),
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Orissa: Debjeet Sarangi (UNCAGE),
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
, 099385-82616; Saroj Mohanty (Paschim Odisha Krushak Sanghatan), 097771-54149
Punjab: Umendra Dutt (Alliance for Safe &amp; GM-Free Food, Punjab),
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Tamil Nadu: Ram (Safe Food Alliance),
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
, 094449-57781; Kannaiyan (South Indian Coordination Committee of Farmers’ Movements), 094449-89543
Uttar Pradesh: Rakesh Tikait &amp; Dharmendra Malik (Bharatiya Kisan Union), 092196-91168 

			






Document Number: 481 

			

	Enquêtes de la WDR sur le World Wide Fund for Nature

		Tuesday, 12 July 2011 17:10	
Enquêtes de la WDR sur le World Wide Fund for Nature
Le WWF et l'industrie / Le pacte avec le panda[1]
sueddeutsche.de Média [Original allemand: 
Quels sont les véritables liens entre le WWF et l'industrie? À l'heure du cinquantième anniversaire de la création de l'organisation, le groupe de radiotélévision allemand WDR a enquêté dans les coulisses de cette organisation environnementale internationale si connue. Son documentaire explosif illustre à quel point l'organisation est mêlée aux intérêts des industriels et à leurs milliards de profits.
Imaginez des bébés tigres, des oursons polaires ou de jeunes orangs-outans... Ne voilà t-il pas un tableau attendrissant, qui suscite automatiquement la sympathie? Une image imparable pour émouvoir les enfants. Pourtant, un seul animal les surpassera toujours tous : le panda, la douceur incarnée!
Le panda est l'effigie de la très célèbre organisation World Wide Fund for Nature (également connue sous son ancienne appellation « World Wildlife Fund »). D'après une étude de marché, cette organisation de protection de la nature, la plus puissante au monde, a l'une des images les plus crédibles au monde. Depuis 50 ans, elle incarne les enjeux de protection du climat, de développement durable et de préservation de la diversité biologique de la Terre.
Et elle est toujours en quête de donateurs… au service de la nature. Les enfants n'hésitent d'ailleurs pas à casser leur tirelire ou encore à collectionner les photos d'animaux que le géant allemand de la grande distribution, Rewe, distribuait jusqu'il y a peu comme cadeaux promotionnels, en collaboration avec le WWF. Un succès retentissant qui a généré une véritable frénésie de collection (campagne « Animaux – Aventures. Découvrez-les tous! »). Les donateurs ont ainsi l'impression d'acheter un petit bout d'un monde idéal.
Mais la réalité, du moins en partie, est bien différente.
D'après l'enquête de la WDR, la très influente organisation environnementale WWF (avec ses dons annuels atteignant près de 500 millions d'euros, ses 4 000 salariés et ses antennes implantées dans plus de 100 pays) a noué des liens extrêmement étroits avec les intérêts des industriels. Si bien que l'on en vient à se demander si le travail de cette ONG est bien en accord avec son slogan « For a living planet » (pour une planète vivante).
Dans le documentaire de la WDR intitulé « Le pacte avec le panda », diffusé par ARD  vendredi dernier à 23h30, le journaliste Wilfried Huismann (plusieurs fois récompensé par un Grimme Preis) suggère que l'organisation exploite parfois la crédulité des donateurs pour des intérêts qui servent pourtant bien peu la défense de la planète.
Huismann montre que le WWF aide activement certaines sociétés douteuses à obtenir des « certificats de durabilité ». L'organisation participe en effet à des « tables rondes » avec des sociétés d'OGM comme le géant agricole Monsanto ou la multinationale Wilmar Group pour certifier ensuite qu'ils produisent du soja ou de l'huile de palme dans le respect des critères de « durabilité ».
Dans le documentaire, l'organisation de protection de la nature justifie ces liens étroits en tant que démarche « non-idéologique » permettant « de parvenir à un bon compromis plutôt que d'afficher une opposition systématique ». Dans son enquête, Huismann illustre ce que peuvent être les conséquences de ce type de coopération avec l'industrie.
Déplacement d'un million d'habitants autochtones au nom de la protection des tigres
Ainsi cite-t-il, entre autres exemples, le déplacement massif, souvent contraint, de peuples autochtones, en Inde et en Indonésie; des peuples qui coexistent pourtant depuis des siècles avec les animaux sauvages, qu'ils vénèrent comme des animaux sacrés. Wilfried Huismann s'est rendu en Inde, où un million d'habitants autochtones ont été déplacés, soi-disant pour la protection des tigres. Une véritable absurdité d'après les militants locaux. Le projet du WWF de protection des tigres existe depuis 1974, date à laquelle il restait encore 5 000 tigres. Si cette campagne avait été efficace, nous en compterions aujourd'hui au moins 8 000, dit un militant écologiste. Or, nous en sommes bien loin. Et les rares félins qui subsistent sont talonnés de près, huit heures par jour, dans toute leur réserve, par des éco-touristes amenés sur place par la propre société de voyage du WWF et transportés dans ses 155 jeeps. D'après l'enquête, ces visiteurs fortunés déboursent près de 10 000 $ pour s'accorder un tel privilège, alors même que les militants locaux s'indignent de voir la forêt primaire détruite au nom de l'éco-tourisme.
En Argentine, le problème est lié au fait que les monocultures d'OGM exercent un lourd stress sur les hommes et sur l'environnement. Huismann s'est rendu dans le Nord du pays, dans la région du Gran Chaco, autrefois la plus grande savane du monde. Aujourd'hui réduite de moitié, cette zone est largement occupée par une monoculture de soja, qui grignote toujours plus de terrains alentour et est accusée de rendre les populations locales malades. L'attitude du WWF? « Aujourd'hui, en Amérique latine, les terres exclusivement consacrées à la culture du soja représentent deux fois la superficie de l'Allemagne », annonce le narrateur du film. « Et il est prévu que cette superficie soit multipliée par deux. Or, la branche argentine du WWF soutient le projet car, de son avis, dans cette région, les forêts ont une "faible valeur" et ont été "dégradées" par les activités humaines ». Quant à la forêt primaire, il n'en reste plus rien.
Le travail de funambule d'une organisation de protection environnementale
Huismann est également allé à Bornéo, où le défrichage par brûlis opéré pour installer des monocultures de palmiers destinés à la production d'huile de palme avance bon train. En contrepartie, les responsables du projet ménagent une forêt symbolique pour très précisément deux orangs-outans. Or, même ces deux individus risquent de mourir de faim compte tenu de la taille minuscule de leur réserve, indique Huismann. « 80 hectares sur une plantation de 14 000 hectares, c'est à peine 0,5 %. Et l'on appelle cela un projet réussi, alors même que 99,5 % sont tout bonnement anéantis? » Dans l'une des scènes les plus marquantes du documentaire, Doerte Bieler, spécialiste de la biomasse au WWF, répond laconiquement à ce sujet : « Si ces 80 hectares n'étaient plus là, ils seraient condamnés à une mort certaine. Ils seraient même déjà morts. »
Puis, lorsque Huismann lui demande de citer un exemple de coopération réussie avec l'industrie, elle reste sans réponse. Ce qui est important à ses yeux, c'est que l'organisation non gouvernementale WWF ne « soit pas raillée mais qu'elle soit vue comme un interlocuteur compétent ».
En Indonésie, Huismann a visité une plantation qui, d'après son enquête, vient justement d'être certifiée avec l'aide du WWF comme étant conforme aux critères de « durabilité » et sur laquelle, pourtant, des eaux usées non filtrées s'écoulent dans le sol. Avec cette certification, « la société peut prétendre aux aides prévues pour les "énergies régénératives" » précise le narrateur du documentaire, qui ajoute que « le WWF touche une compensation pour avoir conseillé la société sur le thème du développement durable. De part et d'autre, c'est une bonne affaire ».
D'après Huismann, une grande banque verse à elle seule plus de 100 millions de dollars dans le cadre d'un « partenariat climat » avec le WWF. Alors que dans le même temps, en Indonésie, cet établissement bancaire finance des projets de coupe rase entrepris par des sociétés de commercialisation d'huile de palme, aux mains desquelles de larges superficies de forêt tropicale ont déjà succombé. Malgré tout, le WWF continue de côtoyer les plus grands groupes de l'agroalimentaire dans le cadre de l'initiative de « Table ronde pour une production d'huile de palme durable » (RSPO / Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil). D'autres ONG, comme Les Amis de la Terre ou Greenpeace, quant à elles, ont fait le choix de prendre leur distance et de ne plus participer à cette initiative (pour celles qui y ont déjà participé).
Un mariage avec l'aristocratie de sang ou d'argent
Le documentaire évoque également l'implication de l'aristocratie (aristocratie de sang ou aristocratie de l'argent) au sein du WWF. Son président honorifique est le Prince Philippe. Dans une interview exclusive donnée à la WDR, il justifie ainsi la chasse d'animaux sauvages : « Un équilibre doit être créé entre les espèces. On ne peut pas uniquement laisser faire la nature. En décimant les prédateurs, nous protégeons les animaux ». Le prince consort de la Reine d'Angleterre, âgé de 90 ans, justifie également le fait qu'il a lui-même abattu un tigre en 1961 en remarquant, qu'après tout, il ne s'agit que d'un seul tigre.
Le WWF a été largement financé par des membres de familles aristocratiques européennes. Huismann suppose d'ailleurs que cette ONG a tout simplement été créée parce qu'à l'ère de la décolonisation, la haute noblesse craignait de perdre ses réserves de chasse. D'après l'analyse de Huismann formulée dans l'un des plus gros quotidiens allemands, le Süddeutsche Zeitung (sueddeutsche.de), leur leitmotiv était alors encore celui du colonialisme : « La nature, c'est l'absence de gens, du moins l'absence d'autochtones ».
Au cours des dernières décennies, presque tous les dons et tous les donateurs étaient acceptables aux yeux du WWF : depuis Dow Chemical et Shell jusqu'au groupe Monsanto lui-même (du moins pour la branche WWF des États-Unis). Le Prince Bernhard des Pays-Bas, premier président de l'organisation, a également fondé le « Club des 1001 »; une sorte « de cercle des amis du WWF » au sein duquel les élites occidentales se rencontrent encore aujourd'hui. Ses membres comptent essentiellement des industriels. Dans ses premières années d'existence, même les principales figures du régime d'apartheid d'Afrique du Sud fréquentaient ce Club, tout comme certains membres de la junte argentine ou divers terroristes d'État comme le dictateur zaïrois Mobutu Sese Seko.
L'adhésion à ce club reste encore bien secrète. Seuls quelques membres importants ont ouvertement déclaré leur appartenance à ce club, principalement des membres de l'aristocratie, indique Huismann. Il ressort de son enquête que de nombreuses figures clés de l'élite industrielle allemande, du moins au milieu des années 1980, figuraient parmi ses membres (comme les banquiers Robert von Pferdmenges et Hermann Abs ou encore Friedrich Flick et Bertold Beitz).
Tout ceci fait partie du passé, précise le narrateur du film. Même si, aujourd'hui encore, le WWF paraît bien peu regardant. En effet, depuis 2010, le soja génétiquement modifié Monsanto est certifié conforme aux critères de « durabilité » d'après la « Table ronde pour la production de soja responsable » (RTRS/ Round Table on Responsible Soy). Or, ce système de certification a été créé à l'initiative du WWF.
Un fait que Hartmut Vogtmann, à la tête de la Deutscher Naturschutzring (Ligue allemande pour la protection de la nature et de l'environnement), trouve tout simplement scandaleux. Dans une lettre interne adressée à Detlev Drenckhahn, président de la branche allemande du WWF, il demande instamment à la WWF de se retirer de l'initiative de « Table ronde pour la production de soja responsable » (RTRS). Dans sa lettre, obtenue par le site sueddeutsche.de, Vogtmann indique que, d'après des études récentes, du fait de la culture du soja, l'usage de pesticides « a considérablement augmenté,… car de plus en plus de mauvaises herbes sont devenues résistantes au Roundup, généralement utilisé dans les cultures de soja ». Sa substance active, le glyphosate, « entraîne des malformations embryonnaires et majore l'incidence des cancers », écrit-il en se référant aux résultats d'une recherche… et de conclure: cette Table ronde, que le WWF a contribué à fonder « maintient artificiellement en vie un système d'agriculture défaillant ».
À ce sujet, le WWF allemand a répondu ceci au site sueddeutsche.de : « Nous continuons de participer à l'initiative RTRS car nous voulons plus de soja non-transgénique et, de façon générale, nous souhaitons minimiser les dégradations environnementales causées par les cultures de soja, comme la destruction des forêts ».
Parallèlement à cela, le WWF allemand a publié un « récapitulatif de faits » sur son site Internet, qui affirme, entre autres: « Nous rejetons le génie génétique. Et nous le ferons jusqu'à ce qu'il soit démontré que les plantes génétiquement modifiées sont totalement inoffensives pour l'environnement, pour la biodiversité et pour l'homme. Cette position de WWF International s'applique à toutes les branches WWF nationales »; en concédant néanmoins que « la position officielle du WWF n'est pas forcément partagée par tous les salariés au sein des organisations nationales individuelles, ce qui est particulièrement vrai dans les pays où la part des cultures génétiquement modifiées dans l'agriculture est déjà très importante, comme les États-Unis ou l'Argentine ».
Même avant sa première diffusion, le documentaire avait déjà provoqué une certaine agitation au sein de la branche allemande du WWF. Des tentatives ont été menées, par le biais de mises en garde et d'interventions d'avocats spécialistes des médias, pour influencer la diffusion et pour supprimer certaines interviews. 
Et que penser du fait que l'organisation, en réponse aux questions posées par le quotidien Süddeutsche Zeitung, a admis avoir accepté des dons de Monsanto? Ou même du fait que la promotion du génie génétique menée par Jason Clay est qualifiée « de position isolée d'un tiers extérieur »? Ce qui n'est pas le cas, puisqu'il s'agit tout de même du vice-président de l'organisation mondiale du WWF.
Copyright 2011 © sueddeutsche.de GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH
1. Cet article a été posté le 22 juin 2011 à 17h00 sur la page d'accueil du site sueddeutsche.de, où il est resté en première position pendant plus de 24 heures avant d'être relégué un peu plus bas pour laisser la place aux nouvelles plus urgentes. Il est resté sur la page d'accueil jusqu'à la soirée du 24 juin, date de publication d'un autre article sur le même sujet dans la version imprimée du Süddeutsche Zeitung (p. 19 – Im Namen des Pandas: Der WDR dokumentiert die Verstrickung des Naturschutzverbandes mit Industrie und Lobbyisten). Ce deuxième article se focalisait alors davantage sur les événements survenus immédiatement après la diffusion du documentaire télévisé.
2. Article original traduit de l'allemand vers l'anglais par Traductions Larrass, Ottawa
3. Consultable en ligne dans les archives du site Internet d'ARD à l'adresse  http://bit.ly/ARDPandaPakt


			






Document Number: 1710 

			

	GMO maize ploughed under throughout Hungary

		Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:54	
GMO maize ploughed under throughout Hungary
http://www.caboodle.hu/nc/news/news_archive/single_page/?tx_ttnews
Some 400 hectares of maize have been destroyed throughout Hungary after the crops were found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds, the deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development in charge of supervision of the food supply chain and agricultural administration told MTI on Friday.
GMO maize has been ploughed under near Szigetvar in the southwest, Letavertes in the east, Szolnok in central Hungary and Fejér County in central-western areas, said Lajos Bognar. However, pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.
Authorities have been checking for GMO crops since the beginning of this year as a new regulation came in force this March which stipulates GMO checks before seeds are introduced to the market. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.
Controllers have found Pioneer and Monsanto products among the seeds planted. The free movement of goods within the EU means that authorities will not investigate how the seeds arrived in Hungary but they will check where the goods can be found, Bognar said.
Regional public radio in Baranya County (SW Hungary) MR6 reported earlier on Friday that the two biggest international seed producing companies are affected in the matter and GMO seeds could have been sown on up to thousands of hectares in the country.
Local farmers complain that the use of GMO seeds has only been revealed now when it is too late to sow again and the entire year's harvest has been lost.
Another problem is that the company that distributed the seeds in Baranya county is under liquidation, therefore if any compensation is paid by the international seed producers, the money will be paid primarily to that company's creditors, rather than the farmers.
Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary.

			






Document Number: 7190 

			

	GM grass could make superweed problem worse

		Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:49	
EXTRACT: "By all definitions of genetic engineering, that's genetic engineering. But it totally escapes the U.S. regulatory framework" - plant geneticist, Norman Ellstrand of the University of California, Riverside
Genetically Modified Grass Could Make Superweed Problem Worse
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/07/engineered-bluegrass/
A genetically engineered grass expected to hit U.S. markets without government review could speed the evolution of hard-to-control weeds, and perhaps require a return to toxic herbicides scrapped decades ago.
On July 1 - a Friday afternoon, a time usually reserved for potentially controversial news - the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced that Scotts Miracle-Gro's herbicide-resistant Kentucky bluegrass would be exempt from tests typically required of transgenic crops.
Scotts Miracle-Gro is the largest U.S. retailer of grass seed, and the modified grass could be widely used in residential lawns. It's resistant to glyphosate, a front-line herbicide known commercially as Roundup.
The grass will survive extra doses of Roundup, allowing more than usual to be applied. That's the problem, said agricultural biotechnology expert Douglas Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"The more a chemical is used consistently, the more likely that somebody's weeds will become resistant. That's standard, agreed-upon science," said Gurian-Sherman. "The way that Roundup is used because of transgenic crops exacerbates that problem."
Herbicide resistance evolves in much the same way as antibiotic resistance: When a weed- or bug-killing compound is applied, any weeds or bugs lucky enough to be genetically resistant will have the best chance to survive and reproduce.
Many crop plants are already engineered to be Roundup-resistant, and heavy use of the herbicide appears to have fueled the evolution of dozens of Roundup-resistant weed strains. They're a major threat to agriculture in parts of the United States, virtually uncontrollable except by hand-pulling or a return to toxic, decades-old herbicides that the relatively benign Roundup had replaced.
"The industry hasn't developed a new herbicide in a long time. When resistance develops to something like glyphosate, it's not like we can move to some new chemical," said Gurian-Sherman.
Compared to pigweed that can grow three inches each day in soybean fields, Roundup-resistant lawn weeds would be a nuisance rather than an economic threat. But just as superweeds have pushed farmers to bring back toxic herbicides, so might they push homeowners and landscapers.
"We're burning out Roundup and going back into the past," said Gurian-Sherman. "The same kind of thing could happen in residential use."
Another potential problem is the spread of Roundup resistance into related strains of bluegrass, said plant geneticist Norman Ellstrand of the University of California, Riverside.
"I don't know what other bluegrass species it's cross-compatible with, but I can say with 98 percent certainty that it's cross-compatible with some," said Ellstrand. "If this plant grows and flowers at the same time as other bluegrass, they'll flourish. You'll have a new incidence of herbicide resistance getting into the wild."
Whereas Kentucky bluegrass is popular for lawns, it's not always welcome. Other members of its 500 species-strong genus are considered weeds.
A lesson can be taken from the unintentional escape of genes from rice bred for resistance to the Clearfield herbicide, said Ellstrand. "Now you have a very bad, weedy rice in Costa Rica that's resistant to the herbicide," he said. "It doesn’t happen easily with rice. If it happens with rice, it will happen with bluegrasses."
Another species of Roundup-resistant grass developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro for golf courses was nixed by the USDA because of fear that resistance would spread to related pest species, noted Ellstrand. "The U.S. Forest Service waded in and said, 'We don’t want it,'" he said.
Had the the Department of Agriculture decided to treat Roundup-ready bluegrass as a genetically modified plant, extra assurance of its environmental safety would have been demanded. But they decided not to because it fit through a loophole.
Genetically engineered plants are technically designated for regulation according to methods used to insert and activate new genes. Earlier methods used bacteria, which triggered pest-related clauses of the USDA's Plant Protection Act. But the Roundup-ready bluegrass was made with a so-called gene gun. No bacteria were involved, and the law's fine print was satisfied.
"By all definitions of genetic engineering, that's genetic engineering. But it totally escapes the U.S. regulatory framework," Ellstrand said.
According to Scotts Miracle-Gro spokesman Lance Latham, the USDA’s decision "allows us to move forward with field tests. It's a first step. It's our hope that testing will continue our advancement to develop grass seed that is even more sustainable." 

			






Document Number: 675 

			

	Roundup-ready crops killing habitat of monarch butterflies

		Tuesday, 12 July 2011 16:43	
EXTRACT: "It [glyphosate] kills everything," said Lincoln P. Brower, an entomologist at Sweet Briar College who is also an author of the paper documenting the decline of monarch winter populations in Mexico. "It's like absolute Armageddon for biodiversity over a huge area."
In Midwest, Flutters May Be Far Fewer
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/science/12butterfly.html?_r=2&amp;partner=rssnyt&amp;emc=rss
[image caption: HABITAT The use of a herbicide has taken away a home for monarchs.]
As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred — at least as a farmer would view it — by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans. 
Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.
And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects — "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.
Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.
"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone."
The primary evidence that monarch populations are in decline comes from a new study showing a drop over the last 17 years of the area occupied by monarchs in central Mexico, where many of them spend the winter. The amount of land occupied by the monarchs is thought to be a proxy for their population size.
"This is the first time we have the data that we can analyze statistically that shows there's a downward trend," said Ernest H. Williams, a professor of biology at Hamilton College and an author of the study along with Dr. Taylor and others.
The paper, published online by the journal Insect Conservation and Diversity, attributes the decrease partly to the loss of milkweed from use of "Roundup Ready" crops. Other causes, it says, are the loss of milkweed to land development, illegal logging at the wintering sites in Mexico, and severe weather.
The study does not suggest the monarch will become extinct. But it questions whether the annual migration, the impetus for butterfly festivals around the United States and waves of tourism to Mexico, is sustainable.
Still, the paper does not present any data backing its contention that genetically engineered crops are reducing monarch populations. Some experts dispute that the monarch populations are declining at all, and say it is unclear whether the biotech crops are having an effect.
Andrew K. Davis, an assistant research scientist at the University of Georgia, said censuses of adult monarchs taken each fall at Cape May, N.J., and Peninsula Point, Mich., did not show any decline.
It could be that "even though the overwintering population is getting smaller and smaller, once they come northward in the spring they are able to recoup the numbers," Dr. Davis said. His paper disputing that there has been a decline in the monarch population was published online by the same journal.
Leslie Ries, a research professor at the University of Maryland, said other butterfly counts she had examined also did not show a decline, but rather year-to-year fluctuations. Since milkweed populations are not likely to fluctuate as much, the milkweed is probably not the major determinant of butterfly populations, she said.
But two other researchers, Karen Oberhauser of the University of Minnesota and John M. Pleasants of Iowa State, cite other evidence for a decline: the number of monarch eggs in the fields of the Midwest.
"Monarch production has decreased significantly" Dr. Pleasants said. "The reduction is caused by loss of milkweed resources available to them."
The two scientists have submitted a paper to a scientific journal and said they did not want to discuss their data before publication.
Roundup Ready crops contain a bacterial gene that allows them to withstand Roundup or its generic equivalent, glyphosate, allowing farmers to kill the weeds without harming the crop.
Because they make weed control much easier, the crops have been widely adopted by farmers. This year, 94 percent of the soybeans and 72 percent of the corn being grown in the United States are herbicide-tolerant, according to the Department of Agriculture.
That in turn had led to an explosion in the use of glyphosate, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. About five times as much of the weed killer was used on farmland in 2007 as in 1997, a year after the Roundup Ready crops were introduced, and roughly 10 times as much as in 1993. 
Farmers, of course, have always tried to eliminate weeds, by tilling or by spraying other herbicides. But while herbicides often had to be used before crops emerged from the ground, glyphosate can be sprayed later in the growing season because it won’t damage the resistant crops. That and the general effectiveness of glyphosate have led to greater weed control. 
"It kills everything," said Lincoln P. Brower, an entomologist at Sweet Briar College who is also an author of the paper documenting the decline of monarch winter populations in Mexico. "It's like absolute Armageddon for biodiversity over a huge area."
The amount of milkweed on farms in Iowa declined 90 percent from 1999 to 2009, according to Robert G. Hartzler, an agronomist at Iowa State. His study, published last year in the journal Crop Protection, found milkweed on only 8 percent of the corn and soybean fields surveyed in 2009, down from 51 percent in 1999.
Because of weed-control efforts, even before the advent of Roundup Ready crops, any one farm is not likely to harbor that much milkweed.
But the sheer amount of farmland in the Corn Belt has meant that farms, in aggregate, have accounted for a vast majority of monarch births, according to another study published by Dr. Oberhauser and colleagues in 2001. That study estimated that in Iowa, farms produced 78 times the number of monarchs as nonagricultural sites, and in Wisconsin and Minnesota, 73 times as much.
And while monarchs come from other parts of the country as well, the Midwest is widely believed to be where most of them are hatched.
Still, even Dr. Hartzler said in his paper that it was difficult to assess what impact the decline of Iowa milkweed was having on monarch populations.
A spokesman for Monsanto, the inventor of the Roundup Ready crops and the manufacturer of Roundup, agreed, saying "knowledge is still evolving about whether and how agriculture in Iowa affects monarch population biology." And what is true of Iowa, he said, might not apply to other regions.
This is not the first time genetically modified crops have been thought to threaten the monarch.
In 1999, researchers at Cornell reported that monarch caterpillars could be killed if they ate milkweed onto which the researchers had dusted pollen from another type of engineered crop known as BT corn. That corn has a bacterial gene allowing it to produce a toxin that kills certain pests.
But subsequent research, financed in part by the biotechnology industry, found that caterpillars were not likely to be exposed to lethal amounts of BT corn pollen under actual field conditions. That concern has died down.
Scientists say it is not surprising that suppressing weeds would have an effect on insects, and probably not just the monarch.
The National Academy of Sciences discussed this in a 2007 report on bees and other animals that pollinate crops. The report cited a British study that found fewer butterflies in fields growing genetically engineered beets and canola than in fields growing nonengineered crops.
That raises the somewhat radical notion that perhaps weeds on farms should be protected. "There's a change in agricultural thinking, because the weed-free field was the gold standard," said May Berenbaum, head of entomology at the University of Illinois.
Still, she and other insect experts say it is unrealistic to expect farmers to give up the herbicide-tolerant crops — so efforts should be made to preserve or grow milkweed elsewhere, perhaps on farmland set aside for conservation. Monarch Watch is encouraging gardeners to grow milkweed.
Dr. Taylor of Monarch Watch offered a modest, possibly ironic proposal for biotechnology companies. "I would implore them to develop a Roundup-resistant milkweed," he said. 

			






Document Number: 8708 

			

	BASF Pulls the Plug on New GM Crop Development in the EU

		Monday, 11 July 2011 15:44	
BASF Pulls the Plug on New GM Crop Development in the EU
http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/161/
BASF Plant Sciences have decided not to develop GM crops for the European market. 
Recent correspondence with the company said they, "[D]ecided some time ago to not initiate any new projects that are focused exclusively on the European market."
GM Freeze says this shows financial decisions are finally catching up with market realities. 
BASF's position was sent in an email on 
 by a BASF Plant Science Communications Manager. [1]
The chemical and biotech giant's recent GM development work for 
 has focussed on potatoes, including the controversial Amflora, a GM potato for industrial starch production that gained EU commercial approval in 2010 despite the presence on an antibiotic resistance marker gene (ARM). ARMs that have an "adverse effects on human health and the environment" are banned in the EU (Directive 2011/18 Article 4.3).
Experts are concerned that ARMs could transfer resistance to antibiotics into harmful bacteria, adding to medical problems associated with decreased effectiveness of medicines due to increased antibiotic resistance. Several EU countries have banned Amflora, taking the view that the ARM in it is potentially harmful. The Hungarian Government is taking legal action against the European Commission for granting Amflora approval.
BASF's 2010 application for a second GM starch altered potato (Amadea, BPS-A1020-5) is in the early stages of the EU regulatory process. Amadea was responsible for the 2010 contamination of the first commercial plantings of Amflora, which lead to the crop being destroyed and the subsequent collapse of Amflora plantings from 450 hectares in 2010 (in 
 German and the Czech Republic) to 17 hectares in 2011 (two in 
BASF also conducted trials for GM blight resistant potatoes at the National Institute for Agricultural Botany (NIAB) near 
 they informed Defra it did not wish to continue the trials into 2009 because, "[T]echnically we do not need further information from the 
. Since the lack of progress regarding GM plants in Europe, and in view of the cost to conduct field trials against the background of the current economic situation, BASF had to decide to reduce the number of field trial sites." [3]
Non-GM potatoes for altered starch [4], blight resistance [5] are already on the market, and non-GM techniques like Marker Assisted Selection (eg, MAS) are delivering successful varieties, which makes GM varieties both slower and riskier to commercialise given widespread market rejection of the technology and fears of contamination of the food chain. Last week scientists announced completion of sequencing the potato genome, which makes it easier to use MAS in potato breeding. [6] 
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
"BASF's decision not to develop further GM crops for the EU is another sign that the biotech industry, and its shareholders, are finally recognising that huge investments in crops no one wants to buy is simply not good business. The fact that traditional plant breeding has already delivered solutions using non-GM approaches in potatoes makes their investment in GM all the more ill-judged – as was political support for it. 
"Maybe it would have been wiser if BASF had followed a non-GM path rather than stubbornly pursuing GM. If they had had, they might well be leading the way now instead of floundering in the wake of smaller and more innovative organisations introducing effective new varieties without the risks inherent in GM technology."
Calls to Pete Riley 07903 341 065
[1] Email dated 7 July 2011 from Britta Stellbrink, Communications Manager BASF Plant Science, to a member of the public. (available on request)
[2] See "BASF blames human error for GM crop contamination in Sweden" and "BASF Cultivation Of Amflora Potatoes To Be Lower In 2011" 
[3] Letter from BASF to Hilary Benn, 
, obtained by GM Freeze under the Environmental Information Regulations.
 Group Press Release “Processing of amylopectin potatoes in Kyritz and Cloppenburg”
[5] The Sarvari Research Trust has developed 6 red, white and purple potato varieties with proven blight resistance available to gardeners and farmers. See 
www.sarvari-trust.org/nationally-listed.html
[6] An international team of researchers announced they had sequenced the potato genome on 
. See Potato Genome Sequencing Consortium “Genome sequence and analysis of the tuber crop potato”

			






Document Number: 4929 

			

	Burkina Faso is a Trojan horse for GMOs in Africa

		Thursday, 28 July 2011 16:08	
1.Burkina Faso is a Trojan Horse for GMOs in Africa
2.The marketing of Bt cotton in India
NOTE: According to this article, the reality of Bt cotton in Burkina Faso in West Africa is far removed from the hyperbole. The cost of Bt cotton seed in Burkina Faso has quickly more than tripled in return for no increase in yields – exactly the opposite of the claims used to promote Bt cotton to Burkina Faso's farmers of massive increases in yield. These kinds of wildly misleading promotionals for Bt cotton are already familiar from India - see item 2 - and South Africa: 
http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/12693
EXTRACT: ...in 2003, a pro-GM propaganda campaign was launched. In all media and organised forums on the subject, we heard the fabulous promises of GMOs: four times higher yields, fourfold savings on inputs.
...The increase in the cost of the [Bt cotton] seed, from 1600 FCFA [24 Euros/34 USD] per hectare for conventional seeds last year to 54000 FCFA [82 Euros/115 USD] hectare for GM seeds this year, is not accompanied by increasing yield as was promised. 
Burkina Faso is a Trojan Horse for GMOs in Africa
Interview with Ousmane Tiendrébéogo, Secretary General of the National Union of Agropastoral Workers (Syntapa)
Journal of Alternatives, June 28 2011
[Unofficial English translation by Claire Robinson of GMWatch]
Ousmane Tiendrébéogo, Secretary General of the National Union of Workers of the Agro-Pastoral (Syntapa), and Burkina Faso cotton farmers' union activist for GMO-free Burkina Faso, has been in France for the past two weeks at the invitation of the Artisans of the Monde-Rhone Alps. Combat Monsanto took the opportunity to meet him and to examine the record of GMOs in Burkina Faso. The findings are alarming!
Combat Monsanto: Can you tell us a bit about yourself and Syntapa?
Ousmane Tiendrébéogo: I am a peasant cotton farmer in Burkina Faso and Secretary General of Syntapa. Syntapa was started in 2003, based on the observation that the National Union of Cotton Producers of Burkina Faso (UNPCB), the only organization bringing together producers, merely applied the policies of the government and completely forgot what should be its primary function – working for the interests of farmers. The Syntapa's mission is leading the fight for better compensation for farmers. In this context, Syntapa is fighting against GMOs (Bt cotton, biofortified sorghum) because, in addition to their adverse effects on health and the environment, they exacerbate the impoverishment of farmers.
CM: Can you expand on this? What does Syntapa claim with regard to GMOs?
OT: We are opposed to GMOs for several obvious reasons. The first reason is the catastrophic economic impact that the adoption of GMOs has had on farmers. The increase in the cost of the seed, from 1600 FCFA [24 Euros/34 USD] per hectare for conventional seeds last year to 54000 FCFA [82 Euros/115 USD] hectare for GM seeds this year, is not accompanied by increasing yield as was promised. Worse, the Bt cotton produces fewer seeds than the conventional variety, and is thus two times lighter in weight for the same output of fiber. Thus, peasant farmers, who are paid by the weight of their harvest, are the losers, whereas Sofitex [a state-controlled agro-industrial and commercial entity, involved in the entire cotton production cycle, including planting, ginning of seed cotton and export of cotton fiber] is the winner. 
To take a concrete example: a truck full of conventional fiber weighed about 12 tons and generated 1.8 million FCFA [2748 euros] in revenue for the farmers. This same truck today, filled with the same amount of fiber, but from GM cotton, weighs 6 tons [50% less] and generates 900 000 FCFA [1374 euros, 50% less] for the farmers. This has caused significant financial losses for farmers during the first harvest of Bt cotton. Indebted farmers may have to sell their land, which will likely be bought by multinationals for monoculture export or biofuel.
Then we see an environmental impact: I saw farmers' herds of goats become seriously ill and die after GM cotton was planted in their fields. The authorities responded to this problem by ordering analyses of cotton leaves. But due to lack of funds and of independent testing bodies, the cotton samples were sent to Monsanto's own labs for testing.... Of course, the multinational, which sells Bt cotton, found nothing suspicious in the samples. We are not even sure that the analyses were even done.
Finally GMOs pose a safety problem: children have became ill through contact with the seeds and Sofitex itself advises pregnant women and children to stay away from GM seeds.
CM: Bt cotton was approved for marketing in Burkina Faso in 2008. Three years later, GM cotton represents 70% of the total cotton production in Burkina Faso. How do you explain this rapid adoption despite the negative effects that you just mentioned?
OT: There are several explanations for this rapid growth of Bt cotton. First, in Burkina Faso, the cotton sector is an integrated sector controlled by three cotton companies that share the geographical territory of Burkina Faso. The main one, Sofitex, actively promotes Bt cotton. Sofitex has therefore made every effort to impose GMOs on farmers. Then in 2003, a pro-GM propaganda campaign was launched. In all media and organised forums on the subject, we heard the fabulous promises of GMOs: four times higher yields, fourfold savings on inputs ... the peasants believed them and bought GM seeds. The UNPCB [National Union of Cotton Producers of Burkina Faso], which owns one third of the capital of Sofitex, was heavily involved in propaganda.
In fact, Monsanto took advantage of the integration of the farming system in Burkina Faso to impose its GM seeds faster. It also exploited the "weakness of democracy" in Burkina Faso, which for 24 years has been dominated by the Compaore clan. Also, Monsanto made a deal with the government. 50% of revenues from the sale of the seeds goes to the government. At the moment, to avoid the wrath of the farmers, the government is not collecting its share of the seed. But it has every interest in encouraging GM in order to continue to attract funders and international donors like the United States, which make their development aid conditional on the adoption of GMOs.
CM: Faced with this pro-GM "machine", what is doing Syntapa to fight? 
OT: For example, we participated in a caravan of social movements which traveled from Ouagadougou to reach Dakar at the time of the World Social Forum. We used these moments to get across our anti-GM message.
But it is very difficult to take action and to make the peasant farmers' voices heard. The secret police service is active in Burkina Faso and the peasants are very afraid of the Compaore regime. It is therefore difficult to gather farmers against GMOs and convince them to fight. In addition, the censorship against Syntapa and the anti-GM movement is terrible. Today, there is only one news organization that agrees to listen to us and to relay our messages and the government is very imaginative in finding excuses not to meet us. That's why I take advantage of my visit to France to meet with French associations and international networks of farmers, to get support and learn from their experience of struggle - and to take back good ideas with me in my luggage!
CM: What is your message to French organizations?
OT: What happens in Burkina does not only concern the people of Burkina. Monsanto and other biotechnology firms will use Burkina as a Trojan Horse to spread GMOs in the subregion. Eventually, European countries will be isolated and will find it more difficult to hold firm against GMOs. Burkina has also become a veritable laboratory. A foundation supported by agribiotech firms and the Gates and Rockefeller Foundations is experimenting with biofortified sorghum and insecticidal cowpeas. Sorghum is the staple food of nearly 300 million people in Africa. A patented GM sorghum would seriously threaten food security and food sovereignty in Africa. For all these reasons, we must unite to fight against the invasion of GMOs, which works against the interests of farmers and the people's food sovereignty.
Interview by Combat Monsanto, June 17 2011
The marketing of Bt cotton in India
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=5741
All information taken from the report 'The marketing of Bt cotton in India'
http://www.grain.org/system/old/research_files/Marketing_in_India.pdf
Posters appeared in many places in Madhya Pradesh before sowing time, featuring a person who claimed to have gained great benefits from using Bt Cotton seed. These advertisements urged other farmers to benefit similarly from the use of Bt Cotton.
Investigations revealed that this "farmer" was actually a paan dabbahwala (the owner of a little shop selling betel leaves and cigarettes) who is not even a farmer, let alone a Bt Cotton farmer!!!
In the same state, other posters showed real farmers claiming very good yields from growing Bt Cotton. For instance, Ravinder Narain Patidaar of Sarangi village, Jhabua is shown in one poster as having obtained a yield of 20 quintals per acre of Bt Cotton.
In reality, Ravinder Narain, obtained only 25 quintals from all the five acres of Bt Cotton he'd sown (ie 5 rather than 20 quintals per acre!!). He is disgusted that the company is misusing the photos they took of him in this manner.
A farmer called Pyarelal Patidaar (from Jamli village) is also unhappy with the fact that his photo appears on posters which extol the virtues of Bt Cotton - "I said do not put my photo because I do not think that Bt Cotton is better than other varieties - however, they did not listen to me", he explains.
A farmer called S Palanisamy s/o Chellapa Gounder Agarathodai of Vellaiyur of Salem district appeared proudly displaying a tractor on a poster that suggested that he had bought it after using Bt Cotton.
We went to investigate. At the beginning of this season, Mr Palanisamy was approached by a company representative who urged the farmer to register for a contest that could take him to Mumbai. That is when the company took a picture of Mr Palanisamy in front of a tractor. However, what the poster does not reveal is that the farmer was not informed that this photo was for an advertisement for Bollgard (the Monsanto Bt cotton) or that the tractor was in fact obtained by the farmer with a private loan! The farmer says that with the yields he got from Bt Cotton, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tyres"!
This episode inevitably appears on a poster called "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON"!
STATE SUBSIDY AND DANCING GIRLS
The state government has helped Monsanto by running big promotionals for Bt cotton in a series of different newspapers. Meanwhile, Monsanto's Bt promotional tours around Punjabi villages have included enticing dancing girls performing to music relayed over the public address system!
The company launched its product in 2002 by giving a big feast for farmers in many villages.
Chinnapu Reddy reports on his experience:
"There was 95 kilos of non-vegetarian food cooked that day and there was biryani and chicken fry. On that very day, bookings for the season's seed supply were made by the dealers and the company representatives. When parties like that are thrown, farmers like me tend to think that there must be something to what they are saying and we agreed to buy the seed. The seeds have now brought farmers nearer to the gates of suicide deaths again."
Other farmers tell the same story. One farmer in Mallapuram said that after having eaten the food of the company, a farmer cannot refuse the seed ("after having eaten from their hand, can we refuse their seed?")
In states like Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, Monsanto is also known to have distributed free pesticides with its Bt Cotton seed!!
And in the 2005 sales season in the Khammam district of Andhra Pradesh, free bags were on offer to people who participated in village level publicity meetings.
VIRAL MARKETING: SPREADING THE WORD
There is also a wide network of informal agents placed at the village level - farmers who earn commission on sales that they bring about by promoting the Bt seed to fellow farmers.
Many of the above practices are used to sell Bt Cotton in Maharashtra too. In addition, Nana Patekar, a Bollywood star, who has been used by the company in its prime time television advertisements and posters in several states, was engaged to address farmers meetings in several places in Maharashtra, urging them to use Bt Cotton.
Maharashtra also has other kinds of opinion-leaders promoting Bt Cotton. For instance, a religious leader called Sant Satyapal Maharaj is known to urge his followers to adopt Bt Cotton in places like Akola. It is not clear how the Sant, who is not a farmer, is vouching for the product!
Unabashed by what science has been disclosing about the ineffectiveness of the Bt technology, Monsanto's Indian subsidiary Monsanto-Mahyco and its sub-licensee Bt Cotton seed companies have been busy aggressively hyping GM seeds to India's poor farmers by all kinds of dubious and dishonest means.
There's a striking contrast between the lavish nature of Monsanto's brash promotional campaigns in India and its flat refusal to pay any compensation to the farmers who have suffered often terrible losses as a result of cultivating its GM seeds. 

			






Document Number: 7090 

			

	USDA drastically weakens GM regulation

		Saturday, 09 July 2011 23:59	
NOTE: Lots of embedded links in original article at 
Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?
http://motherjones.com/environment/2011/07/usda-deregulate-roundup-gmo-tom-philpott
*In a surprise move, the agency green-lights Roundup Ready lawn grass-and perhaps much, much more.
It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the 
 before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled 
In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding
 Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.
Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.
Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs..., APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA’s regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me. "This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years."
Understanding why requires a brief history of the US government's twisted attempts to regulate GMOs. Since the Reagan days, federal regulatory efforts have been governed by what's known as the Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology. Despite its name, the Coordinated Framework amounts to a porous hodgepodge of regulations based on the idea that overseeing GMOs required no new laws-that the novel technology could be effectively regulated under already-existing code. 
The new regime laid out in the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA’s regulation" of genetically modified crops.
Long story short, it means that the USDA theoretically regulates new GMO crops the same way it would regulate, say, a backyard gardener's new crossbred squash variety. Which is to say, it really doesn't. But that's absurd. GM crops pose different environmental threats than their nonmodified counterparts. The most famous example involves the rapid rise of Roundup Ready corn, soy, and cotton, which were introduced in the mid-late 1990s and now blanket tens of millions of acres of US farmland. Spraying all of that acreage every year with a single herbicide has given rise to a plague of Roundup-resistant "superweeds," forcing farmers to apply more and more Roundup and also resort to other, far-more-toxic products. Crops that aren't engineered to withstand an herbicide could never have created such a vexation.
From the start, in a tacit acknowledgement that modified crops really are different, the USDA has resorted to a fiction that allows it to at least nominally regulate GMOs, Gurian-Sherman told me. A '50s-era law called the Plant Pest Act gave the USDA power to restrict the introduction of organisms that might, well, harm plants. Genetically modified crops technically qualified as "plant pests" because industry scientists used DNA "promoters" derived from natural plant pathogens, most notably cauliflower mosaic virus, to amplify the genetic traits they introduced into new crops. "These promoters ensure that the desired trait is always 'on,' that is, expressed," Gurian-Sherman explains.
The promoters-short stretches of DNA-are not themselves expressed by the engineered plant. In other words, the cauliflower mosaic virus used to bolster, say, Roundup Ready soybeans, poses no threat to actual cauliflower plants. In addition to promoters, GMO developers also use plant-pest substances at other points in the genetic-modification process-but again, they don't express themselves in the finished project. "The Plant Pest Act was always just a regulatory hook to give the USDA authority to regulate engineered crops," notes Gurian-Sherman. "Everyone-the industry, industry watchdogs, the USDA-always knew it was a fiction."
Yet the fiction has endured. The industry accepted it, Gurian-Sherman says, because cursory oversight gave companies from a "fig leaf...They could say that their crops are regulated and have been deemed 'safe' by the USDA." GMO foes accepted it as well, he adds, because without the plant-pest fiction, the USDA would have no authority to regulate genetically modified crops. Indeed, this plant-pest business has given activists important tools to force better oversight. For instance, the USDA is required by the National Environmental Policy Act to assess the environmental impact of the novel crops it regulates, and by the Endangered Species Act to gauge potential impact of GM crops on endangered species. Well, in recent years, the Center for Food Safety has successfully sued the agency for failing to conduct proper environmental-impact statements and endangered-species analyses for crops it removed from its plant-pest list.
Then, in 2000, Congress passed the Plant Protection Act, which broadened the Plant Pest Act slightly, adding one more regulatory hook (Gurian-Sherman's words) to the USDA's sparse GMO-regulation toolkit. That was the "noxious weed" status—any engineered crop that threatens to go rogue in the field and become a hard-to-control weed may be regulated.
That, roughly speaking, is where things stood. Until last Friday.
Obviously, a regulatory regime based on a lie was never really durable. Gurian-Sherman says the plant-pest schtick has been wearing thin for years now, because the industry has begun using nonpest material to develop novel crops. "If the companies don't use plant pests, then the USDA ostensibly doesn't have a legal hook to regulate the crops," he says. To compensate, Gurian-Sherman says, the agency has resorted to tacitly acknowledging that it has no jurisdiction, but doing so quietly to avoid exposing the fiction.
But the agency's decision on Scotts Miracle Gro's Roundup Ready bluegrass may have changed all that. Scotts essentially shattered the code of silence in a 
 letter (PDF) to the USDA, which the agency released Friday. The company declared:
Because Kentucky bluegrass itself is not a plant pest, no plant pest components will be involved in the transformation, and the native plant genomes that will be used are fully classified, there is no scientifically valid basis for concluding that transgenic Kentucky bluegrass is or will become a plant pest within the meaning of the Plant Protection Act.
Based on that impeccable logic, the company went in the for the kill: "Scotts requests that [USDA] confirm that Kentucky bluegrass modified 
without plant pest components...is not a regulated article within the meaning of the current regulations."
 response, the USDA agreed: "[N]one of the organisms used in generating this genetically engineered (GE) glyophosphate tolerant Kentucky bluegrass...are considered to be plant pests," so Roundup Ready bluegrass "does not meet the definition of a 'regulated article' and is not subject" to the Plant Protection Act. In other words, go forth and multiply.
, the agency also retracted its only other hook for regulating GM crops-the noxious-weeds provision. The Center for Food Safety had petitioned the USDA to classify genetically modified bluegrass as a noxious weed. The case for this is strong: Gurian-Sherman explains that bluegrass has light pollen that can be carried for miles on the wind, meaning that genetically modified bluegrass can easily transfer its genes to established conventional bluegrass.
And like most grasses, bluegrass spreads rapidly. Anyone who has ever grown a garden can testify that it's tough to get rid of unwanted turf grass. In fact, Scotts is also seeking deregulation of Roundup Ready bentgrass, another grass that has proven hard to control. In 2005, Scotts grew trial plots of its bentgrass in
. It escaped the boundaries of the experimental plot and is still creating problems for homeowners miles away.
In one of the documents released last Friday, the USDA conceded that, by its own reckoning, Scotts' genetically modified bluegrass "can be considered for regulation as a Federally listed noxious weed that shows potential to cause damage to crops and natural resources of the United States." But to avoid actually declaring it a noxious weed, the agency simply claimed that the weed risks posed by genetically engineered and conventional are "essentially the same."
That's highly debatable, since anyone who wants to address weed problems from conventional bluegrass can turn to Roundup, the nation's most-used herbicide, whereas dealing with rogue Roundup Ready bluegrass means resorting to chemicals far more toxic. Starting with the "essentially the same" premise, the USDA notes that conventional bluegrass is already widely planted across the country without causing much harm; from there it assumes that Scotts' engineered bluegrass won't be a problem either, concluding that it need not be declared a "noxious weed" after all. And if it's neither a plant pest nor a noxious weed, the USDA has no right or obligation to regulate it. Game, set, match to Scotts Miracle Gro. Or, to use a more appropriate sports metaphor: a hole in one for Scotts!
So where does this leave us? If the plant-pest fiction no longer applies (Gurian-Sherman says fewer and fewer novel crops rely on it), and if even crops that carry an obvious noxious-weed risk won't be regulated as such, then what happens?
Well, if the USDA doesn't regulate novel GMOs, then it has no obligation to perform environmental-impact or endangered-species analyses of new organisms in the biotech pipeline, including plants engineered as pharmaceutical substances and biofuel feedstocks. In an email exchange, a USDA press officer confirmed that the agency would not be conducting an environmental-impact statement on Roundup Ready bluegrass-and by extension, any other crops that don't count as plant pests or noxious weeds.
And that means watchdogs like Center for Food Safety will no longer have a legal foothold to sue the USDA for regulating those things badly-which is usually how it's done. In the wake of several recent deregulations-including Roundup Ready sugar beets, alfalfa, and bentgrass-federal courts have sided with Center for Food Safety and rebuked the USDA for failing to properly assess risks. Are such lawsuits, essentially the last line of defense for GMO regulation, a thing of the past? "We're still analyzing the documents," says George Kimbrell, the center's senior attorney.
But Kimbrell made an important point: "Look, [the USDA] is a rogue agency," he said. "It has been rebuked time and time again by the courts for its failed oversight of these crops."
Implication: Take away the plant-pest and noxious-weed hooks and the courts can no longer intervene. The industry gets free rein to plant whatever it wants-wherever it wants. This development worries Gurian-Sherman. "Will some companies still want to have the fig leaf of USDA regulation even if they're not using plant-pest material? Probably," he says. "But they don't have to. It's now their choice."
Moreover, he adds, "the noxious-weed standard has been set so high as to be virtually meaningless." The message to industry is clear: "You can completely skirt the regulatory process."
Tom Philpott is the food and ag blogger for Mother Jones. 

			






Document Number: 1106 

			

		Friday, 08 July 2011 11:28	
1.What Happens to Antitrust Inquiry?
2.Why Christine Varney Left the Justice Department:
EXTRACTS: Last year, Varney [Obama's Anti-Trust chief] and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack hosted a series of workshops around the country to discuss competition and regulatory issues faced by the agriculture industry...  Nothing has yet come of those hearings. 
"I was told by people they were definitely going after Monsanto. And nothing has happened. She wanted to go after Monsanto and she was stopped. That's my feeling. It's been two years. They have had plenty of time to haul them into court."
"The people they promised to go after and hang high are being shaken down to provide the billion dollar Obama campaign fund. Varney was shut down by Obama's political machine." 
"They raised our hopes and nothing happened. I feel sucker punched."
What Happens to Antitrust Inquiry?
http://www.dailyyonder.com/thursday-roundup-what-happens-antitrust-inquiry/2011/07/07/3417
The Obama administration's top antitrust officer, Christine Varney, is stepping down after two and a half years. She will join a large Washington, D.C., law firm, Cravath, Swaine &amp; Moore. 
What does that have to do with rural America? Plenty.
Last year, Varney and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack hosted a series of workshops around the country to talk about anti-trust problems in the food business. Thousands turned out for discussions that looked at concentration in the seed business, among meat processors, in the chicken industry and among food retailers. Nothing has yet come of those hearings. 
"She played a high profile role in the highly publicized inter-departmental agriculture workshops, but so far very little has emerged from the effort," said Albert Foer at the American Antitrust Institute.
Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets said Vilsack and Varney were "totally sincere" in their intention, but that the effort was stymied by the demands of the election season. "The people they promised to go after and hang high are being shaken down to provide the billion dollar Obama campaign fund," Stokes told Counterpunch. "Varney was shut down by Obama's political machine." 
"Varney was totally sincere when she came into office," Stokes said. "But she had the rug pulled out from under her."
"It is most likely that Christine Varney is leaving in total frustration with being hampered from doing from what she sincerely intended to do – curbing the market abuses that are putting independent family farmers and ranchers out of business and savaging rural America," Stokes said. 
"I'm from Mississippi," Stokes said. "I endured ridicule and scorn for my unabashedly pro Obama administration stance and politics down here. These were going to be finally the folks who were going to turn things around and we were going to reverse the destruction of rural America. It hasn't happened."
"I was told by people they were definitely going after Monsanto," Stokes said. "And nothing has happened. She wanted to go after Monsanto and she was stopped. That's my feeling. It's been two years. They have had plenty of time to haul them into court."
"They raised our hopes and nothing happened," Stokes said. "I feel sucker punched."
Why Christine Varney Left the Justice Department
http://counterpunch.org/mokhiber07072011.html
Christine Varney is leaving the Antitrust Division.
And going to Cravath Swaine &amp; Moore in 
"There is no doubt that her tireless work helped protect consumers and businesses from anti-competitive conduct and preserved competition in 
 economy," Attorney General Eric Holder said yesterday.
But others were less favorable about Varney's tenure at the Antitrust Division.
Albert Foer at the American Antitrust Institute gave Varney an "I" for incomplete.
"Christine Varney began the process of turning around a tanker ship that was going down," Foer told me. "She pointed it in a better direction but with judicial winds blowing strong the wrong way, her captaincy failed to accomplish all we had hoped for it."
"The rhetoric and appointments were generally strong, but an evaluation will have to wait until we know whether her conduct-oriented, rather than structure-oriented, remedies in major merger cases will preserve competition and we will also have to see what cases are in the works and have not yet been revealed," Foer said. "The Bush Administration probably would have let these mergers go through without conditions. But the problem is we aren't sure her conditions will make a difference."
"She gets credit for revoking the Bush Administration's weak document on monopoly, but has done little to re-establish anti-monopoly enforcement. She brought several cases that have potential to be important, but we don't know how they will turn out. She oversaw a clarification and mild modernization of the horizontal merger guidelines, but it is too soon to know whether they will have a significant impact."
"She brought cartel cases, but so did predecessors. She played a high profile role in the highly publicized inter-departmental agriculture workshops, but so far very little has emerged from the effort. She apparently played no role during the banking crisis. Her efforts in the international arena were generally positive, though there was a tense period with the EU over a merger and a tense period with the FTC that took two to tango but which did not help the public image of the overall antitrust effort. All in all, the report card says 'incomplete.'"
Fred Stokes of the Organization for Competitive Markets was less forgiving than Foer.
Last year, Varney and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack hosted a series of workshops around the country to discuss competition and regulatory issues faced by the agriculture industry.
More than 4,000 attendees attended workshops in 
Stokes believes that Varney and Vilsack were "totally sincere" when they promised action against the big agribusiness corporations.
And he says he believes the reason they were unable to take action – to fulfill their promises – was because they were shut down by the Obama political machine.
"The people they promised to go after and hang high are being shaken down to provide the billion dollar Obama campaign fund," Stokes said. "Varney was shut down by Obama's political machine."
"Varney was totally sincere when she came into office," Stokes said. "But she had the rug pulled out from under her."
"It is most likely that Christine Varney is leaving in total frustration with being hampered from doing from what she sincerely intended to do – curbing the market abuses that are putting independent family farmers and ranchers out of business and savaging rural America," Stokes said.
"When she came into office, she was on fire," Stokes said. "She made pronouncements against Dean Foods, against Monsanto, against the big meat 
. But she did nothing about it."
, they had probably 50 contract poultry producers who lined up. They told about all the things that were being done to them. And many of them said at the end that it is likely that their contracts will be terminated."
"Christine Varney stood up and said – here is my card with my direct number, if they do anything like that, you call me. She raised so many eyebrows. At workshop after workshop, she stood up for the farmers."
"But in response, they have done nothing, absolutely nothing. They had five workshops across the country. She stood up and made fiery speeches at every one of them. And yet nothing has happened."
How does Stokes know that she wanted to do the right thing but was shut down by the political apparatus?
"I am 77 years old," Stokes said. "I have acquired ability to judge people pretty good. She and Secretary Vilsack were absolutely sincere. Some of the big targets that they were after are now being shaken down for a billion dollar campaign fund."
"I'm from Mississippi," Stokes said. "I endured ridicule and scorn for my unabashedly pro Obama administration stance and politics down here. These were going to be finally the folks who were going to turn things around and we were going to reverse the destruction of rural America. It hasn't happened."
"I was told by people they were definitely going after Monsanto," Stokes said. "And nothing has happened. She wanted to go after Monsanto and she was stopped. That's my feeling. It's been two years. They have had plenty of time to haul them into court."
"They raised our hopes and nothing happened," Stokes said. "I feel sucker punched."
Russell Mokhiber edits the Corporate Crime Reporter.

			






Document Number: 9238 

			

	GM wheat a threat to farmers

		Friday, 08 July 2011 11:10	
 1.GM wheat a threat to farmers: Greenpeace
 Tell the Australian Government you won't swallow GM bread 
http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/wheatscandal/
1.GM wheat a threat to farmers: Greenpeace
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/gm-wheat-a-threat-to-farmers-greenpeace-20110707-1h3x5.html
Australian wheat farmers stand to lose billions of dollars if the CSIRO's trials of genetically modified wheat are allowed to continue, Greenpeace says.
A report by the environmental group accuses the government research organisation of "serious oversights" when it comes to managing the risks of its field trials currently taking place across the country.
"The economic implications of GM wheat are dire," Greenpeace spokeswoman Laura Kelly said in a statement 
Advertisement: Story continues below
Every one of Australia's global wheat market competitors, including 
, had rejected GM wheat, Ms Kelly said.
"They were not convinced by global biotech companies that it would not contaminate their natural wheat crops and threaten their billion-dollar export markets," she said.
The CSIRO, however, says its research will benefit local farmers.
"Our number one priority is that Australian industry and farmers realise the benefits of our grains research first and foremost," CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan told AAP on Thursday.
"All GM wheat research conducted by the CSIRO has met the strict regulatory requirements that are set down by the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator."
CropLife, an industry group representing the plant science industry, said the Greenpeace report entitled Australia's Wheat Scandal was a fiction.
"(It) misrepresents modern crop breeding so extensively that it should be regarded as nothing more than fiction," Croplife CEO Matthew Cossey said in a statement.
"GM crops have demonstrated over the last 15 years that they improve the on-farm environment while reducing the pressure to convert wilderness areas to farmland."
A former CSIRO scientist, who says he was sacked for questioning the safety of GM crops, said studies in the US had shown that yields for GM crops were no higher than those for ordinary crops in the long term.
"In controlled conditions in a laboratory you can get marvellous results ... but when theyput them in the field there is zero per cent difference because ... all the genes are expressing themselves and it's complete competition," Maarten Stapper told AAP on Thursday.
He said the CSIRO was under pressure from big biotech companies such as Monsanto to push ahead with GM crops.
"It's the commercial interests ... that help develop all those GM crops because they can make money out of it," Dr Stapper said.
2.CSIRO - Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Commonwealth_Scientific_and_Industrial_Research_Organisation
The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) is promoted as Australia's pre-eminent public scientific research body. Although ostensibly 'publicly funded' CSIRO has, in reality, been encouraged to get 30% of its funding from business with the CSIRO top management encouraging its staff to go to 40%. As a point of comparison, only about 10% of the funding of Europe's leading plant biotech institute, the John Innes Centre, is thought to come directly from industry although the JIC is considered highly industrially aligned.
According to John Stocker, CSIRO's former chief executive, 'Working with the transnationals makes a lot of sense, in the context of market access. There are very few Australian companies that have developed market access in the United States, in Europe and in 
, the world's major marketplaces. Yes, we do find that it is often the best strategy to get into bed with these companies.' (Australian Broadcasting Commission, 1992).
 in an article in the Journal of Australian Political Economy (No 44.), 'Consolidating Control: Plant Variety Rights, Genes and Seeds', describes CSIRO as having a long history of involvement with intensive agricultural R&amp;D and collaboration with agribusiness multinationals, and as having become increasingly dependent upon industry funding. The effect of this is 'to generate convergence between private sector and public sector plant breeding operators.' 
Hindmarsh notes, 'The CSIRO, in keeping with its position of being at the forefront of scientific research, prioritised genetic engineering research in 1979. CSIRO scientists have since been very active in the promotion of GE to the Australian community, and especially to other scientists (Hindmarsh, 1996). In addition, multinational companies are seen as the key avenue to the international commercialisation of biotechnology products and research of both Australian public sector institutions and biotechnology firms.'
Hindmarsh also notes, '...the indications are that a Byzantine web of formal contractual obligations and informal connections has emerged between the CSIRO and other public-sector agencies..., universities, small or new biotechnology firms (NBFs), and multinational corporations.'
The corporations listed by Hindmarsh as having direct financial connections with CSIRO include: Agrigenetics, Monsanto, Rhone Poulenc and AgrEvo (later part of Aventis and then Bayer). A collaboration between the CSIRO and Monsanto generated Australia's first major GM commercial crop. On the day of the announcement of the commercial approval for Bayer's GM canola (oilseed rape) in
, CSIRO announced that Bayer would be extending its lucrative investment in CSIRO 'to develop modern biotechnology tools applicable to cotton and other crops'. 
The press release said, ' For Bayer CropScience, the alliance with CSIRO is regarded as a model for global cooperation.' For some it is a model of everything that's wrong in the relationship between public science and private interests. An article in the journal Australasian Science written by a former CSIRO senior executive accused the head of CSIRO of subverting the CSIRO's traditional role of public research in favour of lucrative consulting work for government and the private sector. Research into GM crops, with its promise of intellectual property and revenue streams, is 'in' at the CSIRO, he reportd; research into organic farming is 'out'. He described morale among staff as at rock bottom.

			






Document Number: 7025 

			

	No more Amfloras - BASF stops its GM programme for Europe

		Friday, 08 July 2011 11:02	
NOTE: Amidst all the spin below, there is one hard nugget of reality in BASF's response to the question: Is it true that BASF will be ceasing the development of the Amflora GM potato? 
"due to the difficult political situation GMO crops face in 
, we already decided some time ago to not initiate any new projects that are focused exclusively on the European market" - 
Britta Stellbrink, Communications Manager, BASF Plant Scienc
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Thank you for your email and your interest in our plant biotechnology activities, including our amylopectin starch potato Amflora.
Amflora has already received approval for commercial use in the EU in 
. In 2011, Amflora is grown in 
 for seed production. Over the next few years we will be continually scaling up our seed production of Amflora.
We believe that amylopectin potatoes - such as Amflora - could create an estimated annual added value of 100-200 million for farmers and the European potato starch industry. As a quality product, Amflora will provide clear added economic value.
Currently, BASF is not planning to withdraw its plant biotechnology research activities in Germany. However, due to the difficult political situation GMO crops face in Europe, we already decided some time ago to not initiate any new projects that are focused exclusively on the European market.
BASF Plant Science is convinced that genetically improved plants will play an important role in solving the challenges we are facing in the future. However, we keep in mind the regional political situation when choosing our research and development projects.
Communications Manager BASF Plant Science
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
I've just read this news report:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-05/basf-said-to-consider-genetically-modified-crop-exit-in-germany.html
Is it true that BASF will be ceasing the development of the Amflora GM potato?
Look forward to hearing from you.

			






Document Number: 9078 

			

	Defra should reject GM wheat

		Thursday, 07 July 2011 21:42	
Join us for a mass rally against ongoing blight-resistant GM potato trials! Gather for organic chips before travelling by bike, tractor or coach to the John Innes Research Centre to deliver to them our tried and tested non-GM blight-resistant spuds! Meet 12 noon, The Forum, 
: Countering the GM comeback camp. A day long camp to get productive and plan the next stages of the campaign. Camping spaces available Friday pm onwards costing GBP7 per night. Come equipped with a camping stove for self-catering. The site is 5 mins from a regular bus route to the city centre.
http://www.stopgm.org.uk/gathering-momentum.html
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
or to book coach seats / accommodation ring 07959 506 673.
http://www.gmfreeze.org/news-releases/159/
GBP1.28 million of public money for a crop with "no market"
An application to field test a GM wheat in the 
 should be rejected by Defra, say GM Freeze, because there is no scientific or agricultural justification for it and no market willing to buy it. The groups says the GBP1.28 million in public money already poured into the crop by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council should have been better spent.
Previous attempts to develop GM wheat in the UK were abandoned because of strong market rejection. No GM wheat has been approved for commercial growing anywhere on the planet to date, and major wheat exporting countries like 
 have already said they won't use GM wheat because there is no market for it.
Rothamsted Research has applied to grow a field trial of the GM wheat in 2012 and again in 2013 on its farm in 
. The crop is genetically modified to produce aphid "alarm" chemicals that cause the insects to stop feeding and take flight. Aphids naturally produce this chemical, known as EBF [2], when under attack by predators.
In a briefing published today [3], GM Freeze is calling on people to object to the application from Rothamsted Research by the 
 deadline. The group lists reasons to reject the application including:
*The lack of market for GM wheat anywhere on the planet means it is a waste of time and money.
*Serious doubts about whether the GM wheat will work as stated.
*The lack of any data on potential health effects of the GM wheat.
*The presence of an antibiotic resistant marker gene, despite concern raised by the European Medicines Agency that this may contribute to a rise in resistant infections in humans and animals.
*The risk of cross-contamination with other wheat crops and some grasses.
*Unknown impacts on predator and parasite populations, which already provide some control for aphid infestations, and unknown impacts on nearby non-GM farms from displaced aphids.
*The possible development of aphids desensitised to the alarm chemical if it is constantly produced by the wheat plants.
The group says there are many other possible options for using the affect of EBF on aphids which do not involve GM, including some identified by Rothamsted Research, and these should be fully explored using any unspent public money allocated to the GM wheat project.
GM Freeze also say rejecting the application would allow time for a debate on the ethics of using synthetic genes reassembling animal genes in crop plants, as is the case with the GM wheat. [4] GM Freeze says the applicants need to make more information available about these genes and their origins.
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said:
“This application is a clear sign that the UK agricultural research funding is still firmly set on developing GM crops and that public money is being poured in to make it happen.
“The aphid alarm chemical could be employed using a non-GM approach, and this has already been shown to work, but we need more funding for agroecology-based solutions to pest problems.  
“There are ample grounds for rejecting this application, including the important questions about the use of synthesised animal genes in crop plants. Defra must allow time for this issue to be fully considered and for the alternatives to be researched by saying ‘no’ to this application.”
Calls to: Pete Riley 07903 341 065
[1] For full details of the application see
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/gm/regulation/registers/applications/11-r8-01.htm
[3] See Objecting to an Application to Trial GM Wheat in Hertfordshire, GM Freeze, 
[4] The Rothamsted Research application states, “[E]nzyme encoded by the FPPS cassette has most similarity to that from cow (Bos taurus) but is generally ubiquitous and occurs in most organisms.” See Note [1].

			






Document Number: 7110 

			

	In major shift, USDA clears way for GM bluegrass

		Thursday, 07 July 2011 12:37	
1.U.S.D.A. Ruling on Bluegrass Stirs Cries of 
2.In Major Shift, USDA Clears Way for Modified Bluegrass
NOTE: The US is widely regarded as having a particularly lax regulatory regime for GM crops. Indeed, it's a regime almost entirely shaped by the biotech industry: "What Monsanto wished for from
, Monsanto -- and, by extension, the biotechnology industry -- got. Even longtime Washington hands said that the control this nascent industry exerted over its own regulatory destiny -- through the Environmental Protection Agency, the Agriculture Department and ultimately the Food and Drug Administration -- was astonishing." 
But the latest move by the US Dept of Agriculture (USDA) looks set to substantially reduce even the weak existing regulation of GM crops. What makes this particularly ominous is that the crop the USDA has chosen to exempt from federal regulation is common in pastures in many parts of the US, either intentionally or as an invasive, so it will ultimately add to the growing problem of contamination of organic agriculture, which GM alfalfa is already set to worsen. 
That this deregulatory decison is based in political expediency rather than science is emphasised by the fact that even the USDA-APHIS assessment tool showed there's a high chance bluegrass will be a noxious weed, but they then went to great lengths to dismiss their own analysis!
U.S.D.A. Ruling on Bluegrass Stirs Cries of Lax Regulation
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/business/energy-environment/cries-of-lax-regulation-after-usda-ruling-on-bluegrass.html?_r=1
The Agriculture Department has exempted a genetically engineered grass from federal regulation, a decision that some critics say could portend a loosening in oversight of biotech crops. 
The department said that an herbicide-tolerant 
 bluegrass being developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro was not subject to federal regulation because its creation did not entail use of any plant pests.
The decision, issued late Friday, frees Scotts to sell the grass, which is meant for lawns, without federal approval. The company also does not need federal permits to conduct field trials, even though a different type of genetically engineered grass escaped from company test plots in the past and established itself in the wild.
The genetically engineered bluegrass contains a gene that allows it to tolerate the widely used herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate. That allows the chemical to be sprayed to kill weeds without harming the grass.
Michael C. Gregoire, who oversees biotechnology crop regulation at the Agriculture Department, said in an interview Wednesday that the ruling did not represent “a change in policy or a relaxing or abandoning of the regulation of G.E. crops.” He said other genetically engineered crops, like a petunia, had been exempted from regulation in the past.
Still, the decision shocked some critics of biotechnology crops. "It's a blatant end-run around regulatory oversight," said George Kimbrell, senior lawyer at the Center for Food Safety, a Washington advocacy group.
Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said other companies might follow the same strategy, putting the Agriculture Department "out of the game of regulation."
The critics say there have been other signs that the Agriculture Department has been looking to weaken regulation, like a proposed pilot project that would let companies provide more input into the environmental assessments of their crops.
While some environmental groups say regulation is too lax, some biotechnology executives and academic plant scientists say it is unnecessarily rigorous and slow, impeding development of important new crops.
The situation with the Kentucky bluegrass arises because genetically engineered crops are regulated under rules pertaining to plant pests.
The rules are really meant for pathogens and parasites, not corn stalks. Still, they could be stretched to cover the crops because most of them contain a snippet of DNA from a plant virus that functions as a genetic on-switch. And the foreign gene is often inserted using a bacterium that can cause a disease in plants.
But in creating its bluegrass, Scotts deliberately avoided using any material from plant pests. The herbicide resistance gene and the genetic on-switch came from other plants and were fired into the grass’s DNA with a gene gun, rather than being carried in by a bacterium.
The company then sent a letter to the Agriculture Department in September, arguing that the grass was therefore not subject to regulation.
The Agriculture Department agreed. It also declined to regulate the bluegrass as a noxious weed, denying a request from the Center for Food Safety.
Richard Shank, chief environmental officer at Scotts, said the company’s strategy “wasn’t designed specifically to get around regulations or anything like that. It just made more sense. There was a lot of concern about using plant pest materials in biotechnology and we wanted to get away from that.”
Still, the strategy means that the bluegrass will not encounter the regulatory problems that have beset Scotts’s genetically engineered creeping bentgrass, which does contain material from plant pests.
That grass, meant for golf courses, is still awaiting approval eight years after the company submitted its application.
Scotts was fined $500,000 in 2007 after the bentgrass escaped from field test sites in 
and established itself in the wild. More recently the grass, presumably from a field test in 
Mr. Shank said limited field testing of the Kentucky bluegrass would begin soon but the product would not come to market for years.
, Tom Vilsack, the secretary of agriculture, told the company to work with others to make sure that the grass did not spread where it was unwanted, for example, pastures where organic cows graze. Mr. Shank said Scotts would do that.
Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said many of the genetically engineered crops now under development did not use viral material so they could conceivably escape regulation.
But L. Val Giddings, an industry consultant, disagreed, saying most crops continue to use material from plant pests. Monsanto, the leading developer of genetically engineered crops, said products in its current pipeline would be regulated.
Stanley H. Abramson, a Washington lawyer who has represented biotech companies, said that genetically engineered food crops would not be accepted by the market without government approval. So only developers of nonedible plants like grass or flowers might try to exempt themselves from regulation, he said. 
In Major Shift, USDA Clears Way for Modified Bluegrass
http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/07/06/06greenwire-in-major-shift-usda-clears-way-for-modified-bl-51693.html
The USDA's authority over biotech plants largely stems from its oversight of plant pests such as bacteria, fungi and insects. Since companies have created most genetically modified crops, like herbicide-resistant corn and soybean, using either genes or tools derived from microbes, USDA has long extended its powers to nearly every biotech plant developed in the country.
Unlike these predecessors, the herbicide-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass, developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro Co., contains no microbial material. The grass's tolerance to glyphosate, a common weedkiller, stems from the genetic material of corn, rice and Arabidopsis plants, and Scotts spliced the bluegrass's DNA with a gene gun, a common lab technique that shuttles DNA on high-velocity heavy metals.
Given these specifics, and its determination that modified bluegrass should not be controlled as a weed at the federal level, USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will allow Scotts to proceed with commercializing its bluegrass product, the agency said in a statement, released on the Friday before the Fourth of July weekend.
"Because no plant pests, unclassified organisms or organisms whose classification is unknown were used to genetically engineer Scotts' [genetically engineered] Kentucky bluegrass," the agency said, "APHIS has no reason to believe it is a plant pest and therefore does not consider the Kentucky bluegrass described in the Scotts letter to be regulated."
The agency's decision, prompted by a query from Scotts last year, could clear the way for biotech crops incorporating the genes from unrelated plant species to avoid the long review required by APHIS for modified crops. APHIS will examine such situations on a case-by-case basis, according to a list (pdf) of questions and answers released by the agency.
"If a [genetically engineered] organism is not a plant pest, is not made using plant pests, and APHIS has no reason to believe that it is a plant pest, then the [genetically engineered] organism would not fall under APHIS' regulatory authority," it said.
This is not the first time APHIS has decided a modified plant was beyond its regulatory authority. The agency recently concluded that bioengineered petunias did not fall under its jurisdiction, a precedent cited by Scotts, and more than a decade ago a modified geranium was also cleared. Neither of these plants has the potential broad appeal of Scotts' turf, however.
Kentucky bluegrass is widely grown across the United States, providing dense green sod often popular in parks and home lawns. The grass is also grown in pastures and prairies, and can migrate into lightly populated forests. It is also known to appear among row crops, though it is not considered a troublesome weed, USDA said. Given its broad spread, Scotts turf could potentially be grown more broadly than any previous biotech plant.
Anticipating the anger that could accompany its decision from the organic community and longtime opponents of biotech plants, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack urged Scotts in a letter (pdf) to engage with growers of bluegrass seed, among others, who will be concerned that the plant could threaten their exports to regions sensitive to modified crops.
"USDA therefore strongly encourages Scotts to discuss these concerns with various stakeholders during these early stages of research and development of this GE Kentucky bluegrass variety and thereby develop appropriate and effective stewardship measures to minimize commingling and gene flow between GE and non-GE Kentucky bluegrass," Vilsack wrote.
Kentucky bluegrass's weed status is bound to be a future point of contention. In 2002, the Center for Food Safety, one of the most vocal and litigious opponents of bioengineered plants, petitioned USDA to regulated modified bluegrass as a "noxious weed," claiming its resistance to glyphosate, commonly sold under the brand name Roundup, could turn the common grass into a persistent threat.
In a parallel decision last week, USDA said that while the modified bluegrass did in fact meet the definition of a noxious weed, it would not "cause impacts significant enough to warrant regulation at the federal level." Kentucky bluegrass has a low-to-moderate rating for management difficulty, the agency said (pdf), adding that USDA "[does] not think tolerance to one herbicide would justify increasing that ... rating to high."
Even if the agency wanted to regulate the grass as a weed, it couldn't, USDA noted.
"Funding for federal regulatory response for Kentucky bluegrass is unlikely to be available at a time when our noxious weed program is facing funding limitations," it said, "and the required response would be beyond the combined federal and state regulatory capacity."
Given the large volume of corn and soybean crops already engineered to resist glyphosate, there will likely be concerns that resistant bluegrass, widely deployed in parks and homes, could further exacerbate the number of glyphosate-resistant weeds that have appeared in recent years. APHIS has "little authority" to regulate modified plants solely under that concern, though, it said.
"To date APHIS has never regulated a weed as 'noxious' due to its resistance to an herbicide alone, nor has it ever taken action to prevent the evolution of noxious weeds," it said. "Herbicide resistant weeds are not an issue exclusively associated with the use of herbicides on genetically engineered ... crops."
Scotts plans to conduct field trials of the modified bluegrass in the near future, the company says.
USDA's bluegrass announcement and supporting documents:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/news.shtml

			






Document Number: 8244 

			

	Imports of GM maize into Kenya to start next week

		Thursday, 07 July 2011 01:52	
1.Kenya: Importation of GM Maize to Start Next Week
2.Kenyan Lobbies Push Government to Halt Importation of GM Maize
3.Stern warning to GMO importers 
NOTE: What seems to have happened is that following a glut of maize in 
, the South Africans have had terrible problems disposing of it, even at very low prices, because it is GM and so unacceptable in most African countries. Kenya's millers, of course, want to take advantage of the low prices at which the South Africans are trying to offload their unwanted grain, and so they've been aggressively lobbying the Kenyan government to allow the imports. 
 has also long been targeted by US- and biotech industry backed lobby groups, like USAID, ISAAA and the Syngenta Foundation, who are also desperate to open the country to GM crops.
http://www.gmwatch.org/gm-myths/11132
EXTRACTS: "We need protection from the government from these unscrupulous traders who can sell anything to the public just for their financial gain," said Lari MP David Njuguna.
Parliamentary Agriculture committee chairman John Mututho also opposes import of GM foods.
Last week African Biodiversity Network and the Unga Revolution claimed a consignment of GM maize was already in 
"We can easily import GMO free maize from 
 who had a bumper harvest last season," she said. [item 1]
...activists reiterate that Kenya is ill-equipped to handle massive infiltration of GM maize against a backdrop of weak legal, political and policy safeguards.
Justus Lavi, the Secretary, Kenya Small-scale farmers' forum, challenged the government to "immediately put a stop to importation of GM maize".
Lavi read a petition on behalf of smallholders urging the authorities to review the position of GM maize in addressing food security.
[Gacheke Gachihi, a social Justice activist with the Bunge La Mwananchi Social Movement] condemned "multinationals that are violating the rights of small peasant farmers".
He noted that Kenya is being held hostage by a cabal of four powerful millers who have negotiated with the government to import GM maize. [item 2]
Kenya: Importation of GM Maize to Start Next Week
http://allafrica.com/stories/201107060142.html
Traders can start importing genetically modified food including maize next week.
The head of the National Bio-safety Authority, Dr Roy Mugiira, said regulations on the importation of GM foods will be gazetted by 
"The regulations will give clear health and environmental guidelines on the foods being imported," said Dr Mugiira yesterday.
He said that the new rules had not been prompted by recent government permission to allowed millers to import GM maize to ease the current shortage of maize.
According to the new regulations, NBA can license importers for up to 10 years provided their products have no negative effects on health or the environment.
Dr Mugiira said authorities in the country of origin like South Africa would certify foods but once in Kenya more tests would be carried out.
"All imports will need permits from our bio-safety clearing house which is recognised by the
Last week acting Minister for Higher Education, Science And Technology Prof Hellen Sambili gazetted the 2009 Biosafety Act.
Several MPs and non-governmental organization have opposed GM foods.
"We need protection from the government from these unscrupulous traders who can sell anything to the public just for their financial gain," said Lari MP David Njuguna.
Parliamentary Agriculture committee chairman John Mututho also opposes import of GM foods.
Last week African Biodiversity Network and the Unga Revolution claimed a consignment of GM maize was already in Mombasa waiting to be off-loaded.
ABN advocacy officer Anne Maina claimed animal feeding trials have shown damage to liver, kidney, pancreas, stomach bleeding and effects on fertility.
"We can easily import GMO free maize from Malawi and Zambia who had a bumper harvest last season," she said.
Dr Mugiira however said there is no evidence that GMOs are harmful.
Genetically engineered products usually carry a new gene, which may not be related to the crop, to achieve a desired trait. Scientists may for instance introduce a gene to make GM maize drought or pest resistant.
The gazettement will come as a relief for millers and importers who have been complaining of an acute shortage of maize. The government last week forecast a shortfall of 14.8 million 90-kg bags of maize in 2011/12 due to drought.
Six millers with 20 per cent market share have closed their main plants but said GM would curb future shortfalls.
"Bio-tech is the way we should go and ... it will help us to overcome our perpetual shortage of maize," said Diamond Lalji, chairman of Cereals Millers Association that comprises 28 major millers in Kenya.
"GM maize is cheaper by about 30 percent compared with non-GM and that is expected to bring down the cost of the final product," said Lalji.
Pembe Flour Mills Ltd, Kenya's second biggest producing 240,000 kg a day, has not produced any maize flour in the last 12 days.
Unga, the country's fourth largest with brands like Jogoo, shut its plant in 
"We have a lot of orders pending from (supermarkets) but we cannot supply," said Abdulmajid Mohamed, a local manager at Pembe.
The millers are projecting losses thanks to lower sales, the weak shilling and increased labor costs.
Pembe said millers were paying Sh4,000 shillings per 90 kg bag of maize compared with 1,350 shillings a year ago.
Several EU countries have banned genetically modified maize developed by American firm Monsanto.
In 2009, Monsanto, the world's biggest seed company sued the German government's decision to ban the cultivation and sale of genetically modified maize despite European Union rulings that the bio-tech grain is safe.
Monsanto's modified maize seed (MON 810) has been authorized for sale and cultivation in the EU's 27 member states since 1998. Its 10-year license is currently being renewed and a decision is expected later in the year.
Kenyan Lobbies Push Government to Halt Importation of GM Maize
http://www.africasciencenews.org/asns/index.php?option=com_content&amp;task=view&amp;id=2876&amp;Itemid=2
Lobby groups in Kenya representing small holder farmers, consumers and social justice movements Friday made an appeal to the government to halt the importation of genetically modified maize into the country.
The renewed pressure by lobby groups coincides with emerging evidence that wealthy millers are negotiating with the government to be allowed to import tones of GM maize as the East Africa's largest economy grapple with a gaping deficit on maize.
Local press reports have alleged that unscrupulous traders have sneaked in genetically modified maize into the country through porous borders.
Nevertheless, activists reiterate that Kenya is ill-equipped to handle massive infiltration of GM maize against a backdrop of weak legal, political and policy safeguards.
Justus Lavi, the Secretary, Kenya Small-scale farmers' forum, challenged the government to "immediately put a stop to importation of GM maize".
Lavi read a petition on behalf of smallholders urging the authorities to review the position of GM maize in addressing food security.
"Farmers demand a stop to importation of GM maize. Patented seeds and chemical fertilizers threatens the livelihoods of smallholders”, said Lavi.
He noted that "farmers are seriously endangered by GM products".
Lavi raised alarm on ongoing research in universities and agricultural research institutes that heavily favors large scale adoption of genetically modified crops.
He decried laxity and official lethargy that is to blame for creating a conduit for unscrupulous traders to sneak GM maize into the country.
According to Lavi, Kenya has the potential to solve hunger if the government explores innovative ways to assist the small holders.
"Genetically modified crops can only give short term solutions" noted Lavi.
Multinational giants in their push to export GM maize into Kenya threaten food sovereignty of smallholders.
CidiOtieno, the Convenor, UNGA Revolution, an Umbrella of grassroots movements in Kenya, challenged the government to safeguard the interests of small scale farmers in push to attain food security.
"Citizens should be consulted before importation of GM maize. It is the constitutional mandate of the government to protect Kenyans against importation of products that are harmful to their health", said Otieno.
The grassroots lobby will soon collect signatures to petition the government to destroy GM maize docked at the port of Mombasa.
Gacheke Gachihi, a social Justice activist, Bunge La Mwananchi Social Movement, said that "it is a crime against humanity that we have a crisis of maize in the country, yet the government is feeding the people with maize flour that is poisoned (read GM Maize)".
Gachihi condemned "multinationals that are violating the rights of small peasant farmers".
He noted that Kenya is being held hostage by a cabal of four powerful millers who have negotiated with the government to import GM maize.
Bunge La Mwannachi has vowed to block importation of GM maize through court injunctions.
Gachihi revealed that the lobby will organize demonstrations in July to press the President and the Prime Minister to halt importation of GM maize.
Stern warning to GMO importers 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
http://www.nation.co.ke/News/Stern+warning+to+GMO+importers++/-/1056/1195288/-/hm81mc/-/
Millers licensed to import genetically modified maize must ensure the grain does not end up as seed.
Any lapse that could result in the seeds being planted will attract a fine of not less than Sh20 million or a jail term of 10 years, or both, a government agency said 
If this happens unintentionally, the importer will meet the costs of removing the seeds from circulation.
The acting head of the National Biosafety Authority, Dr Roy Mugiira, said the organisation would ensure such maize was only released as flour.
"The relevant parties will be holding a meeting with the Prime Minister to find the best way of handling the issue, including how to make importation more flexible without breaking the law," Dr Mugiira said on Tuesday.
He hinted that one option being considered was to mill the maize at the point of landing. GM seeds, just like conventional maize, have the capacity to germinate and produce.
Initially, there were plans to sterilise GM seeds to stop them from germinating after harvest but this technology, called terminator, was never commercialised following widespread opposition.
The head of biotechnology at the Kenya Agricultural Research Centre, Dr Simon Gichuki, said the possible GM maize targeted by importers would be from 
 and does not contain the terminator technology.
"Actually this technology has never been commercialised," he said on Tuesday. The maize being targeted by the millers has been engineered to develop resistance against weeds and insect pests.
Another type of GM maize is being tested in Kenya for drought resistance but it is not yet ready for commercialisation.
If the current biosafety laws are to be followed strictly, then the earliest the first GM maize can land in the country legally is around October.
According to the Biosafety Act, the regulatory authority will communicate its final decision of approval or rejection of an importing licence not earlier than three months after receiving the application.
"The authority shall communicate its final decision of approval or rejection of the application to the applicant, within 150 days of the receipt of the application but not earlier than 90 days of such receipt,” says the law.
Dr Mugiira said no application has been considered as the authority has not yet published the import guidelines.
After allowing an importer to bring a genetically modified organism on the market, the law also allows any person to submit a written opposition within 30 days from the date the notice is posted.
An official at the Kenya Plant Health Inspectorate Services said no genetically modified maize had been brought into the country yet.

			






Document Number: 9820 

			

	BASF may exit GM crop research from Europe

		Wednesday, 06 July 2011 11:55	
EXTRACT: "GMOs may be just like atomic energy," said Ulrike Hoefken, the Green Party's regional environment minister. "The risks are masked and big benefits are claimed. But it's the general public who is left with the costs for any damage."
BASF Said to Consider Genetically Modified Crop Exit in 
Sheenagh Matthews and Richard Weiss
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-05/basf-said-to-consider-genetically-modified-crop-exit-in-germany.html
BASF SE (BAS), the world's biggest chemical maker, may withdraw genetically modified crop research from Germany in response to growing political opposition, three people familiar with discussions said.
The maker of the Amflora scientific potato is considering the future of its research facility in rural Limburgerhof in southwestern Germany, said the people, who asked not to be identified because the plans aren't public. A move to the U.S. is possible for the plant biotechnology operations, which employ 700, said one of the people.
Germany plans to close all 17 of its nuclear reactors by 2022, exiting atomic power after a meltdown in 
 stoked safety concerns. The move has strengthened the Green Party, which rejects nuclear energy and is now a junior coalition partner in BASF’s home state. The risks of genetically modified organisms are difficult to calculate, the Greens say.
"GMOs may be just like atomic energy," said Ulrike Hoefken, the Green Party's regional environment minister. "The risks are masked and big benefits are claimed. But it's the general public who is left with the costs for any damage."
The flight of research means Germany may lose out on the $12 billion market for genetically modified plants, which is set to grow 5 percent annually over the next five years, according to advisory firm Phillips McDougall. BASF founded the agricultural center in Limburgerhof in 1914 and now has 11,000 square meters of greenhouses and some 40 hectares of fields.
BASF, in an e-mailed response to questions, said it's too early to comment on the future of plant biotechnology research, though the company will take regional politics into account. The company has already halted projects focusing solely on the European market, it said. The Green Party tripled its vote in 
"We are committed to green biotechnology [GM crops]," Peter Eckes, head of BASF's plant science unit, said in an e-mail. "We value the open and constructive dialogue we have had with Rhineland- Palatinate's government in the past and want to continue this dialogue with the members of the new government. This also includes the clarification of the new government's attitude toward green biotechnology."
The potential setback comes a year after BASF won permission to plant its Amflora potato for use as a thickening agent for paper, overcoming 13 years of opposition from environmental groups in Germany and 
 who cited possible damage to health and ecology.
Developing countries will overtake industrialized nations in planting genetically modified crops before 2015, said Clive James, founder of nonprofit International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, or ISAAA.
"The price countries like Germany will have to pay if they decide against biotech will be very high," James said in an interview 
. "The money and the scientists would go elsewhere. That's a long-term loss."
James estimates 15.4 million farmers in the world use biotech crops, 90 percent of those being "among the poorest of the poor." The crops are an "essential element" to help reach the United Nation's Millennium Development Goals, which include cutting poverty and hunger by 50 percent by 2015, James said.
German seed maker KWS Saat AG (KWS) carries out research and plants test fields in its home country, while commercial planting takes place in the U.S. because of regulatory hurdles in 
, according to spokeswoman Sabine Michalek. Bayer, based in 
, located its plant biotechnology research in 
Monsanto Co. (MON), the world's largest seed company, has pared plant development in Germany to a sole project with two test fields because the country's "basic framework doesn't lend itself to further products," company spokesman Andreas Thierfelder said.
"We're keeping the minimum required to retain our accreditation," Thierfelder said by telephone 
. "It's just enough to keep our foot in the door." Monsanto does most of its research in
 may be spending the most on researching crops engineered for specific traits or resistance to pests, ISAAA's James estimates, with 
"China sees it as a strategic issue, a question of independence and of food security," he said.
To contact the reporters on this story: Sheenagh Matthews at 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Benedikt Kammel at 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

			






Document Number: 3150 

			

	Shock documentary: WWF and industry - The pact with the Panda

		Tuesday, 05 July 2011 16:29	



The article below summarises the contents of the recently broadcast German documentary 'The silence of the Pandas', which exposed WWF's close ties with corporations, including Monsanto. The film has caused shockwaves in Germany and many donors have reportedly 
An English-subtitled interview with Wilfried Huismann, the maker of the documentary 'The silence of the Pandas', is 
EXCERPTS: since 2010 Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans have been certified as "sustainable" by the "Round Table on Responsible Soy" (RTRS). The certification system was created at the initiative of the WWF.
Hartmut Vogtmann, head of the Deutscher Naturschutzring (German League for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection), is clearly outraged at this. In an internal letter to Detlev Drenckhahn, president of the German WWF division, he warns insistently against participating in the "Round Table on Responsible Soy". In the letter, obtained by sueddeutsche.de, Vogtmann argues that according to recent studies, through the cultivation of soy, the use of pesticides has "increased tremendously … because more and more weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup, which is used in the cultivation of soybeans". Its active ingredient, glyphosate, "causes malformations in embryos and leads to higher rates of cancer," he writes with respect to an investigation, and concludes: The Round Table, co-founded by the WWF, is "artificially keeping a failed system of agriculture alive". 
... Even before its initial screening, the film clearly stirred the German affiliate of the WWF. Attempts were made, through warnings and media attorneys, to influence the broadcast and to cancel interviews.
And what is one to think when the organization, in response to inquiries by the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, admits to having accepted donations from Monsanto? And of the fact that the promotion of genetic engineering by Jason Clay is termed an "individual opinion of an outsider"? In fact, he is not. He is the vice president of the WWF global organization.
Enquiries by WDR into the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
WWF and Industry - the Pact with the Panda[1]
How industry-friendly is the WWF? On the fiftieth anniversary of the organization's founding, the German broadcaster WDR did some behind-the-scenes research on the renowned globally operating environmental organization. Its explosive documentary shows how deeply the organization has become entrenched in economic interests and their billions in profits.
Baby tigers, polar bear cubs, young orangutans - cute and cuddly and evoking sympathy with their big eyes and snub noses. They have the perfect look that appeals to children. There's only one thing that tops them all: the panda, cuddliness personified.
The panda is the poster animal of the globally renowned World Wide Fund for Nature, also still known today by its former name, the World Wildlife Fund. According to market research, the most powerful nature conservation organization in the world has one of the most credible images in the world. For 50 years it has stood for climate protection, sustainability, and the maintenance of the earth's biological diversity.
And it is always in search of donors - in the service of nature. Children will not hesitate to raid their piggy banks; they collect animal pictures that the supermarket giant Rewe, in cooperation with the WWF, was until recently giving away with purchases, setting off a collection frenzy ("Animals – adventure. Discover all of them!"). Donors are made to feel as though they are buying a little piece of an ideal world.
But reality, at least in part, looks in fact quite different.
According to research by the WDR, the influential environmental organization WWF with its annual donations of around 500 million euro, its 4,000 employees, and affiliates in more than 100 countries, has become entwined in industry interests - the report raises the question whether the work of the organization can be reconciled with the slogan "For a living Planet".
In the WDR documentary "The Pact with the Panda", which was broadcast by ARD[3]  last Wednesday at 11:30 PM, Wilfried Huismann, the recipient of several Grimme [media] awards, suggests that donors' credulity is in some cases stretched rather thin for interests that scarcely serve the preservation of the planet.
Huismann documents that the WWF is clearly helping dubious companies obtain "sustainability certificates". The organization cooperates in "roundtables" with GMO companies such as the agricultural giant Monsanto and the multinational Wilmar Group - and then certifies that they produce soy and palm oil "sustainably". 
In the film, the nature conservation organization justifies such close cooperation as a "non-ideological" course that "accomplishes a great deal more than consistent rejection". Huismann, through his research, shows what consequences this cooperation with industry can have.
Displacement of one million aboriginal inhabitants for the tiger
Among other things, he cites the massive, often forced displacement of native peoples in India and Indonesia, who had coexisted for centuries with the wild animals that they venerate as holy. Huismann traveled to India, where one million aboriginal inhabitants are to be displaced, allegedly for the protection of tigers. But local activists say this is nonsense. WWF's Tiger Project has been in existence since 1974, when there were still 5000 tigers. If it had been successful, then at least 8000 should be living there now, says an environmental activist, but there are clearly far fewer. And these few big cats are followed around their tiger reserve for eight hours a day by eco-tourists brought in by the WWF's own travel company in its 155 jeeps. According to research, the well-heeled guests must pay about $10,000 for the privilege, while local activists complain that in the name of eco-tourism the original forest is being destroyed.
In Argentina the issue is genetically modified monocultures that place stress on humans and the environment. Huismann traveled in the northern part of the country, in the Gran Chaco, once the largest savannah in the world. Nowadays half of it has been cut down and taken over by a monoculture of soybeans which is spreading to adjoining land and is alleged to make people sick. The WWF's attitude? "As of today, the soy wasteland in South America covers an area twice the size of Germany," says the narrator in the film. "And the acreage is scheduled to double. The Argentinian WWF supports the project because the forests here, in its opinion, are of 'low value', and have been 'degraded' by human use". Of the original forest stock, nothing more is to be seen.
The tightrope act of an environmental protection organization 
Huismann also traveled to Borneo, where slash-and-burn clearing for the monoculture of palms to produce palm oil has been advancing at a rapid pace. In return, those in charge are locally creating a token forest for precisely two orangutans. But even these are threatened with starvation due to the minimal size of the reserve, says Huismann: "80 hectares on a 14,000-hectare plantation, that's 0.5 percent. Is that a success, when 99.5 percent is wiped out?" In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Doerte Bieler, the WWF's specialist for biomass, is confronted with this question and responds laconically: "Now, if the 80 hectares were no longer there, that would mean absolutely certain death. Then they would be dead already."
When Bieler is asked by Huismann to give an example of successful cooperation with industry, she is unable to find an answer. What's important to her is that the WWF as a non-governmental organization (NGO) is "not just to be ridiculed, but to be accepted as a competent discussion partner."
In Indonesia Huismann is visiting a plantation, one that research shows has just been certified as "sustainable" with the help of the WWF, and in which unfiltered wastewater seeps in to the ground. With this certificate "the company can cash in on subsidies 'for regenerative energy'," says the film's narrator, and adds: "And the WWF gets a fee for having advised the company in 'sustainability' issues. For both sides, this is a good deal." 
According to Huismann, one major bank alone is forking over $100 million for a "climate partnership" with the WWF. But meanwhile, in Indonesia, that very financial institution is financing clear cutting by palm oil companies, to which large parts of the rain forest have already fallen victim. Despite that, the WWF sits down with the major players in the food industry at a "Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil" (RSPO). Other NGOs, such as Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace, are distancing themselves, have left this round, or were never part of it.
Married to aristocracy - of blood or of money
The film also documents the involvement of aristocracy, whether of blood or of money, in the WWF. Its honorary president is Prince Philip. In an exclusive interview with the WDR he justifies hunting wild animals this way: "A balance among the species must be created. This can't be left to nature. By decimating predators, you protect the animals." The 90-year-old consort of the Queen of England defends his own shooting of a tiger in 1961 by noting that, after all, it was only one.
The WWF was co-founded largely by members of European aristocratic families. Huismann speculates that the organization was established only because, in the era of decolonization, the higher nobility were afraid of losing their hunting preserves. Their motto was still that of colonialism: "Nature is the absence of people - or at least of locals," says Huismann to Süddeutsche Zeitung (sueddeutsche.de), one of Germany's largest dailies.
Over the last few decades, hardly any donation, and hardly any donor, was objectionable to the WWF, from Dow Chemical and Shell all the way to - at least for WWF USA - Monsanto itself. 
Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, the organization's first president, also founded the "Club of 1001", a sort of "Friends of the WWF", in which the western elite meets to this day. Its members are primarily from industry. In the early days even leading figures in the South African apartheid regime belonged to the Club, along with members of the Argentine junta and state terrorists such as Zaire's dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
Membership in this green country club is still secret. Only a few prominent members have left, mainly members of the aristocracy, says Huismann. According to his research, at least during the mid-eighties, many major figures from the German industrial elite were also members, from the bankers Robert von Pferdmenges and Hermann Abs to Friedrich Flick and Bertold Beitz.
That is a thing of the past, as the film's narrator also says. But today, too, the WWF does not have many reservations. Thus, since 2010 Monsanto's genetically modified soybeans have been certified as "sustainable" by the "Round Table on Responsible Soy" (RTRS). The certification system was created at the initiative of the WWF.
Hartmut Vogtmann, head of the Deutscher Naturschutzring (German League for Nature Conservation and Environmental Protection), is clearly outraged at this. In an internal letter to Detlev Drenckhahn, president of the German WWF division, he warns insistently against participating in the "Round Table on Responsible Soy". In the letter, obtained by sueddeutsche.de, Vogtmann argues that according to recent studies, through the cultivation of soy, the use of pesticides has "increased tremendously … because more and more weeds are becoming resistant to Roundup, which is used in the cultivation of soybeans". Its active ingredient, glyphosate, "causes malformations in embryos and leads to higher rates of cancer," he writes with respect to an investigation, and concludes: The Round Table, co-founded by the WWF, is "artificially keeping a failed system of agriculture alive". 
The WWF Germany wrote to sueddeutsche.de on this issue: "We are continuing to cooperate with the RTRS because we want more GM-free soy, and in general, we want to minimize the environmental damage caused by soy cultivation, such as the destruction of forests." 
Meanwhile, the WWF has published a "fact check" on its website, stating, among other things: "We reject genetic engineering. We will do so until it is proven that genetically modified plants are completely harmless for the environment, for biodiversity and for us humans. This  position of the WWF International applies to all WWF national organizations." However, it is conceded that, at the level of "individual national organizations, there are also employees whose opinion does not conform to the official WWF position. This is particularly true for countries in which the share of genetically engineered crops in agriculture is already very high, such as the USA und Argentina".
Even before its initial screening, the film clearly stirred the German affiliate of the WWF. Attempts were made, through warnings and media attorneys, to influence the broadcast and to cancel interviews.
And what is one to think when the organization, in response to inquiries by the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, admits to having accepted donations from Monsanto? And of the fact that the promotion of genetic engineering by Jason Clay is termed an "individual opinion of an outsider"? In fact, he is not. He is the vice president of the WWF global organization.
Copyright 2011 © sueddeutsche.de GmbH / Süddeutsche Zeitung GmbH
1. This article was posted on the homepage of sueddeutsche.de at 7:00 PM on 22 June 2011 where it remained in the top position for over 24 hours when it was moved further down to make room for more pressing news. It remained on the homepage until the evening of 24 June, the day a different article on the same issue was published in the print version of Süddeutsche Zeitung (p. 19 – Im Namen des Pandas: Der WDR dokumentiert die Verstrickung des Naturschutzverbandes mit Industrie und Lobbyisten.) In that second article the paper focuses more on the events that occurred immediately after the TV documentary was broadcast.
2. Translation from the original article in German by Larrass Translations, Ottawa
3. May be viewed online from the official ARD website media archive at http://bit.ly/ARDPandaPakt

			






Document Number: 3241 

			

	U.S. Ends Opposition to GM labeling Guidelines

		Tuesday, 05 July 2011 12:44	
Consumer rights victory as US ends opposition to GM labeling guidelines
Consumers International, Press release, 5 July 2011
*Twenty year struggle within global food safety body ends with 'consumer rights milestone'
*Move clears way for greater monitoring of the effects of GM organisms    
Consumers International (CI)i and its member organisations celebrated victory today as regulators from more than 100 countries agreed on long overdue guidance on the labelling of genetically modified (GM) food.
The Codex Alimentarius Commissionii, made up of the world's food safety regulatory agencies, has been labouring for two decades to come up with consensus guidance on this topic.
In a striking reversal of their previous position, on Tuesday, during the annual Codex summit in Geneva, the US delegation dropped its opposition to the GM labelling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.
The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labelling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade. 
This will have immediate implications for consumers. Edita Vilcapoma of the Peruvian consumer group ASPEC, representing Consumers International at the Codex meeting in Geneva, said: 
"Peru's recent introduction of GM food labelling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO. This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumer movement."
The agreement also recognises the enormous health monitoring benefits of giving consumers transparent information about the presence of GM foods. Consumers International's lead delegate at Codex, and a senior scientist at Consumers Union of the United States, Dr Michael Hansen, stated: 
"We are particularly pleased that the new guidance recognises that GM labelling is justified as a tool for post market monitoring. This is one of the key reasons we want all GM foods to be required to be labelled - so that if consumers eat modified foods, they will be able to know and report to regulators if they have an allergic or other adverse reaction." 
The labelling milestone is particularly welcomed by CI member organisations in Africa, who have been fighting on behalf of their consumers for the right to be informed about GM food. Samuel Ochieng, President Emeritus of Consumers International and CEO of the Kenyan Consumer Information Network said: 
"While the agreement falls short of the consumer movement's long-held demand for endorsement of mandatory GM food labelling, this is still a significant milestone for consumer rights. We congratulate Codex on agreeing on this guidance, which has been sought by consumers and regulators in African countries for nearly twenty years. This guidance is extremely good news for the worlds’ consumers who want to know what is in the foods on their plates".    
i Consumers International (CI) is the only independent global campaigning voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international consumer movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere. For more information, visit www.consumersinternational.org 
ii The Codex Alimentarius Commission was created in 1963 by FAO and WHO to develop food standards, guidelines and related texts such as codes of practice under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme: 
http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/index_en.jsp
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Consumers International (CI) is the world federation of consumer groups that, working together with its members, serves as the only independent and authoritative global voice for consumers. With over 220 member organisations in 115 countries, we are building a powerful international movement to help protect and empower consumers everywhere.

			






Document Number: 7318 

			

	Farmer sues over GM contamination

		Thursday, 28 July 2011 11:22	
2.Organic farmer sues GM neighbour
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/farmer-sues-over-gm-taint/story-e6frg6nf-1226103022356
A WEST Australian farmer plans to sue his neighbour for allegedly contaminating his organic farm with genetically modified canola in a case that could have national implications.
Grain and meat farmer Steve Marsh was stripped of his hard-won organic accreditation over 70 per cent of his property last December. He said the decision forced him to break sales contracts in Australia and overseas.
The case will allege his neighbour, Michael Baxter, was negligent in allowing his GM canola to blow on to the property. Mr Baxter could not be contacted yesterday, but the ABC reported earlier this year he intended to defend himself against the claim.
Mr Marsh told The Australian yesterday that his livelihood had been devastated and the dispute had split the farming community southeast of Perth. "The last thing that I want to do is to do this to a neighbour that I grew up with and went to school with . . . but this is a real serious problem we've got," he said.
"I have to remove all the GM material and seeds off the property, and when you've got hundreds of plants that blow on to your property and each plant has got thousands of seeds on it, how do you remove all those seeds?"
Lawyer Mark Walter from Slater and Gordon would not reveal the size of the damages sought. He said a writ would be lodged in the WA Supreme Court shortly.
"This is a landmark case. It will examine the legal rights of farmers to choose how and what they farm on their land," Mr Walter said.
Organic farmer sues GM neighbour
The Safe Food Foundation, 28 July 2011
WA organic farmer Steve Marsh announces retention of Slater &amp; Gordon Lawyers, and fundraising partnership with The Safe Food Foundation, in legal case against neighbouring GM farmer
Steve Marsh, an organic farmer from Kojonup, Western Australia, whose farm was contaminated by genetically modified (GM) canola in late 2010 leading to the loss of his organic certification by the National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia (NASAA), today announced he has retained Slater &amp; Gordon Lawyers with the intention to lodge a writ against the GM farmer in the WA Supreme Court to fight for compensation and damages.
Scott Kinnear, long standing organic industry representative and director of The Safe Food Foundation, today announced that the foundation would assist Steve Marsh in partnership with Friends of the Earth Australia. 
“Steve has been deluged with offers of help since news of his story broke. The Safe Food Foundation has taken on the coordination of fundraising as a major project in support of Steve and the right of farmers everywhere to grow GM-free foods; which ultimately equals consumers’ right to buy and eat GM-free foods and to avoid potentially dangerous toxic GM foods” said Kinnear.  
“There are legitimate concerns, derived from a considerable body of developing research, that GM foods are toxic. A Canadian scientific study published in 2011 and testing the blood of 69 women, found that a GM protein based pesticide toxin was circulating in their bloodstream. Out of these women, 30 were pregnant and 93% of those had the GMO pesticide toxin in their blood. Alarmingly, tests on the umbilical cords of those women after birth established that 80% had the GM pesticide toxin circulating into their babies and out of the 39 non-pregnant women, 69% had the GM pesticide toxin in their blood. [1]
“The GMO industry had previously told food regulators that the GM pesticide toxin would be broken down during digestion. These findings are alarming, and we believe urgent independent research should be commissioned immediately funded by governments to establish the impact on adult, foetal and child health” said Kinnear
Another recently published paper suggests that roundup may be implicated in causing birth defects and that regulators have been aware of this for some time [2]. Roundup ready GM crops are resistant to the application of Roundup which is used on the crops to control weeds, causing Roundup residues to enter our food chain.
“As an original member of the Gene Technology Grains Committee (GTGC) 10 years ago, I’ve been privy to developments in GM, and aware of the potential for GM-contamination. The organic industry has always argued that the protocols around GM that we’re dealing with today would fail. At the GTGC meetings I made representations on behalf of the organic industry to say that the buffer zones of five metres were grossly inadequate. As the founding Chair of the Organic Federation of Australia, in 2000 I commissioned legal advice from Slater &amp; Gordon on the ramifications of an organic farmer being contaminated and losing certification. In 2010, our worst fears came true with Steve Marsh” said Kinnear.
“The Safe Food Foundation is so concerned about GM contamination of organic and non-GM conventionally produced foods that we are making an offer to supply GM test kits to any grain farmer in Australia who is concerned about contamination of their past or future crops. We believe that Steve Marsh’s case is the tip of the iceberg and that unless stopped, Australia will follow Canada’s dangerous lead, where there is virtually no GM-free canola available.”
Steve Marsh said “I am pleased and relieved that the Safe Food Foundation is fundraising to help my cause and making it possible for me to take legal action through Slater &amp; Gordon Lawyers. I just hope my case helps other farmers out there because if this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. I grow food that consumers want to eat and I value their concerns about GM. I just want to be able to meet demand for GM-free, high quality foods.”
Bella Gubay, Media Liaison, The Safe Food Foundation
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.safefoodfoundation.org 
Scott Kinnear, Director, The Safe Food Foundation
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Website: www.safefoodfoundation.org
[1] Aris, A. &amp; LeBlanc, S. (2011) Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. ReprodToxicol,
http://safefoodfoundation.org/GM-toxic%20study-Bt%20in%20humans.pdf
[2] Antoniou, M et al. (2011) Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark? Earth Open Source, 
http://safefoodfoundation.org/RoundupandBirthDefects.pdf

			






Document Number: 9636 

			

	European Parliament Strengthens Draft Laws to Ban GM Crops - Greenpeace

		Tuesday, 05 July 2011 12:32	
1.European Parliament strengthens draft laws to ban GM crops - Greenpeace
2.MEPs vote fo stronger GMO rules - FoEE
European Parliament strengthens draft laws to ban GM crops
ttp://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/en/News/2011/European-Parliament-strengthens-draft-laws-to-ban-GM-crops/
 – The European Parliament today voted to strengthen a draft EU law giving member states a new right to ban genetically modified (GM) crops from being grown in their territories.
Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer said: The European Parliament today added real punch to draft laws to protect our farms and food. But let's not forget that GM contamination doesn't respect borders. National bans are no substitute for thorough safety testing at a European level, something the EU is failing to do so far.
"We and a growing majority of the public remain seriously concerned about unanswered health and environmental questions around GM crops. Ecological farming is the correct response to the challenges of food security, climate change and long-term productivity."
Greenpeace welcomed that parliament voted to:
* Strengthen the draft legislation by recognising environmental grounds for bans, including the development of herbicide resistant weeds and biodiversity impacts.
* Allow bans where a lack of information is preventing thorough safety testing. GM seed companies are notoriously secretive about their products.
* Changing the legal basis of bans from trade to environment, making any ban based on environmental grounds more robust if challenged in court.
* Oblige biotech companies to give access to the material necessary for independent research into GM risks.
* Have all countries take mandatory measures against GM contamination. In the event these measures fail, governments should ensure that those responsible pay damages.
* Call again on the European Commission to fully implement an earlier unanimous call by environment ministers to improve safety testing of GM crops at European level.
* Ensure that the precautionary principle is embedded in the right to ban.
* Give regions the right to ban GM crop cultivation.
The law still needs approval from a qualified majority of member states.
Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer 0032 (0)496 161582 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Greenpeace EU press officer Jack Hunter 0032 (0)476 988584
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
MEPs VOTE FOR STRONGER GMO RULES
Brussels – The European Parliament voted today for substantially improved rights of national governments to ban the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops in their territories.
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said: "MEPs have today defended the right of European governments to ban genetically modified crops. The European Parliament is right to say that consumers, farmers and the environment should be better protected from GMOs and that all the impacts of growing GM crops must be taken into account in decision-making. This is a clear signal from MEPs that they are on the side of the majority of European citizens who oppose GM crops – it is now up to the European Commission and governments to make sure safeguards against GM crops are upheld."
The decision on whether to give countries more rights to ban GM crops now goes to the European Council which is currently deadlocked on the issue.
The European Parliament voted in favour of:
- A stronger legal backing for national bans
- Mandatory liability systems for contamination cases
- Compulsory measures to prevent contamination in all EU countries
- National and regional level assessments of environmental risk – complementary to EU level assessment – with power to ban GM crops
For more information please contact:
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe
Tel: +32 (0) 2 893 10 38, Mob: +32 (0) 475 703 475,
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
Samuel Fleet, communications officer, Friends of the Earth Europe (EN)
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

			






Document Number: 5285 

			

	Monsanto Caught Red-handed Violating Rules

		Tuesday, 05 July 2011 11:53	
1.Monsanto caught red-handed violating rules!
2.Put an immediate stop to all environmental releases of GMOs 
NOTE: Yesterday Greenpeace India and a Kannada TV channel exposed how Monsanto is violating biosafety norms by showing how a seed production plot for GM maize is being conducted. This comes just two days after the Times of India published an article exposing how a senior agriculture ministry scientists had bent the rules to get clearance for trials of GM rice to be conducted by his wife!
http://gmwatch.eu/latest-listing/1-news-items/13298
The first item below is the Greenpeace press release relating to Monsanto's biosafety violations. The second is a letter sent to India's Environment Minister, Jairam Ramesh, by the Coalition for a GM-Free India with endorsements from hundreds of organisations and concerned individuals from all over India, including farmers' organisations, consumer groups, environmentalists and environmental organisations, academics, activists, media representatives, concerned individuals etc. There are also two former Ministers of Kerala who have signed on, two recipients of the Padma Shri award (one of India's highest civilian awards), and so on. 
This gives some sense of the extent of the growing outrage at the way GM crops are being regulated in India, and Monsanto's brazen disregard of biosafety issues.
Monsanto caught red-handed violating rules!
Greenpeace India, Press release, July 4 2011
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/en/news/Monsanto-caught-red-handed-violating-rules/
*Civil society and farmer unions demand action against the company and an immediate ban of GM field trials in India
Bangalore: After Monsanto was caught red-handed violating bio-safety rules in the case of GM corn by Greenpeace and a local TV channel, leading farmers union in the state, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha (KRRS) and civil society organisations demanded an immediate ban on all open field experiments of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in the country.
Monsanto, the American multinational seed giant had taken up seed production for two transgenic corn hybrids containing stacked cry2Ab2, cry1A.105 (Event MON 89034) &amp; cp4epsps (Event NK603) genes[1] on the field of one Mr. Amrit Gowda in the village of Banihatti P.A in Sindagi Taluk, Bijapur, Karnataka. It has been found that the company has flouted every required norm or procedure to ensure biosafety from such GM products in experimental &amp; research stages. What is most worrying is the fact that the biosafety assessment of this GM corn has not been completed while such open cultivation leading to seed and transgene leakage have been permitted.
The following are the major violations that Greenpeace has documented in this case:
a. GM corn cobs with viable seeds have been lying at the field, which was harvested almost a month ago (June 1, 2011) leading to concerns about seeds from the plot leaking/dispersing/spreading to nearby areas and volunteer plants coming up in the upcoming season. Thus the rule to destroy all residues properly after the GM crop has been harvested have been violated.
b. The existing guidelines [2008] for field experiments of GM crops in confined conditions also says that all crops, including the refuge, has to be destroyed post the harvest. In this case the farmer has been allowed to keep the refuge, which could already be contaminated with the transgenes from the GM corn. This raises serious concerns about the health to the farmer and his family who may have consumed the corn and also about the possibility of these contaminated seeds spreading further. As a matter of fact, the refuge was left over by the company for the farmer to use as feed for his cattle.
c. The field has been left open with residues of GM corn lying there for more than a month and cattle have been found grazing in the trial plot. Only small patches of the cultivated field have been burned down, and only this has been documented/photographed by the company at the time of harvest [probably just to satisfy the statutes]. There has been no contact made by the company thereafter.
d. Most alarmingly there was neither a fence around the trial plot while the trial was happening nor any sign board indicating that the field had a regulated, untested GM corn in an experimental stage was being cultivated.
e. Bijapur does not have a functional District Level Committee (DLC)  in place; neither the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur nor the  Joint Director of Agriculture knew about the existence of such a body or of any cultivation of GM crops happening in the district. According to existing regulatory regime, a DLC is a mandatory body in any place where field trials are permitted/in progresss.
f. Monsanto has executed a seasonal agreement with the farmer's relative. This is in contravention to the guidelines set forth by GEAC for the usage of farmers fields, which says that the applicant has to have at least a 3-year lease agreement with the farmer whose plot is being used. This is also to ensure that proper post-harvest monitoring of the plot can happen.
g. There was no information given to the farmer on what precautionary measures need to be taken to ensure biosafety norms are adhered to before or after the trial.
h. Monsanto was permitted to take up trials in Rabi 2010-2011 or Kharif 2011 but this plot was neither a rabi crop nor a kharif crop but was sown as a summer crop.
"While these are the violations that could be documented almost after a month after the harvest of the GM corn, one shudders at the thought of the numerous possibilities of contamination that would have happened while the GM crop was in the field". said Shivani Shah, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner, Greenpeace India. She further stated that "What we saw on ground proves once again that the citizens of this country cannot trust the regulatory body in this country to ensure that our health, farming and environment from the risks of GM crops".
Greenpeace is sending the video documentation of the field and other relevant evidences collected along with this letter to the Minister for Environment &amp; Forests, Sri Jairam Ramesh and the regulators, which substantiates our concerns. The same is being sent to the Chief Minister of Karnataka too.
"Karnataka is fast becoming a hotbed of such field trials. It is high time that the state government comes forward, like Madhya Pradesh has done for instance, to save the citizens of this state" said Krishnaprasad of Sahaja Samrudha. He demanded Karnataka state government follow the path of other states governments like Bihar and Madhya Pradesh which have written to the Government of India informing that they will disallow such trials in their respective states.
Kodihalli Chandrasekhar, President, KRRS said, "Field trials and seed production of this GM corn has also been permitted for this Kharif. The Karnataka farmers are being made scapegoats by multinational seed corporations like Monsanto, whose past is checkered with numerous cases of violations of farmers' rights over their seeds. If our elected governments remain silent spectators to such onslaughts of seed corporations whose eye is on taking control of the multi billion seed market in the country, the farmers of the state will have to resort to direct action to protect their seeds, farms and livelihoods. The state government has to come forward to ban such trials in Karnataka and to immediately stop Monsanto from operating in the state".
Speaking at the press conference, Kavitha Kuruganti, Convenor, Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture [ASHA] said, “It is clear that our regulators have no control whatsoever on the open air release of GM seeds even as they sit in Delhi and clear dozens of applications for such environmental release. Field trials today pose a grave threat and we have highlighted the failures of the regulators time and again, including in a presentation we made to the GEAC on 11th May this year. It is also clear that regulators are allowing the industry and conflicting interests to prevail in their decision-making forgetting that they have been given a mandate of protecting our environment, health and Nature from the risks of modern biotechnology, Liability has to be fixed on Monsanto for the grave violations found here; further, the government should fix liability on the regulators for such lapses. It is time that environmental releases including for open air trials and seed production be topped immediately”.
In the light of this new evidence, speakers demanded that the Union Minister for Environment and Forests, under whose Ministry GEAC operates, should:
*Blacklist Monsanto and ensure that liability measures under EPA1986 are invoked against the company. The regulators liable for such lapses.
*Cordon off the region around this GM seed production site immediately and a contamination study of the region should be ordered and a report brought out immediately about the extent of contamination if any.
Given the lack of monitoring mechanisms in place, they also demanded that no more field trials be permitted in India, which is critical to keep our food and environment safe from the potential dangers of Genetically Modified Organisms.
* A copy of the letter to GEAC can be accesed at  
http://www.greenpeace.org/india/Global/india/docs/Letter%20to%20GEAC-%20Monsanto%20Bijapur.pdf
Put an immediate stop to all environmental releases of GMOs 







Document Number: 375 

			

	Australia's GM Wheat Will Only Worsen World Hunger

		Tuesday, 05 July 2011 11:46	
Australia's GM wheat will only worsen world hunger
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2783278.html
 via a picture book as a child, I was captivated by Australia's vast and pristine landscapes. To my mind yours is the country of health, nature and purity.
Yet on my first voyage to Australia as the executive director of Greenpeace International, I am devastated to find myself in a country set to become the first in the world to produce genetically modified (GM) wheat.
Nine trials of GM wheat are currently being planted across five states and territories, with the Australian Government predicting it will have GM bread on supermarket shelves by 2015. As the head of a global NGO that campaigns on food security around the world, I am here to support Greenpeace Australia's efforts to stop control of this crucial food staple from falling into the hands of transnational GM food companies.
Oxfam reported in 2011 that a handful of manufacturers, producers and retailers already control 70 per cent of decisions made in the global food system.[1] The world's top four seed companies - Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta and Bayer - now control over half of the world's seed sales. These are also the GM companies pushing for control of Australian wheat.
, and someone who has seen first-hand starvation in 
 I am often asked how it is that I can be opposed to GM. This questioning assumes that GM leads to healthier, sustainable and more abundant crops – but this is far from the truth.
In fact, GM has the potential to increase hunger around the globe. This of course jars with most people's logic (and defies brilliant marketing campaigns by the GM industry) that the companies responsible for producing food globally could actually cause further food scarcity. It angers me that corporate scientists and global GM companies can still get away with making the bogus claim that their seeds will feed the poor, when in fact their only goal is greater profits.
This is not just the opinion of Greenpeace. 
, eight prominent international scientists wrote an open letter to the CSIRO questioning the ethics of GM wheat trials being run in conjunction with the French biotech company, Limagrain.
In 2008, 400 leading international scientists concluded that GM does not produce more food but in fact hurts farmers, because it comes with expensive patent fees and restrictive contracts. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development[1] reported that instead of allowing farmers to save and reuse seeds as they have done for generations, they will be required to purchase new seeds each year.
GM companies like Monsanto also like to boast that their GM technology increases crop yields. Former Monsanto employee, Mark Tester, the corporate scientist running Australia's largest GM wheat trials, has gone so far as to criticise Greenpeace's opposition to GM wheat by accusing us of ignorant disregard for the rights of the 9 billion people the world will need to feed by 2050.
The problem of starvation is not crop yields - there is enough food for all of us on this planet. In fact, in 2010 the world produced enough food to feed double the global population[2]. One-third of this food was thrown away as waste and 1 billion people went hungry.
What hungry people need is money to buy food or access to land to grow it. GM provides neither. Nor does it provide an abundance of surplus food that will be readily and selflessly distributed to the global poor.
In Australia, Monsanto has started to add to its 'feed the world' myth by claiming that GM crops are more 'nutritious' than natural foods. A handful of GM chemical companies are working with government scientists on a type of white bread they say will cure bowel cancer. The reality however is that this magically modified white bread is no better for you than any number of safe, healthy, affordable foods already available in local grocery stores. Yet the Australian government continues to spend millions of dollars on the research hoping to create a market for something that is not needed.
All of Australia's major wheat market competitors, including 
, have rejected GM wheat. It is my profound hope that Australians will do the same and opt instead to protect the good, safe grains that have kept you healthy for centuries. The pristine country of Australia is no place to start a global GM nightmare.
http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=About_IAASTD&amp;ItemID=2
[2] Oxfam International (2011) Growing a better future: Food justice in a resource-constrained world.   
http://www.oxfam.org/en/grow/reports/growing-better-future
Kumi Naidoo is the Executive Director of Greenpeace International.

			






Document Number: 6677 

			

		Monday, 04 July 2011 15:02	
Japanese scientists have found a way to create edible steaks from human faeces.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110615/tc_digitaltrends/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces
They are not the first scientists to come up with this idea. We previously reported on a scientist at Liverpool University who, in the 1970s, ate his own excrement as part of an experiment to see if human excrement held the key to feeding the world's poor.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/1090
Even then the idea wasn't new - it first seems to have been put forward by the 18th century satirist Jonathan Swift, who wrote in his novel Gulliver's Travels about an imaginary scientific academy where the professors were engrossed in such remarkable projects as making spiders spin naturally coloured silk for stockings, and converting excrement back into food.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/1090
Swift's satire was inspired by a visit he made to the Royal Society in 1710. Today the RS is dominated by GM proponents and is an enthusiastic ally of the genetic engineering and geoengineering industries.
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/Royal_Society
More recently, contemporary satirists - the Yes Men, posing as experts from the WTO, first provided their audience with boxes of hamburgers to tuck into, then graphically detailed a WTO master-plan to turn human excrement into "hamburgers" with which to feed the world.
http://www.theyesmenfixtheworld.com/
Sound familiar? Incidentally, the new Japanese poop burgers may be GM, as the researchers "enhance the flavor with soy protein".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110615/tc_digitaltrends/japanesescientistscreatesmeatoutoffeces

			






Document Number: 2467 

			

	GM crop saboteurs go free in France

		Sunday, 03 July 2011 18:35	
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2011/06/30/gm-crop-saboteurs-go-free-in-france
 in central France acquitted eight defendant Volunteer Reapers (les Faucheurs Volontaires) of destroying a genetically modified field trial in 2008. 
Among those acquitted were anti-globalist Jose Bove and Francois Dufour, recognized as "repeat offenders."
The court also dismissed Monsanto's financial claims. Apart from their own legal expenses, the Reapers owe nothing for the 2008 mowing of a GM field trial of Monsanto's GM corn, Mon810 x Nk603.
The trial marked the third court victory for Volunteer Reapers. Previously, the Chartres 58 and the Orleans 49 were also acquitted, notes the Inf'OGM press release.
http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article4848
The Poitiers decision relied on a technical issue which recognized that the wrong charges were brought against the group since they destroyed a GM field trial, not GM crops being commercially grown.
In 2008, the law was changed to differentiate destruction of a commercial field from a field trial, the latter being considered a "thought crime" rather than destruction of property.
"As the sprinkler waters, the prosecutor and Monsanto are tripped in the process they themselves have established," notes Inf'OGM.
Though Monsanto said it will not appeal this case, prosecutors have the option of bringing new charges under the correct law, and Monsanto has the option of pursuing civil charges.

			






Document Number: 8677 

			

	Scientist bends rules for wife's GM trial

		Sunday, 03 July 2011 18:32	
Scientist bends rules for wife's GM trial
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/environment/developmental-issues/Scientist-bends-rules-for-wifes-GM-trial/articleshow/9069879.cms
: In a clear case of conflict of interest in clearing GM crop trials, a member of the environment ministry's statutory appraisal body and senior agriculture ministry scientist Swapan Kumar Datta has pushed and got clearance for trials of GM rice to be conducted by his wife, Karabi Datta, faculty with the botany department of 
 in which he too will be participating. 
Environment ministry's statutory Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC) at first cleared the trials for GM rice with the Supreme Court mandated condition that the isolation distance of 200 metres must be maintained during experiments. This is done to ensure contamination does not take place. 
The trials were to be done at Chinsurah Rice Research 
 Bengal. However, the research station authorities said such trials could not be conducted at their facility under the given conditions. They also said, under an RTI reply, that they held hundreds of traditional varieties of rice – which activists always worry about getting contaminated by GM crops. 
On the insistence of Datta, who is a member of GEAC and also deputy director general at the Indian Council for Agricultural Research, the appraisal body re-opened the case. Datta insisted that the isolation distance was too much and cited a non-relevant seed certification standards rules to claim the safety barrier should be reduced from 200 metres to 10 metres. The seed certification standards are not the norm followed in cases of GM food crop trials where the threat of contamination remains unchecked. The GEAC went against the Supreme Court orders and was persuaded by Datta to rework the clearance and permit Karabi Datta to carry out trials at 10-metre isolation distance instead. 
Datta, when contacted by TOI, admitted that he was also involved in the GM rice trials with his wife but denied any conflict of interest, claiming it was only an academic project at the moment. Asked what rules he had used to suggest the whittling down of tough conditions, he said these were norms he and other members of GEAC had decided upon and there were no specific regulations he had in mind. He also did not comment on the potential contempt of apex court orders in this case.

			






Document Number: 6665 

			

	Bayer to pay $750M in genetic rice settlement

		Sunday, 03 July 2011 18:27	
Bayer to pay $750M in genetic rice settlement
http://www.nwitimes.com/business/article_7ba6dc9b-5451-5d75-8526-078bde177b88.html#ixzz1QxkNVlVE
German conglomerate Bayer CropScience agreed Friday to pay up to $750 million to settle several lawsuits with U.S. farmers who claimed a strain of the company's unapproved genetically modified rice contaminated the food supply and hurt their crop prices.
The litigation goes back to 2006, when Bayer disclosed that an experimental strain of genetically altered rice was found in U.S. food supplies. No human health problems have been associated with the contamination, but that wasn't known at the time.
"Back in 2006, this rice had not been approved for human consumption," said Don Downing, a St. Louis-based attorney who represents some of the farmers who sued.
The fear that the rice was unsafe, along with the notion that genetically altered rice was somehow impure, quashed sales in major markets including the European Union, which has tight restrictions on genetically modified crops.
So, farmers from Arkansas, which produces about half of the nation's rice, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas, sued Bayer, saying the accident closed off critical export markets and caused the price of rice to drop.
The settlement reached Friday will extend to all U.S. farmers who planted long-grain rice between 2006 and 2010.
Downing, who has represented farmers in the case since 2006, said the agreement was likely the largest settlement in the history of genetically altered crops.
"I don't think there's any settlement involving genetically modified seed that approaches the size of this," he said.
Rice growers have between 90 and 150 days to submit their claims, depending on which types of compensation they're seeking. But, farmers who represent 85 percent of the average acres planted from 2006 to 2009 don't sign up, Bayer can walk away.
"Although Bayer CropScience believes it acted responsibly in the handling of its biotech rice, the company considers it important to resolve the litigation so that it can move forward focused on its fundamental mission of providing innovative solutions to modern agriculture," Bayer spokesman Greg Coffey said in a written statement.
If a farmer planted 500 acres of rice for every year from 2006 to 2010, he'd collect $155,000 at $310 per acre. Plus, farmers can collect more money if the contaminated rice forced them to plant another crop like wheat or soybeans that didn't pay as well.
The settlement applies to long-grain rice, the kind used in pilaf or typically mixed with beans. It doesn't affect farmers who planted medium-grain rice, which is often used in sushi, or short-grain rice, which is often used to make cereal.
Genetically modified or altered rice is, as Downing put it, "not the way God made it."
Some of the farmers who sued have no problem eating genetically modified rice, but whether its rice or any other crop, genetically modified food doesn't sit well with some consumers, especially overseas.
"We may think it's all right to eat genetically modified rice ... but the customer's always right," Downing said.
Agribusiness Writer Christopher Leonard contributed to this report from St. Louis.
Jeannie Nuss can be reached at www.twitter.com/jeannienuss

			






Document Number: 5456 

			

	Kenyans protest over GM maize imports

		Saturday, 02 July 2011 10:45	
Kenyans protest over GM maize imports
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13991466
Hundreds of people have marched in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, against government plans to import genetically modified (GM) maize.
They were protesting at reports that Kenya would lift its restrictions on GM crops following a recent drought, leading to maize shortages.
The demonstrators said they believed a shipment had already arrived and feared it could contaminate the soil.
Kenyan millers want to import cheap GM maize to cope with the shortages.
The BBC's Odhiambo Joseph in Nairobi says the protesters included farmers and environmentalists.
"The importation of GM maize is a ploy by leading millers to kill us - the small-scale farmer," protester Gacheke Gachihi said.
The march was organised by the African Biodiversity Network and the Unga Revolution.
They said a consignment of GM maize from South Africa was in the port city of Mombasa, waiting to be off-loaded. 
They wanted it destroyed or sent back, the protesters said.
The chairman of the Kenyan parliament's agriculture committee, John Mututho, confirmed to the BBC that the GM maize was at the port.
He said he would lead a delegation of parliamentarians to Mombasa next week to inspect the consignment.
"We are totally opposed to this toxic product," Mr Mututho said.
Our reporter says Kenya's politicians are divided over GM imports.
Some leading members of the government disagree with Mr Mututho, and support introducing GM maize in Kenya.
Kenya is facing an acute maize shortage, caused by a prolonged drought.
Roy Mujiira from the state-run National Biosafety Authority (NBA) said Kenya would be lifting restrictions on GM crop imports to deal with the shortage.
"We are targeting to publish the regulation by next week, and it is a first for the country," he told Reuters news agency.
Millers have been lobbying the government to allow them to import GM maize, saying it would help end the shortage and lower prices.
"GM maize is cheaper by about 30% compared with non-GM maize," Diamond Lalji, the chairman of Kenya's Cereal Millers Association, told Reuters.
The government recently dropped tariffs on maize imports in order to curb a sharp rise in prices. 

			






Document Number: 3924 

			

	UN Expert Calls For Transgenic Corn Ban

		Saturday, 02 July 2011 10:42	
UN calls for transgenic corn ban
http://lapress.org/articles.asp?art=6410
*Special rapporteur urges country to resume prohibition of genetically-modified version of key crop in both experimental and commercial stages.
A United Nations food expert urged the Mexican government to resume a moratorium on genetically-modified varieties of corn.
, Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, 
 said the introduction of genetically-modified varieties of the country's staple crop would threaten Mexico's crop diversity, which he called "a crucial asset in the face of future threats and unpredictable changes brought about by climate change" and necessary in fighting hunger.
In 2009, Mexico revised its biosafety legislation, lifting a decade-old ban on genetically-modified corn, sparking an outcry from environmentalists, human rights activists, and small-scale farmers who said the move favored the big agribusiness and put their native varieties that have fed the population for thousands of years, at risk.
Earlier this year, the state legislatures of 
 banned genetically-modified corn from being planted, either commercially or in trials.
"In the long term, the continuous improvement of landraces by farmers' practices of saving, re-sowing and exchanging seeds best suited to specific environments is crucial to effective protection against the unpredictable," said De Schutter, after visiting with Mexican government officials.
He added that poor farmers would become gradually dependent on seeds protected by intellectual property rights and that they would be reliant on a product out of their economic reach.
Mexico's current farm policy that favors large-scale producers and the wealthiest states, showing an "unacceptable bias in a country that has 80 percent of its farmers with less than 5 hectares [12.4 acres]," he said. "Agricultural programs is an area in which large improvements should be made." 

			






Document Number: 2796 

			

	GM-Free Nijmegen ....and new South Wales

		Saturday, 02 July 2011 10:34	
2.New South Wales extends GM crop moratorium until 2021
NOTE: Good news, not least (item 1) from probably the most staunchly pro-GM country (in terms of its political elite) in 
COMMENT from Diederick Sprangers of the Genethics Foundation: Finally the GE-free regions' movement seems to be gaining momentum in 
: the city of Nijmegen was declared GE-free last night! I attach a news message I wrote about it for GMWatch and GENET. I should add that although I live in Nijmegen, I was not in the citizens' working group who started this... It was a true citizens' initiative, which I think adds to its relevance.
1.Dutch city of Nijmegen GE-free
In the Netherlands, the Community Council of Nijmegen last night declared the city GE-free. After 
, this is only the third GE-free region in the country, whose national government considers itself neutral as to GE agriculture, but is seen as a staunch supporter of it by industry, other governments and civil society alike.
The city of Culemborg declared itself GE-free in 2004, but after that no Dutch region was added to the growing movement of GE-free regions in Europe for a long time. 
, however, the province of Friesland followed, declaring that it would refuse both commercial GE crops and field trials until a debate between farmers, politicians and experts would allow the provincial administration to take a final position on the issue. Both in Culemborg and Friesland, the initiative came from the green party, GroenLinks. In Nijmegen, however, a group of citizens started in 2009 to inform themselves and hold debates with farmers, shop keepers and citizens. The group, calling itself "Citizens for GE-free food", wanted to raise awareness on GE in food and agriculture. Awareness was exactly what was missing among local politicians as well as citizens upon an earlier attempt in 2003 by Milieudefensie (the Dutch branch of Friends of the Earth) to have Nijmegen declared GE-free.
The "Citizens for GE-free food" put a lot of work into it and came up with a Citizens' Initiative. In Nijmegen (a city of 164.000 inhabitants), this instrument requires 100 signatures to put an issue on the agenda of the Community Council. The group collected 4000 signatures and handed in their Initiative to the Community Council 
 The Initiative requested the Community Council to tackle the issue in four steps:
1 – make a statement in the press declaring the city GE-free, referring to the citizens' objections listed in the initiative, and send this statement to the national government and the national parliament;
2 – get legal advice on the options available to local authorities within the framework of the EU Directive 2001/18, to protect regular and organic agriculture from undesired GMO presence;
3 – communicate the citizens' concerns on GMO safety to companies wishing to start field trials within the community;
4 – draw up a formal Note on Sustainability setting out a community policy for this, based on more than just the national guidelines on sustainability and including the notion "GE-free".
After intensive lobbying by the group and two debates in the Council, last night a 23 to 16 majority of the Council voted in favour of accepting the Citizens' Initiative. The green party, the socialist party, the social democrats and the United Senior Party voted in favour; the liberals, the Christian democrats, the liberal democrats (D66) and two local parties voted against. The decision ignored an earlier advice by the city's administration (mayor and aldermen) to reject the Initiative; this negative advice is thought to have been prompted by the presence of D66 in the local governing coalition with the greens and the social democrats.
The "Citizens for GE-free food" will now continue and advise the Council on carrying out the four points of the Initiative.
Diederick Sprangers, Genethics Foundation
2.CDP Supports GM Moratorium Extension Bill
http://www.cdp.org.au/federal-media-release/862-cdp-supports-gm-moratorium-extension-bill.html
The Rev Hon Fred Nile MLC, Leader of the Christian Democratic Party, has supported the 'Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment (Postponement of Expiry) Bill 2011' in the 
"On behalf of the Christian Democratic Party I support the Gene Technology (GM Crop Moratorium) Amendment (Postponement of Expiry) Bill 2011. I remember the heated debates in this House when the original bill was introduced in 2003. I agree that the Hon. Ian Macdonald deserves a pat on the back for pursuing this approach, in spite of a tremendous amount of criticism directed against the policy and against him personally. This amending bill will remove the expiry date of the Act of 
 and extend it for a further 10 years, to 
. As other members have said, GM crops need to be subject to careful regulation, which is enforced by the Commonwealth. Careful regulation is needed to ensure that buffer zones are maintained and non-GM crops on organic farms are protected. This regulation must be dealt with calmly and scientifically, with no fear campaigns. Hopefully the various trials that are underway will provide further evidence of where GM crops can be grown and
benefit to the community. If the expiry date in this Act were not extended, GM food plants would be cultivated in 
 without requiring approval by the State Government. That would be the worst possible outcome. Extending the Act for 10 years imposes a blanket prohibition on the commercial cultivation of GM food plants in New South Wales", said Rev Fred Nile.
"The Minister for Primary Industries has the power to approve the commercial cultivation of specific GM food crops only if certain criteria are met by the applicant. For that reason we need careful regulation of GM crops. In 
 GM canola was approved for commercial cultivation in New South Wales. The moratorium on all other GM food plants remains in place. GM cotton is the only other GM crop grown in New South Wales but as it is not a food plant it is not subject to this legislation. As we always take note of the views of the NSW Farmers Association, I am pleased that it has confirmed its support for GM crops-although some members of The Nationals in this place have some reservations. The NSW Farmers Association has also confirmed its support to extend the Act for a further 10 years. Reducing the time frame to a period of less than 10 years poses an unnecessary administrative burden and offers less certainty for the industry and the community. We are pleased to support the bill", Rev Nile stated.

			






Document Number: 8642 

			

	GM food labelling battle hots up

		Tuesday, 26 July 2011 16:54	
1.Find out about the GMO 'Right2Know' March 
2.The Great Food Labelling Debate
EXTRACT: The biotech industry has been determined to stop labelling in Canada and the U.S., revealing how important this lack of consumer choice is to securing the future of GM foods. (item 2)
Find out about the GMO 'Right2Know' March from New York City to the White House: Oct. 1-16
This bold mobilization plans to raise awareness and pressure the government about the lack of labeling of GM foods in the US.  
The 2-week GMO Right2Know March will feature daily events between New York and Washington, D.C., October 1-16 as thousands of marchers are expected to walk part or all of the 313 miles from the United Nations' Headquarters to the White House. The marchers are looking for support from communities along the route which can be viewed at Right2KnowMarch.org.  
The March will rally in a broad swath of East Coast cities and towns including:
*New York: Brooklyn, New York City
*New Jersey: Jersey City, Newark, Millburn, Union, Springfield, Scotch Plains, New Brunswick, Princeton
*Pennsylvania: Morrisville, Trevose, Jenkintown, Philadelphia, Springfield
*Delaware: Wilmington, Hockessin, Newark
*Maryland: Darlington, Monkton, Timonium, Baltimore, Elicott City, Jessup, Laurel, College Park, Takoma Park, and 
http://www.right2knowmarch.org/
The Great Food Labelling Debate
http://www.themarknews.com/articles/6187-the-great-food-labelling-debate
After 16 years of bitter negotiations, the world reaches agreement on the labelling of genetically modified foods.
While consumer groups around the world celebrated the July 5 United Nations Codex agreement on labelling genetically modified (GM) foods, the biotechnology industry argued that the final document achieved nothing new. In fact, industry came close to denying there was an agreement at all. After 16 years of negotiations, these two radically different responses to the final document can be explained by the high stakes involved, arguably the future of global markets for GM foods.
It is voluntary and now technically "guidance" rather than "guidelines," but the new international agreement on labelling GM foods, two decades in the making, was bitterly fought over. The biotechnology industry, with its initial power base in the U.S. and Canada, is adamantly opposed to labelling, afraid that, given the choice, consumers around the world will reject GM foods, as seen in Europe. The stakes were so high that the U.S. government – with varying support from Canada and a handful of food exporting countries, including Argentina and Australia – continually tried to stop the Codex negotiations altogether. After two decades, however, food safety regulators from around the world finally agreed upon a few words that have huge global import.
The Codex Alimentarius Commission is the global food standards-setting body of the UN Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization. Most importantly, it is the reference point for food standards under the World Trade Organization (WTO) and is used in settling trade disputes. According to consumer groups, the new Codex document provides nations with protection from trade challenges over GM food labelling laws.
The World Health Organization's own press office announced that the "Codex Alimentarius Commission (on Food Labelling) has stated that governments are free to decide on whether and how to label foods derived from modern biotechnology, including foods containing genetically modified organisms." The announcement adds, "The labelling should be done in conformity with the text approved by the Codex Commission, to avoid potential trade barriers."
The agreed-upon words that secure the freedom to label look innocuous. The final text simply states, "Different approaches regarding labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology are used." While this is far from earlier proposals, where Codex "recognizes that each country can adopt different approaches regarding labeling," it achieves the same goal.
Michael Hansen, a senior staff scientist with Consumers Union, a non-profit organization in the United States that publishes Consumer Reports, describes the outcome as "more of a huge defeat for industry than a giant win for consumers. Consumers were working to get guidelines for labelling, but the whole process was hijacked by this tie to the WTO." Hansen, who was present at negotiations for over 15 years, says, "Industry had been trying to crush this deal since 1995 and they finally gave up."
Trade challenges or the threat of them are powerful deterrents to labelling laws. Without the Codex wording, labelling laws would be vulnerable to a challenge at the WTO. Canada, the U.S. and Argentina have already set a precedent for a joint trade challenge in order to open markets to GM foods. Canada abandoned its WTO dispute over the European Union's de facto moratorium on GM crop approvals in 2009, when it became clear that Canada had won the fight regardless, arguably partly because of the persuasive force of the challenge.
The European Union, Japan, Thailand, Korea, China, Russia, and Brazil, among others, already have labelling laws they want to protect. Additionally, Codex food safety standards are widely adopted by developing countries seeking regulatory guidance, and African governments in particular fought to keep the Codex negotiations alive and bring them to a conclusion. While facing various pressures from the U.S. and industry to accept GM crops and foods, African and Latin American governments are also under domestic pressure to label.
If vulnerability to trade challenges is no longer a disincentive to mandatory labelling, it could be argued that no less than the global future of GM crops is at stake. If countries in Africa start labelling GM foods, what impact will this have on the industry's public-relations campaign to "feed the world" with GM?
The final text gives little indication of the drama and acrimony of the negotiations that produced it. Sixteen years of meetings with government delegations from 50 or more countries finally resulted in a few lines that introduce a list of existing Codex standards.
Industry is able to argue that the final agreement is just a compilation of texts because that is what it is called, and what it looks like. However, the two small paragraphs that precede the list of existing Codex documents have huge implications, as do the references to these other documents. The final text was relentlessly fought over and whittled down to a purposefully worded preamble and references to Codex documents, including on GM risk assessment, that themselves are the product of years of negotiation.
Canada's supporting role to the U.S. at Codex was clear for many years. The Codex Committee on Food Labelling negotiations laboured for years with chairs from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and then Health Canada. The Canadian delegation encouraged the Codex committee to discontinue its work, saying that the matter should be left to the free market. At a 2009 meeting in Calgary, Canadian chair Paul Mayers proposed that, due to lack of consensus, the committee pause for three sessions.
However, public pressure in Canada helped turn around the Canadian government’s position. Mayers later played a positive role, chairing a special facilitated working group that came up with the final wording and pushing it to the commission for final approval. Canada eventually left the U.S. to argue its case alone, and the U.S. government finally gave up.
When it comes to international agreements, the devil, however, is not just in the details but also in the implementation. Apparently, spin also has a role. It is critically important how countries understand the implications of this agreement.
The biotech industry has been determined to stop labelling in Canada and the U.S., revealing how important this lack of consumer choice is to securing the future of GM foods. If the threat of trade challenges serves to deter countries from labelling GM foods, freedom from that threat may alter the global trajectory of genetic modification.
*Lucy Sharratt: Co-ordinator, Canadian Biotechnology Action Network

			






Document Number: 8574 

			

	Bayer doesn't want us to know what it's doing to our food supply

		Tuesday, 26 July 2011 13:43	
Bayer says its latest GMO application is "copyright" protected, according to an article in the July 15, 2011 edition of EU Food Policy. 
Bayer CropScience and MS Technologies have applied for approval for the import and processing of FG72 soybean for food and feed uses (excluding cultivation). The dossier has gone to EFSA for the risk assessment.
EU Food Policy says Bayer CropScience is claiming confidentiality for two studies - Verhaeghe 2009 and Verhaeghe 2011 - and all documents relating to the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing.
It is also saying that even the non-confidential part of the dossier is “copyright protected and must not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written consent of the authors".
EU Food Policy says NGOs have been campaigning for more information to be made public in GMO dossiers and their call is supported by many politicians who want to see wider access to the information on which approvals are based.
In June this year, the NGO Earth Open Source published on the internet documents relating to the EU's approval of the pesticide glyphosate/Roundup. 
The documents revealed that industry knew from its own tests as long ago as the 1980s that glyphosate causes birth defects in lab animals at high doses, and from the 1990s that these effects occurred at lower and mid doses. 
The documents also showed the creative attempts by Germany, the 'rapporteur' member state for glyphosate, to whitewash the findings of birth defects.
However, the published documents did not include details of the actual tests done by industry, which remain hidden from the public.
In its report on the 30-year coverup (
http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5
), EOS called for all information on which pesticide approvals are based – especially the industry studies submitted to regulators in support of the approvals – to be published on the internet. 
This must also apply to GMOs, food additives, chemicals, and other substances that industry want us to consume/use without question.
It's clear that the public is demanding more transparency about the scientific justifications behind regulators' approvals of risky products. Bayer's desperate attempt to hide this important information speaks volumes about its practices and motives. 

			






Document Number: 4437 

			

	White House pact with industry to push GM crops

		Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:31	
White House Pact with Industry to Push Genetically Engineered Plants
http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/25563-white-house-pactwith-industry-
In an effort to boost exports, the Obama White House has entered into a joint venture with the agricultural biotechnology industry to remove barriers to the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, even on national wildlife refuges, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  Today, PEER sued the White House Trade Representative, Office of Management &amp; Budget (OMB) and the State Department to force release of documents detailing their partnership with industry.
Recent successful lawsuits brought by PEER with the Center for Food Safety have underlined the incompatibility of GE crops with refuge habitats, which has strengthened objections from GE-averse nations. The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world's biggest source of GE crops, approached the Obama White House for assistance. In late 2010, the White House formed an interagency "Agriculture Biotech Working Group" consisting of more than 35 officials from ten agencies to promote GE agriculture.  This Working Group includes officials from the White House and its OMB, Office of Science &amp; Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Trade Rep.  It also has officials from State, Justice, Agriculture, EPA and FDA.
A central task of this Working Group is to legally insulate GE crops on refuges from further litigation. Initially, it tried to pressure the U.S. Fish &amp; Wildlife Service, which operates the National Wildlife Refuge System, to rescind its Ecological Integrity Policy, which forbids GE planting unless found to be essential to accomplishing a refuge purpose.  Working with BIO, these officials then helped prepare environmental assessments to start paving a legal path for GE plantings on 75 refuges in 30 states.  
"With all the environmental challenges facing this country, why is the White House priority putting wildlife refuges under the thumb of Monsanto?" asked PEER Staff Counsel Kathryn Douglass, who filed today's Freedom of Information Act suits. "It is frankly depressing that the top White House official for ecosystem recovery is hustling genetically altered soybeans on slivers of land set aside for wildlife."
PEER has submitted Freedom of Information Act requests to most of the agencies in the Working Group. Today's suits target three key agencies which have not turned over any documents.  PEER has obtained fragmentary documents including a January 14, 2011 email from Deputy Interior Secretary David Hayes relaying pressure from Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that refuges were "not being consistent in supporting genetically modified crops."  Perhaps more telling are decisions to withhold records showing:
*The depth of collusion with industry.  OSTP, for example, is withholding key portions of its correspondence with a BIO lobbyist on the grounds that it reveals proprietary information;
*What other actions the White House is pursuing to promote GE crops; and
*Other unannounced industry partnerships the White House has spawned.
"We are on the ground floor of our climb to reach answers to these questions," added Douglass, who is pursuing further record releases from the other agencies involved.  "One thing we do know is this Biotech Working Group exhibits the opposite of the transparent, science-based decision-making we were promised from this administration."
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) is a national alliance of local state and federal resource professionals. PEER's environmental work is solely directed by the needs of its members. As a consequence, we have the distinct honor of serving resource professionals who daily cast profiles in courage in cubicles across the country.

			






Document Number: 9214 

			

	Fedoroff declares war against EPA over GM

		Sunday, 24 July 2011 23:19	

NOTE: More about pro-GM zealot Nina Fedoroff here:
http://www.gmwatch.org/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=11942
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/11954
Scientists protest EPA proposal to expand biotech regulation
Friday July 22 2011, Volume: 53  Issue: 19, Food Chemical News
http://climate-connections.org/2011/07/22/scientists-protest-epa-proposal-to-expand-biotech-regulation/
More than 60 members of the National Academy of Sciences, led by outspoken biotech advocate Nina Federoff, have written EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to protest what they describe as a proposal "to further expand [EPA's] regulatory coverage over transgenic crops in a way that cannot be justified on the basis of either scientific evidence or evidence gained over the past several decades..."
"The increased regulatory burdens that would result from this expansion would impose steep barriers to scientific innovation and product development across all sectors of our economy and would not only fail to enhance safety, but would likely prolong reliance on less safe and obsolete practices," the NAS scientists say in a July 5 letter, a copy of which was obtained by Food Chemical News.
The three-page letter, which also was signed by Nobel laureates James Watson and Gunter Blobel, among others, addresses a March 16 Federal Register notice in which EPA proposes a rule to codify data requirements for plant-incorporated protectants (PIPs). "Based on initial reviews of that draft proposal and recent EPA actions associated with biotechnology-derived crops, it is clear that the agency is departing from a science-based regulatory process, walking down a path towards one based on the controversial European ‘precautionary principle' that goes beyond codifying data requirements for substances regulated as PIPs for the past 15 years," the scientists say.
They say they are "particularly troubled by proposals to expand EPA's oversight into areas such as virus resistance and weediness that have been adequately addressed by USDA since 1986. Already, EPA has expanded its oversight into virus resistance, which previously had been the purview of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and which EPA prudently proposed in 1994 to exempt from its regulations. With the draft proposed rules, EPA would further expand its regulations and data demands to other areas historically covered by [APHIS] without the slightest justification based on either data or experience."
The letter adds that it is "most troubling that EPA also is proposing to increase its regulation to cover matters which are still not deemed to be threats even after years of study, such as potential gene transfer from plants to soil microorganisms. In other actions, EPA has expressed its right to regulate plants engineered for altered growth (e.g., by suppression of ethylene production), the same way it regulates synthetic plant growth regulators. The agency does so based on a generous interpretation of the enabling legislation, despite the absence of any scientifically credible hazard."
The scientists warn, in their letter, that EPA's proposed regulatory expansion would: (1) create a duplicative regulatory system for very low risk products; (2) increase costs, reduce efficiency and prolong the review times, thereby discouraging innovation; (3) dramatically increase the hurdles already facing academic institutions and companies attempting to improve so-called minor use or specialty crops; and (4) adversely affect trade in commodities produced by U.S. growers because of the stigma attached to anything characterized as a "pesticide."
Such expanded regulation "would serve only to increase costs, hinder research, undermine the long-term viability of public university research programs, and limit product development from the private sector. The proposed actions would threaten our ability to produce high quality food at an affordable price and feed a growing population," the letter concludes.
Established by President Lincoln in 1863, the NAS is an honorific society composed of scientists who serve pro bono as "advisers to the nation on science, engineering and medicine." New NAS members are elected annually by current members, based on distinguished and continuing achievements in original research. The academy currently has approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes.
A prominent geneticist who received the 2006 National Medal of Science, Federoff served as science and technology adviser to the Secretary of State and USAID administrator from 2007 until last year. She was a featured speaker at last year's USDA's Agricultural Outlook Forum (see FCN Feb. 22, 2010, Page 29). Copies of her letter reportedly were sent to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and other high-ranking officials in the Obama administration and Congress.


			






Document Number: 5318 

			

	More on anti-GM protest at John Innes Centre

		Sunday, 24 July 2011 14:31	
NOTE: TV news report on the protest on YouTube: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REZwCEZqoSU&amp;feature=player_embedded
And below's the full text of the press piece we posted yesterday, plus a comment. For more on the John Innes Centre: 
http://www.powerbase.info/index.php/John_Innes_Centre
Anti-GM protesters descend on John Innes Centre, in Norwich
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/health/anti_gm_protesters_descend_on_john_innes_centre_in_norwich_1_972864
A group of more than 60 protesters descended on the gates of the John Innes Centre in Norwich today as part of a campaign against genetically modified potatoes.
A group of more than 60 protesters descended on the gates of the John Innes Centre in Norwich today as part of a campaign against genetically modified potatoes.
Carrying banners saying ‘stop gambling with our chips’, the group met at The Forum before travelling down The Sainsbury Laboratory, near the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, by bike or marching in a group.
At the heart of the protest was a tractor pulling 20kg of organic potatoes that were left at the centre.
People had travelled from London, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales and even France to be a part of demonstration against scientists’ work to trial blight-resistant GM potatoes.
They said that there are six natural varieties that are already blight-resistant, making this publically-funded work ‘absurd’.
The group claim that researchers at the laboratory have spent £1.7m trying to develop a potato resistant to the fungal disease, but the centre said this money has been spent across five project, with much of it on fundamental research not related to this trial.
Farmer Gerald Miles, of Pembrokeshire, drove a tractor to the front of the centre’s gates, before the 40 boxes of organic potatoes were left at there and under the entrance sign.
Mr Miles, 63, said that the blight-resistant organic Sarpo Mira variety from Hungary he had with him were “really wonderful”.
He said: “In the past I have grown 50-60 acres of potatoes for 40 years. I think this is absolutely a big stepping stone in farming and am appalled we are wasting money and research in trying to create a genetically modified blight resistant potato when we already have six varieties.”
At the protest was former organic farmer Peter Reeve, of Robertson Close, Sheringham, who said he was very interested in Mr Miles’ farming of these varieties.
Mr Reeve, 80, said that serious questions had to be asked about the long time potential impacts of genetic modification.
He said: “I accept there is good science going into this but very valid questions have to be asked and they can’t be brushed off. The science and research need to be better.”
Professor Jonathan Jones, of the centre, said that the idea of replacing the current industrial agriculture with the organic potatoes was “never going to happen”.
He said that these organic variety of potatoes were not popular with consumers but said he was closer to the protesters way of thinking than they thought. He said that the GM potatoes would help the environment as they would reduce CO2 emissions as they would not need to be sprayed with pesticide so often.
“We all want to reduce the environmental impact of agriculture,” he said.
The centre says that UK farmers spend an average of £60m a year controlling blight, with worldwide losses of approximately £3.5bn.
The protest was watched by a significant police presence, with groups of officers at every gate and a police helicopter.
Mr Jones said: “It is unfortunate that there is a big cost of police time and the reason is that we tried to engage with the protesters and find what they wanted, but weren’t able to get them on the phone, only emails, so we didn’t know many people would show up and did not have reassurances there wouldn’t be vandalism.”
A spokesman for the police said the protest passed peacefully.
Professor Jones says the varieties of potatoes promoted by the protesters were not popular with the public. He really means with the manufacturers of potato products who have been rather conservative in their choice of potato. They really need to take another look at the varieties on offer. The non-GM blight resistant potatoes highlighted by the protesters have been developed by the Savari Trust. Sarpo mira (the oldest of the Sarvari varieties in the UK) has been around for about a decade and so far shows no sign of the blight resistance breaking down. The Trust are the first to admit that their varieties are not Maris Piper. This remains the most popular commercial variety because it fits the production requirements for crisp and chip manufacturers and supermarkets. It has high dry matter (needed for frying) , and uniform shape and size for ease of processing and maximum yield after grading. Has the John Innes Centre produced any evidence that such qualities in Desirees ( the GM variety they are trialing) are retained in their GM blight resistant potatoes. Previous research on GM potatoes has produced unexpected results eg changed starch composition in GM potatoes produced at Oxford by Chris Leaver's research team in the 1990s. However, several Sarvari varieties are good for chipping – Axona, Sarpo Mira and Blue Danube. What is more the JIC persistently ignore is their other qualities which make them very attractive for the future when costs of fossil-fuel based inputs carry on rising. I am told for instance that Sarpo mira, in addition to very good resistance to foliage and tuber blight, is resistant to common viruses and black leg (another fungal disease). Its vigorous top growth means that weeds are shaded out cutting out the need for herbicides and its deep roots mean it can withstand drought periods and access nutrients from deep saving water and feritisers. Another positive is that it can be stored at ambient temperature because it does not sprout until late in store – this saves fuel. Would the JIC be able to genetically modify all this into Maris Piper and end up with something that they could still call Maris Piper. I think not. The variety can be harvested at any stage depending on the market aimed for - eg early harvest for salad size tubers. It will carry on growing until the first frost. The agronomy of growing Sarvari potatoes needs further study but they obviously have massive potential for the future when resource prices and water could be limiting factors.

			






Document Number: 4987 

			

        

		"Saving lives and limbs with a (GM) weed" 
There's been a huge amount of publicity over the past few years about how GM plants are going to solve the problem of landmine detection. News items around the globe—from the New York Times to the BBC—have trumpeted the life saving potential of plants genetically modified to "Red Detect": change from green to red when grown near to landmines or unexploded ordinance. 
In 2004 Reuters reported under the headline "
Flower-power could help clear landmines
" that the biotech company behind red detect hoped to have a prototype on the market "within a couple of years".
Three years later, TIME Magazine reported under the headline "
Saving lives and limbs with a weed
" that Aresa hoped to "have a reliable land-mine-detecting thale-cress in about two years and hopes to apply similar biotech to detect larger, unexploded ordnance and eventually to cull antibodies from plants."
But it emerged in late 2008 that the technology had failed. 
 the tests in Serbia did not produce a positive result (none of the plants changed colours to red)" (emphasis added). The scientific staff had been fired, reported Aresa, and the firm was seeking to transform itself from a biotech firm into a property company
 as a "far less risky" investment strategy.
"Flower-power could help clear landmines"
, Reuters, 28 January 2004, accessed 10 June 2009
"Saving lives and limbs with a weed"
, TIME, 13 November 2007, accessed 10 June 2009
"Aresa: A new start after the red card"
, Praetorian Research, 31 October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"Aresa: Less risk - same focus"
, Praetorian Research, 18 September 2008, accessed 10 June 2009 

			






Document Number: 4194 

			

        
In an article published in the LA Times in  1997, Claude M. Fauquet, a French plant virologist, predicted that a food  crisis was coming in the decades ahead. He said, "We need to improve  production. [With some crops], biotech is our only hope." One such crop  was cassava. At the time, Fauquet was leading a California-based team  which was working on producing a cassava genetically modified to resist the  devastating cassava mosaic virus or cassava mosaic disease. 
GM, claimed Fauquet, "could double, triple, quadruple production of  African crops." In the case of cassava, Fauquet told the 
, the  typical yield in Africa was 4 tons per acre. But "Fauquet maintains that  resistance to viruses could boost that tenfold. A mere doubling of production,  he added, 'would represent food independence for the African continent.'"
 had been created in 1995 and field-testing was  originally planned for 1999.
 Fauquet's  research went on to be hosted by the 
Donald Danforth Plant Science Center
. The  Danforth Center was launched with a $70-million pledge from Monsanto, which  also donated the Center's 40-acre tract of land, near Monsanto's home town of  St. Louis, Missourri, valued at $11.4 million.
 The  Danforth Center has heavily promoted GM as the key to unlocking the full potential  of cassava.
 in late 2005 reported that although  millions were starving in Africa, "The Donald Danforth Plant Science  Center says it can feed the continent with cassava, a potato-like crop that a  virus has decimated." The Post-Dispatch also reported that although this  life sustaining GM cassava was ready to be field tested, it was not being taken  up by African countries in the way the Danforth center would like: "The  center, in Creve Coeur, has leafy, virus resistant plants ready to give away.  But no one in Africa is taking them. Field test approvals are stalled in Kenya,  Malawi and Nigeria." According to Lawrence Kent, the Center's then  director of international programs, "One delay could mean that a million  people are going to be hungry for six months... I think, this is serious and we  have to fight to make it happen."
But less than 9 months later, the 
Danforth Center quietly admitted
 that its GM  cassava varieties had lost their resistance to the virus. This was despite the  fact that the GM cassava had been said to be ready for field trials for the  past 7 years and the Danforth Center's website had proclaimed "transgenic  plants developed at the Danforth Center have demonstrated strong resistance to  the disease in greenhouse trials over multiple years."
,  "the resistance was subsequently lost, and [changes to] the plant's DNA  had taken place."
held out promises on its website
 that its:  "virus-resistance technology will initially be deployed in the East  African region's most popular [cassava] cultivar - Ebwanatareka - for adoption  by the 22,000 Kenyan farming families…. the project will help 200,000 Kenyan  cassava farmers and their families and increase cassava harvests by 50% on a  sustainable basis."
 Similar  benefits were also promised to neighbouring Uganda and to millions of farmers  throughout Africa. But those promises turned out to be false. The Danforth  Center's partner in Kenya was KARI (Kenya Agricultural Research Institute) -  the research institute that had previously been used to field trial 
 - a showcase project which had garnered many  headlines declaring its remarkable success. But the GM cassava had failed even  before it had made it out of KARI's greenhouses.
Despite this, barely more than 6 months later, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch was  
running exactly the same claims for the GM cassava
 all over again. This time  they formed part of an eye-catching series of articles with titles such as  "Can biotech from St. Louis solve hunger in Africa?" with emotive  images and sub-headings like "Stunted children". According to the  Post-Dispatch, "The center is trying to give away a genetically engineered  cassava, one of the most important foods in Africa. A spreading virus is wiping  out the crop. The St Louis scientists think they have the cure."
The  Post-Dispatch also told its readers
, "Scientists genetically engineered  the plant in 1999 to resist the virus. Since then, they have been trying to  give the technology away."
This made it sound like the Danforth Center had long been hammering on Africa's  doors with a viable GM product that could cure hunger and plant disease  susceptibility, if only African governments would be sensible enough to buy  into it. In reality, the GM cassava was stuck at the experimental stage - a  stage it appears to still be stuck at to this day despite Monsanto having  poured millions into the project. In 2006 alone Monsanto is reported to have  given the Danforth Center a further $7.5 million for cassava work.
Meanwhile, despite all the hype about GM being "our only  hope", conventional non-GM plant breeding has been quietly and  successfully producing virus resistant cassavas for a number of years, and they  are already making a difference in farmers' fields. IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture) has developed a cassava  through conventional breeding which has a high level of resistance to several  diseases, including the Cassava Bacterial Blight (CBB) and Cassava Mosaic Disease  (CMD), and is also drought resistant, increasing yield under drought 6- to  10-fold.
The reality for cassava farmers of the success of conventional non-GM plant breeding is underscored by the FAO - Food and  Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations - which in 2008 reported that farmers are now  harvesting healthy virus-resistant cassava throughout the Great Lakes region of  central Africa where the cassava mosaic virus is particularly virulent.  "By the last planting season, virus-free cassava planting material had  been distributed to some 330 000 smallholders in countries struck by the virus  - Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda. The improved  crop now benefits a total of some 1.65 million people," the FAO reported.
Food and Agricultural Organisation online discussion
,  Paul Anderson, Executive Director of International Programs at the Danforth  Center, said in answer to a comment by another participant about the failure of  the GM cassava project: "To speak of success or failure during the  experimental phase of this or other research is not appropriate, as scientists  are aware."
But no such rejoinder was ever made to those employed by Anderson's own Center,  which garnered many column inches by claiming their GM cassava was going to  save Africa by doubling or quadrupling production - or even increasing it  tenfold. There is no problem, it seems, with years of speculative hyperbole  about the enormous benefits experimental GM crops are imminently about to  deliver. Only talk of failure is illegitimate.
"Plant Researchers Offer  Bumper Crop of Humanity"
"Plant Researchers Offer  Bumper Crop of Humanity"
4. Eric Hand, "Hungry African nations  balk at biotech cassava: the politics of biotechnology", 
, African Centre for Biosafety, September 2006, accessed 27 June 2009
"Danforth Center cassava viral resistance update"
, Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, 30 June 2006, accessed 27 June 2009
, African Centre for Biosafety, September 2006, accessed 27 June 2009
Millions served - the GM sweet  potato
"Can biotech from St.  Louis solve hunger in Africa?"
, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 9  December 2006,
"St. Louis team fights  crop killer in Africa"
, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10 December  2006
"St. Louis team fights  crop killer in Africa"
, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 10 December  2006
"Farmers get better yields from new drought-tolerant cassava"
,  United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, 13 November 2008
14. E-mail message from Paul Anderson, Executive Director of  International Programs at the Donald Danforth Plant Science Center, via  Biotech-Mod4 &lt;
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
&gt;,  18 June 2009 09:13:59, Subject: 46: Re: GM cassava - CMVD resistance. To: 
 
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 

			






Document Number: 2137 

			

        

		"Millions served" - the GM sweet potato
," ran the headline in the US magazine Forbes over an article that declared, "While the West debates the ethics of genetically modified food, Florence Wambugu is using it to feed her country."
 is the Monsanto-trained scientist who headed up a project to create a genetically engineered virus-resistant sweet potato for farmers in Kenya. It was a showcase project intended to position GM as the saviour of Africa, and Florence Wambugu travelled the world promoting it. 
 "In Africa GM food could almost literally weed out poverty," she told 
 she wrote, "There is urgent need for the development and use of agricultural biotechnology in Africa to help to counter famine, environmental degradation and poverty. Africa must enthusiastically join the biotechnology revolution."
 Such a revolution, she told a 
, could pull "the African continent out of decades of economic and social despair".
 She was also invited to contribute to the New York Times, and to appear on CNN as well as several American TV shows.
 Her media popularity was understandable. The results of sub-Saharan Africa's first GM crop were "astonishing", according to the article in 
 Yields were "double that of the regular plant", with "potatoes bigger and richer in colour", indicating they'd retained more nutritional value. For hungry Africa, we were told, "Wambugu's modified sweet potato offers tangible hope". 
report published in January 2004
, the Nuffield Council on Bio-ethics said the project "could prevent dramatic and frequent reductions in yield of one of the major food crops of many poor people in Africa."
 Contrast such claims with the actual results of the 3-year trials - quietly published at the end of January 2004. Under the headline "
GM technology fails local potatoes
", Kenya's Daily Nation reported, "Trials to develop a virus resistant sweet potato through biotechnology have failed. US biotechnology, imported three years ago, has failed to improve Kenya's sweet potato."
 In fact, far from dramatically out-yielding the non-GM sweet potatoes, the exact opposite was the case: "The report indicates that during the trials non-transgenic crops used as a control yielded much more tuber compared to the transgenic". The GM crop was also found to be susceptible to viral attack - the very thing it had been created to resist. 
 New Scientist also reported the GM crop's failure ("
Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails
 as did an article in the British daily paper, The Guardian. The success of the GM sweet potato had previously been reported in literally hundreds of articles, even generating headlines like 
Transgenic sweet potato could end Kenyan famine
 Even before the results were announced, Aaron deGrassi of the Institute of Development Studies had revealed how people had been seriously misled about the GM sweet potato project. According to a piece in the 
, "Dr. Wambugu's modified sweet potato... can increase yields from four tonnes per hectare to 10 tonnes."
 repeats exactly the same figures: "Dr. Wambugu... said the modified sweet potato seeds should be able to produce 10 tonnes of vegetables per hectare compared with a natural Kenyan crop that yields four tonnes per hectare."
 But deGrassi examined all the available data and 
, "Accounts of the transgenic sweet potato have used low figures on average yields in Kenya to paint a picture of stagnation... FAO statistics indicate 9.7 tons, and official statistics report 10.4."
 In other words, Wambugu's figures on average non-GM yields understate the reality by as much as 60%. So if, as Wambugu claimed, her GM sweet potato were producing 10 tonnes per hectare, then rather than roughly doubling normal yields, the GM sweet potato would be performing no better than the conventional crop.
 Aaron deGrassi also drew attention to the contrast between the unproven GM sweet potato variety and a successful conventional breeding programme in Uganda which had already produced a new high-yielding variety which was virus-resistant and "raised yields by roughly 100%". The Ugandan project achieved success at a small cost and in just a few years. The GM sweet potato, in contrast, in over 12 years in the making, consumed funding from Monsanto, the World Bank and USAID to the tune of 6 million dollars. 
 Nothing could better illustrate deGrassi's point that "the excitement over certain genetic engineering procedures can divert financial, human, and intellectual resources from focusing on productive research that meets the needs of poor farmers." 
, Forbes magazine, 23 December 2002, accessed 10 June 2009
2. Fred Pearce and Florence Wambugu, 
, New Scientist, 27 May 2000, accessed in the Gentech archive, 10 June 2009
3. Florence Wambugu, "Commentary: Why Africa needs agricultural biotech", Nature 400, 15-16, 1 July 1999, abstract 
"GM crops touted to fight poverty"
, National Post, 28 June 2003, accessed 10 June 2009
, Forbes magazine, 23 December 2002, accessed 10 June 2009
"The use of GM crops in developing countries"
, Nuffield Council on Bioethics, January 2004, p. 43, accessed 10 June 2009
"GM technology fails local potatoes"
, The Daily Nation (Kenya), 29 January 2004, accessed 10 June 2009 
"Monsanto's showcase project in Africa fails"
, New Scientist, Vol. 181, No. 2433, 7 February 2004, accessed 10 June 2009
"Transgenic sweet potato could end Kenyan famine"
, ENS, 15 September 2000, accessed 10 June 2009
, Globe &amp; Mail, 5 July 2003, accessed 10 June 2009 
"GM crops touted to fight poverty"
, National Post, 28 June 2003, accessed 10 June 2009
"Genetically modified crops and sustainable poverty alleviation in sub-Saharan Africa: An assessment of current evidence"
, Third World Network-Africa, June 2003, accessed 10 June 2009

			






Document Number: 3727 

			

        
, a former biotech specialist for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), "After 20 years of GM research and 13 years of commercialization, GM crops have a track record that allows us to evaluate their future prospects... The weak performance to date raises questions about how much more of our scarce research dollars should be devoted to this controversial technology... Let's be clear. As of this year, there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one."
Yet there have been articles in the world's press hyping GM's ability to do all of these things for many years. Similarly, there have been tens of thousands of articles about "miracle" crops genetically engineered for enhanced appearance, flavour, nutrition, to be allergen-free, to combat problems like tooth decay or obesity, or to protect against major diseases like cancer. Although there are no crops on the market anywhere in the world that actually do any of these things, stories reporting such GM ''miracles'' continue to win vast amounts of column inches. In GM Myths, we look at some classic examples of these attention grabbing stories. 
Some insight into what lies behind the publication of so many of these stories can be gained from a research project which monitored stories about GM published in the press in Britain over a six-month period. The study found that stories which "strongly imply reasons to support GM" – by uncritically reporting GM solutions to apparently intractable problems – were widely published in all types of newspapers. Revealingly, these stories regularly turned up even in newspapers with a sceptical editorial attitude to GM. The fact that these stories were essentially speculative rather than factual was no barrier to their publication: "Corpus analysis of the entire archive [of press reports on GM] reveal that this is a common feature of GM stories, though one which may be missed in casual readings which mistakenly conflate speculation with fact."
non-GM research into solving exactly the same kind of problems
 gets minimal if any reporting in the popular media, even though in many cases it is well ahead of the GM research and far more cost effective.
 Without GM's often exaggerated crisis narratives and claimed silver bullet solutions which ignore what are often complex scientific, socio-economic, political and cultural issues, it seems there is no story. 
Interestingly, when any of these much-hyped GM solutions fail, it seems to attract little media interest. In fact, media receptivity to GM "miracles" seems to be so preset, that some failed GM projects, or successful crop developments that have absolutely nothing to do with GM, have even been passed off by GM promoters as GM success stories.
Genetic engineering – a crop of hyperbole
", San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June 2008
Genetically Modified Language: The discourse of arguments for GM food
 bangmfood.org, accessed 25 June 2009

			






Document Number: 4257 

			

        

		Golden Rice "could save a million kids a year"
Golden Rice first hit the headlines in 2000 when it made the cover of TIME magazine with the claim, "This rice could save a million kids a year."
  Not to be outdone, U.S. President Bill Clinton declared, "If we could get more of this golden rice, which is a genetically modified strain of rice, especially rich in vitamin A, out to the developing world, it could save 40,000 lives a day, people that are malnourished and dying."
  According to Adrian Dubock, an executive of Zeneca, now part of Syngenta - the GM giant which at one stage hoped to market Golden Rice and commercialise it in richer countries, there was no time to lose: "One month delay = 50,000 blind children [a] month."
An article on CNN emphasized that Golden Rice was ready to be deployed: "GM food scientists have already developed a yellow rice, or ‘golden’ rice, that is rich in vitamin A and iron and helps prevent anemia and blindness, especially in children."
  An invitation from the United States Congress to a Special Congressional Forum, "Can Biotechnology Solve World Hunger?" went further, declaring that "'golden rice', which has been modified to include certain vitamins… is already saving the sight of thousands of children in the poorest parts of Asia."
But none of these claims were true. Not only was Golden Rice not "already saving the sight of thousands of children", there was no evidence to support the claim that it was capable of doing so.
The critical issue was the levels of expression of beta-carotene. 
 showed Golden Rice produced only small amounts of this vitamin A precursor, or provitamin A. Worse still, after the rice was cooked, the amount of provitamin A was reduced by another 50 per cent.
This was completely at odds with claims like this one from Zeneca's Adrian Dubock, made in 2000: "The levels of pro-vitamin A that the inventors were aiming at, and have achieved, are sufficient to provide the minimum level of pro-vitamin A to prevent the development of irreversible blindness affecting 500,000 children annually, and to significantly alleviate Vitamin A deficiency affecting 124,000,000 children in 26 countries."
But as the co-inventor of Golden Rice, Ingo Potrykus was forced to concede in 2001 when Greenpeace highlighted the criticisms of the low level of vitamin A precursor obtainable from Golden Rice: “I am happy to acknowledge, that Greenpeace is arguing on a rational basis… I also acknowledge, that Greenpeace has identified a weak point in the strategy of using Golden Rice for reducing vitamin A-deficiency… We will know for sure of course only, when all the standard biosafety assessments have been performed… we need far more data, than we have to date.”
, “We are, of course, also working on an increase in provitamin A concentration, and there are several possibilities we are testing.” He also said, “We have good reasons to believe, that the approach has a fair chance to be successful. We have to be patient for a few years, until this can be verified or falsified.”
Potrykus wasn’t the only one ready to acknowledge that considerably more work needed to be done. The same year, 
Gordon Conway, the head of the Rockefeller Foundation,
 which has funded the development of Golden Rice, wrote: "the public relations uses of Golden Rice have gone too far. The industry's advertisements and the media in general seem to forget that it is a research product that needs considerable further development before it will be available to farmers and consumers."
As the full extent of "the public relations uses of Golden Rice" became apparent, it triggered a critical response in parts of the media. The celebrated food writer Michael Pollan, for instance, wrote of 
  Naomi Klein was equally scathing in 
an article in Canada's Globe and Mail
Even though today Golden Rice still hasn’t reached farmers’ fields, Ingo Potrykus has claimed this is only because it is being obstructed by excessive regulation of GM crops. According to Potrykus, Golden Rice has been ready to be deployed since 2002. In the 
abstract of a presentation made to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in 2009
, Potrykus says that although “Golden Rice will not reach the farmer before 2012… If Golden Rice were not a GMO, development and registration would have been completed by 2002. The difference in time between traditional variety development and that of a GMO-based variety of ten years is due to routine, regulatory requirements. This difference translates, on the basis of the calculated impact, to far more than 400,000 lives lost.”
Other GM promoters have taken their cue from the claims made by Potrykus. 
, for instance, has claimed that the critics of Golden Rice may be responsible for more deaths than Stalin during the Great Famine in the Ukraine in the early 1930s in which millions died
 - the implication being that opposition to Golden Rice represents an even greater crime.
Such highly emotive claims are based on two premises - one, as stated, that Golden Rice has been available to be deployed since 2002 and has only been blocked from use by excessive regulation. The other key premise is unstated - that there is no alternative to Golden Rice that could be deployed in combating VAD. We’ll turn first to the question of the availability of Golden Rice.
Problem no. 1: Not enough vitamin A precursor
Golden Rice contained too little provitamin A
 to effectively combat vitamin A deficiency (VAD).
 This problem continued until 2005 when Syngenta, which was assisting the Golden Rice project, introduced a new variety of the rice called GR2, and registered it for patenting. In the new strain, the Syngenta scientists replaced the daffodil gene used by Potrykus with a maize gene that produces a significantly higher amount of provitamin A.
  Note that this only occurred three years after Potrykus now claims Golden Rice was ready to go into farmers’ fields. Efforts to improve Golden rice, by increasing the levels of or the bioavailability of pro-vitamin A and other nutrients, continue. And there are still many unanswered questions which make its reliability uncertain. 
Problem no. 2: Unanswered questions
Although the Golden Rice project has not in recent years published even the most simple and basic data, it has repeatedly been claimed that delays in commercialization are due to consumer rejection of GM crops in Europe and exaggerated criticisms by environmental organizations. However, this claim may be designed to deflect attention from the many questions that the project managers, the Golden Rice Humanitarian Board, have so far failed to answer.
(i) Is Golden Rice safe to eat?
No animal feeding trial data have been published, so basic toxicological safety has not been established. This has led to 
an international outcry from scientists
 protesting against clinical trials in which adults and children are being fed unapproved and inadequately tested Golden Rice.
 The results of these trials have not been published as of May 2009.
(ii) Is Golden Rice effective in treating vitamin A deficiency?
Tests on healthy adult humans published online
 are said to show that the beta-carotene in Golden Rice successfully converts to vitamin A.
  But the target consumers for Golden Rice are not healthy adults. People who suffer from vitamin A deficiency are frequently deficient in other nutrients, including ones that are vital to the absorption of vitamin A, such as fat. So this is an important question. But no results have been published. 
(iii) How much beta-carotene in Golden Rice degrades during storage?
No data have been published on this, even though the 
 stated that this was to be tested straight after the first field trials in 2004.
(iv) How much beta-carotene is left in Golden Rice after cooking?
No data have been published on this.
(v) What is Golden Rice’s biological and biochemical makeup?
inadequately described in published material
 Worryingly, GR2 is not a GM variety based on a single transformation event. On the contrary, the scientists who developed GR2 state: “The reported transgenic rice 
[emphasis added] are experimental.”
 Each GM transformation event can result in a completely different variety with unpredictable properties. This is why Europe’s GM approvals process requires “event specific characterization”. This is particularly of concern for the adults and children who are being fed Golden Rice in clinical trials. There is no way of knowing whether all the children or adults taking part in the trials were given Golden Rice from the same GR2 event. So the results of the clinical trials, as yet undisclosed, could be worthless.
(vi) Is Golden Rice stable over time?
No data on this have been published. 
Other GM crops have been found to be unstable
 in that their genetic makeup as revealed in tests has differed from that described by the company – and scrambling of the genome at the site of insertion sometimes occurs.
(vii) What environmental risks does Golden Rice present?
No data have been published on the environmental risks of Golden Rice, including the likelihood of its GM genes getting into other cultivated rice varieties or wild relatives.
(viii) Who has evaluated Golden Rice for approval?
Golden Rice has never been through a regulatory/approvals process
The Golden Rice Humanitarian Board has not been able to answer these most basic of questions about its product. In 
, Christoph Then comments, “This lack of transparency calls the entire authenticity of the project into question.”
Problem no. 3: Producing a reliable crop that appeals to farmers 
Golden Rice still needs to go through the process of being crossed with tried-and-tested local varieties in order to ensure that the final products can survive in local conditions before it is used in farmers' fields. For any kind of commercial crop, factors such as seed multiplication to a usable level, selection for adaptation to target environments, testing for UPOV requirements, field trials for performance either by breeders or national organisations and seed certification, all contribute to a "time drag" before exploitation. 
a recent submission to the UK's Royal Society
, the British Society of Plant Breeders indicated a 10-15 year requirement for production of new cereal varieties in the UK in straightforward programmes which involved little or no research input.
 The implication was that this estimate would be extended if there was a need for additional research in the initial stages of a programme to introduce an unusual character.
Ashok B. Sharma, who wrote an article in the Indian press
 in which Potrykus yet again blamed excessive regulation and the anti-GM lobby for delays in commercializing Golden Rice, pointed out that even in 2006, the product was still stuck in the lab: “Golden Rice in India is still at the stage of development in the labs and the developers are yet to apply for permission for contained field trials and hence Potrykus’ charges against Indian regulatory authority seems to be misplaced.”
, “Scientists at Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University and BRRI are transferring the new trait into 8 carefully selected Indian rice varieties.”
 In April 2008, a largely sympathetic article on Golden Rice in the journal Science admitted that, “There’s a long way to go” with this cross-breeding process. The article says, “Both the original Golden Rice, now called GR1, and GR2 were created with Japonica cultivars that are scientists’ favorites but fare poorly in Asian fields. Researchers are now backcrossing seven GR1 and GR2 lines with the long-grained, nonsticky Indica varieties popular among Asia’s farmers.” The article notes that “in early April”, researchers at the International Rice Research Institute in the Philippines started a field trial with a GR1 backcrossed into a widely used Indica variety. This field trial in 2008 appears to have been the first ever in Asia, some 6 years after Potrykus says Golden Rice was ready to be deployed. Several years of trials are likely to be necessary. “The new varieties,” points out the Science article, “must not only produce enough beta carotene but also pass muster in terms of yield, seed quality, and appearance.”
Note that this laborious cross-breeding process has absolutely nothing to do with regulations demanding that Golden Rice be proven safe to eat or safe for the environment. Instead, it is the most basic product R&amp;D (research and development), such as every manufacturer has to do with every product before it comes to market. In the case of Golden Rice, this R&amp;D process is about trying to produce a rice that is attractive to farmers, performs satisfactorily, and contains enough beta carotene to do what it is claimed to do. It is cynical in the extreme to blame the regulators and critics for the time taken by the type of groundwork that is a prerequisite to marketing any product, GM or not. 
Although much basic R&amp;D work clearly remains to be done on Golden Rice, Potrykus’s apparent expectation that GM Golden Rice should be exempt from safety tests seems irresponsible, considering that a number of peer reviewed 
published studies have shown ill effects of GM foods on experimental animals and the environment
 Given that any responsible company would want to conduct several years of field trials regardless of whether a plant variety is GM or not in order to make sure it grows properly, any safety data could be collected while these unavoidable trials are going on.
World Health Organisation (WHO)
 says that simple, affordable, tried and tested remedies for VAD are already available, including Vitamin A supplementation, which WHO says has already “averted an estimated 1.25 million deaths since 1998 in 40 countries.”
According to WHO malnutrition expert Francesco Branca
, giving out supplements, fortifying existing foods with vitamin A, and teaching people to grow carrots or certain leafy vegetables are, as things stand, more promising ways to fight VAD than Golden Rice.[30]
And if people really want to go down the food fortification route in solving nutrition problems in the third world, there are alternatives that involve none of the uncertainties of GM. The Dutch food supplement company DSM has created a rice fortified with vitamins and iron like a breakfast cereal aimed at the 2 billion people worldwide who suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
In short, there seems little doubt that with the money and the right political will, VAD could be eliminated in a very short period of time. The distraction of attention and big resources to uncertain and expensive techno-fixes like Golden Rice does nothing to make that happen. 
Golden Rice update March 2011: According to Patrick Moore, GMWatch are "low-life" "murdering creeps",  "profiteering on ignorance". Not to mention, "a bunch of murdering  bastards" with an "anti-human, murderous agenda." How come? Read: 
Why Patrick Moore calls GMWatch "a bunch of murdering bastards"
1. TIME magazine, July 31 2000, vol. 156 No 5
2. The Independent (London) "G8 meeting: Clinton attacks Europe for moving too slowly over 'safe' GM food", July 24, 2000
3. Executive summary of a presentation by Dr. Adrian C. Dubock, of Zeneca Plant Science (now Syngenta) at a conference on sustainable agriculture organised by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and supported by the European Commission on "Sustainable Agriculture in the New Millenium: The Impact of Biotechnology on Developing Countries," May 28-31, 2000, Brussels
4. Troy Goodman, "Are biotech crops sowing seeds of dispute?" CNN.com, January 24, 2001
5. "Can Biotechnology Solve World Hunger?" United States Congress, invitation to the Senate Agriculture Committee/Congressional Hunger Center, Special Congressional Forum, June 29, 2000.
6. This information was communicated verbally by the scientists who did the testing. See Christoph Then, 
“The campaign for genetically modified rice is at the crossroads: A critical look at Golden Rice after nearly 10 years of development”
, report commissioned by Foodwatch, Germany, January 2009, p. 3
7. Executive summary of a presentation by Dr. Adrian C. Dubock, of Zeneca Plant Science (now Syngenta) at a conference on sustainable agriculture organised by Friends of the Earth, Oxfam, Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation and supported by the European Commission on "Sustainable Agriculture in the New Millenium: The Impact of Biotechnology on Developing Countries," May 28-31, 2000, Brussels.  
“Potrykus Responds to Greenpeace Criticism of ‘Golden Rice’”
, undated response by Ingo Potrykus to Greenpeace press release, “Genetically engineered ‘Golden Rice’ is fool’s gold”, 9 February 2001, AgBioWorld website
9. Gordon Conway of the Rockefeller Foundation, in 
a letter to Dr Doug Parr of Greenpeace
, The New York Times, 4 March 2001
"There's nothing like a feel-good bowl of golden rice. Or not"
, Globe &amp; Mail (Canada), 2 August 2000
“My experience with Golden Rice”
, in Transgenic Plants for Food Security in the Context of Development, document for Study Week, The Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Rome, 15-19 May 2009, p.15
'Rogue's gallery opposes Golden Rice'
, GMObelus, accessed 16 May 2009
14. This information was communicated verbally by the scientists who did the testing. See Christoph Then, 
“The campaign for genetically modified rice is at the crossroads: A critical look at Golden Rice after nearly 10 years of development”
, report commissioned by Foodwatch, Germany, January 2009, p.3
15. Paine, J.A., C.A. Shipton, S. Chaggar, R.M. Howells, M.J. Kennedy, G. Vernon, S.Y. Wright, E. Hinchliffe, J.L. Adams, A.L. Silverstone, and R. Drake. 2005. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology, 23, 482-487.
“Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment”
“Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment”
, 10 October 2008, cited by Christoph Then in 
“The campaign for genetically modified rice is at the crossroads: A critical look at Golden Rice after nearly 10 years of development”
, report commissioned by Foodwatch, Germany, January 2009, p. 3
“Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment”
20. Paine JA, Shipton CA, Chaggar S, Howells RM, Kennedy MJ, Vernon G, Wright SY, Hinchliffe E, Adams JL, Silverstone AL and Drake R. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nature Biotechnology 2005, 21, 482-7.
“Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment”
“Golden Rice: A dangerous experiment”
“A Critical Look at Golden Rice”
“Royal Society Investigation into biological approaches to enhance food crop production”
, British Society of Plant Breeders, undated, p. 3
“Golden Rice still at development stage”
, The Financial Express (India), 28 November 2006
“Golden Rice still at development stage”
, The Financial Express (India), 28 November 2006
“Tough Lessons From Golden Rice”
, Science, 25 April 2008, Vol. 320. no. 5875, pp. 468–471
“Genetically modified (GM) foods - renewed threat to Europe”
, World Health Organisation website, accessed 10 June 2009
“Fortified rice to save millions of lives each year”
, Daily Telegraph, 14 May 2009, accessed 9 June 2009

			






Document Number: 7042 

			

        

		"Only GM can save the banana"
"Only GM can save the banana" is the underlying message of a story that first surfaced in 2001, made a comeback in 2003, and has done the rounds in the media ever since. The story claims that because bananas are sterile, they can't be bred to avoid virulent banana diseases and so could be extinct within a decade. 
According to the story, "The standard variety, the Cavendish, is already threatened with a disease called black Sigatoka, and a new strain of another fungal condition, Panama disease, could wipe the plant out within a decade." The banana business, we are told, is "doomed".
 No more banana bread. No more banana muffins or banana cream pie."
 Worse still, bananas are an important nutritional source for many in the developing world. "Half a billion people in Africa and Asia depend on the banana for up to half their daily calories," say the reports.
 "Genetic engineering may be the only answer"
: "Scientists believe that the creation of a GM banana that can resist the diseases may be the only way of preserving the fruit's future."
Each time this headline-grabbing story (re)emerges, it gets expertly debunked... untill the next time comes around. And almost every time, the same scientist is quoted, Dr Emile Frison. Here are some of the headlines Dr Frison has helped to generate:
"Without a genetic fix, the banana may be history"
"Bananas 'will slip into extinction without GM'"
"'Decrepit' banana faces extinction in 10 years"
"Defenceless banana 'will be extinct in 10 years'"
GM banana needed to fend off pests"
"Banana on a slippery slope to extinction"
UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO)
 has directly contradicted Dr Frison's claims that bananas are on the verge of extinction, saying that while there are problems of vulnerability to disease, this is aggravated by the widescale commercial use of the Cavendish banana, and can be countered by promoting greater genetic diversity. The FAO also points out that small-scale farmers around the world grow a wide range of banana species which are mostly less threatened than the Cavendish. There are, in fact, hundreds of different species of banana, and only 10 percent of the bananas produced and consumed globally are from the Cavendish.
Other scientists have also dismissed the claim that the banana is close to extinction. The Thai scientist, 
 from Kasetsart University's Faculty of Agriculture, has said it is just not possible for bananas to vanish so quickly. She points out that there is a world collection of banana germplasm in the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium, containing over 1,100 accessions, precisely for the purpose of conserving the plant. In addition, there is also an Asian banana collection in the Philippines, and Thailand also has its own collection at Kasetsart University's banana tissue culture lab. According to Benchamas, pests and diseases could not possibly make the banana extinct in the kind of time period claimed. "Only big bombs can do that," she says.
, a banana specialist, has also contradicted the claim that genetic engineering may be the only option for improving "sterile" banana cultivars. He points out that although "sterile" bananas "don't breed well, if at all, they can be induced to produce seed if pollinated by hand. Honduras's agricultural research foundation has had the most successful conventional banana breeding programme to date. The Honduran Foundation of Agricultural Research has bred disease-resistant bananas that are now grown extensively in Cuba [where severe problems with disease occurred  previously]. One called Goldfinger is also grown in Australia, and others are on trial in Africa and elsewhere. Conventional breeding can deliver the goods, especially when it comes to  bananas favoured by developing countries. It is true that it may be impossible to alter traits in the familiar 'Cavendish' banana with conventional breeding because of sterility problems. But it may be possible to breed a commercially acceptable disease-resistant export banana using a fertile dwarf variety of 'Gros Michel', an earlier export dessert banana."
In addition, less controversial biotechnologies than genetic engineering have been used with some apparent success, most notably propagation through 
 as a means of reducing the risk of spreading banana diseases. 
Stories suggesting GM is the only means of saving the banana follow a classic pattern. An 
 is created in order to then present genetic engineering as the magical solution to an otherwise intractable problem. This then creates a false dilemma - accept GM or watch poor people suffer. The aim is to blackmail reluctant consumers and farmers into accepting GM bananas as the only solution to a problem that is far more complex than admitted, and where other measures are already proving effective. The driving force behind such scare stories, of course, is the need to overcome market rejection.
It is also worth noting that the GM crops developed to date have generally enabled much 
greater corporate control of farming
 - the very last thing small banana farmers need, as they already often have to contend with 
hugely powerful multinational corporations
. On top of that, the biggest threat to the banana, according to the FAO, arises from genetic uniformity, and genetic engineering - with all its hype about techno-fixes - is likely to discourage the pursuit of genetic diversity, reinforcing uniformity. 
Interestingly, Dr Emile Frison, the scientist who has done so much to promote GM bananas, is the director general of 
 (BI). BI was set up to deploy genetic resources to counter the rapid loss of crop biodiversity. Although it lays strong emphasis on its governmental sources of funding, among the list of Top 20 donors in BI's Annual Report 2008 is the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which includes among its funders the big corporate players in genetic modification (GM), DuPont and Syngenta. Also among the Top 20 donors to BI are other well known proponents of GM, such as USAID.
"Bananas 'will slip into extinction without GM'"
, Globe &amp; Mail (Canada), 19 July 2003
"Defenceless banana 'will be extinct in 10 years"
, Daily Telegraph, 16 January 2003
"Defenceless banana 'will be extinct in 10 years"
, Daily Telegraph, 16 January 2003
"Bananas 'will slip into extinction without GM'"
"Bananas not on verge of extinction, says FAO"
, UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy, 30 January 2003; 
"UN food agency says bananas not threatened"
, Agence France Presse, January 30 2003
"Bananas 'can't disappear by 2013'"
, David Jones, New Scientist, August 4 2001, Letters
, SpinProfiles, accessed June 30 2009

			






Document Number: 1404 

			

        

		Super-sized cassava "could help alleviate hunger"
When researchers genetically modified cassava  plants to produce roots that were "dramatically bigger"  than normal, this was 
 as a  super-sizing breakthrough that "could help alleviate hunger in  developing countries".
, a professor of plant cellular and molecular  biology at Ohio State University, had inserted into the cassava's DNA a  bacterial gene that affects starch production. The modified plants' roots were  said to be more numerous and up to 2.6 times larger than in normal plants.
 to improve cassava funded by the Bill and Melinda  Gates Foundation to the tune of $7.5 million.
But Nagib Nassar, Professor of genetics at the University of Brasilia,  responded to an article about the super-sized cassava ("
GM  cassava has 'super size' roots
") by pointing out that he and  his colleagues had produced cassava "with roots that are ten times  the normal size without resorting to genetic modification." He also noted,  "The cost of our research was extremely low. We simply hybridised cassava  (Manihot esculenta) with the related wild species Manihot caerulescens. No  foreign genes were inserted."
An  image of the University of Brasilia researchers' cassava roots, which  are around four times the size of the "dramatically  bigger" GM super-sized roots, is available online 
GM cassava has 'super size'  roots
Super-sized cassava may help fight hunger in  Africa
", Ohio State University, 24 May 2006 
Research Team Receives $7.5 Million To Study  Cassava
", Ohio State University, 28 June 2005
Boosting cassava roots the non-GM way
", Nagib  Nassa, SciDev.Net, 31 May 2006 

			






Document Number: 2716 

		"Purple tomato can beat cancer"
" was the headline to a front-page story in the UK paper, the Dail Express, which claimed that scientists at the 
 had genetically modified tomatoes with genes from a snapdragon plant to create "the ultimate healthy superfood".
 According to the Express, the GM tomato, because of its increased antioxidants, could protect you against cancer, keep you slim, ward off diabetes and help you safeguard your eyesight. There was also enthusiastic coverage of the GM tomato on the BBC TV 
 programme, CNN, CBS, ABC, Reuters and the UK tabloid and broadsheet daily and Sunday newspapers, amongst many other media outlets worldwide.
However, the UK's National Health Service (NHS) and Cancer Research UK (CRUK) both expressed strong reservations about the coverage of the story. According to 
, reporting the views of the NHS Knowledge Service: “These claims are not actually based on benefits seen in humans, but rather from a small-scale study of mice that were given an extract of genetically modified tomatoes.” The NHS Knowledge Service also notes: “The small sample sizes used mean the results may have occurred by chance. Also until the tomato is tested in humans we cannot be sure that it will offer the same benefits, or that there will not be any unexpected harms.”
 It concluded that without further research the claims that these GM tomatoes "can beat cancer" cannot be supported.
Cancer Research UK noted on its Science Update blog that "cancer is a complex disease that has lots of 'causes'... The problem with a lot of the coverage of the super-tomato story is that it misses out on this complexity... There's also a big - and in our opinion unwarranted - assumption in some of the coverage. And that's the simple equation that antioxidants = good. There's a fair amount of evidence that some antioxidants in our foods can help prevent some kinds of cancer in some people. But the complexity of this evidence often gets translated in the media and in advertising to 'antioxidants prevent disease'. And that's 
It's worth noting that the dubious claims about purple tomatoes and cancer and the simplistic claims about antioxidantsl originated with the media work of the John Innes Centre ("
Purple tomatoes may keep cancer at bay
 They were not made up by the press even if they were reported uncritically. And the John Innes Centre also appears to have made no effort to play down or otherwise correct the claims that were made as a result of its media work. In fact, it seems to have welcomed and encouraged the PR impact from the coverage. For example, one of the researchers involved wrote an article for the Daily Mail which was headlined, "
How my purple tomato could save your life
While the researchers may not have been responsible for the headline, far from seeking to rectify any of the hype or misinformation arising from their claims, the JIC clearly saw the coverage of the purple tomato story as an excellent means of promoting GM. 
A front page piece in a JIC house publication
 noted enthusiastically: "Our research has been reported very positively world wide... and has already had a societal impact in the UK, helping re-frame the GM debate."
A good example of how the upbeat coverage was achieved is provided by Professor Cathie Martin's comment in the JIC's 
 that, “The next step will be to take the preclinical data forward to human studies with volunteers to see if we can promote health through dietary preventive medicine strategies.”
 from one of the JIC's collaboarators in the research - the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore - Marco Giorgio from the European Institute of Oncology warns, "We have to consider that in this study we have not taken into account any possible toxicity so I shall say we’re far from considering a human trial."
It's also worth noting that significant levels of the antioxidant (anthocyanins) which led the GM tomato to be described as the "ultimate healthy superfood" already occur naturally in a whole range of common fruit and vegetables, including raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, bilberries, red cabbage, red onions and aubergines (eggplants). The JIC researchers argue that tomatoes are consumed by people who might not normally consume these fruits and vegetables. It is questionable, however, whether people who are so conservative in their food choices would be attracted to a tomato with a highly unconventional appearance - one 
 described it as looking "like a cross between an orange and a black pudding."
 that in any case, “it is too early to say whether anthocyanins obtained through diet could help to reduce the risk of cancer”.
"Purple tomato can beat cancer"
, Daily Express, 27 October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes 'beat cancer'"
, NHS Choices, 27 October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"The antioxidant myth: A medical fairy tale"
, New Scientist, 5 August 2006, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes won't beat cancer"
, Cancer Research UK Science Update blog, undated, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes may keep cancer at bay"
, press release, John Innes Centre, October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"How my purple tomato could save your life"
, Daily Mail, 8 November 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes - A GM research tool with worldwide appeal"
, Advances, John Innes Centre and Sainsbury Laboratory, Issue 12, Winter 2008-9, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes may keep cancer at bay"
, press release, John Innes Centre, October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes: The richness of antioxidants against tumors"
, press release, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 12 November 2008, archived on the website of the Institute of Tropical Disease, Airlangga University, accessed 10 June 2009
, BBC News, 27 October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009
"Purple tomatoes 'beat cancer'"
, NHS Choices, 27 October 2008, accessed 10 June 2009 

			





Document Number: 1916 


The Esperanza in Chignik Alaska 


Blogpost  by  mikehagler - July 6, 2007 at 20:40


G'day.;; Mike again, your roving Greenpeace New Zealand Oceans campaiger from on board the Esperanza in Alaska.;;


;  After the Independence Day celebrations with the residents of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island, we've sailed for about 20 hours through some stunning scenery along the Gulf of Alaska coast. Along the way we passed one particular area that appeared to just be teeming with marine life including a couple of dozen or more humpbacks trailing out in a long procession for what seemed about a mile (2.5 kms).; Everyone was on deck taking photos when skipper Pete Wilcox came out and reminded us that &quot;the Japanese whalers are planning to kill about 150 of those down in the Southern Ocean come December&quot;


What a come down.;;; A while later we came across a small group of fin whales (or finback whales) one of the rorquals, a family that includes the humpback whales we'd seen earlier, blue whale, Bryde's whale, sei whale, and minke whale. Rorquals all have a dorsal fin and throat grooves that expand when the animal is feeding. The fin is second only to the blue whale in size and weight. Among the fastest of the great whales, it is capable of bursts of speed of up to 23 mph (37 km/hr) leading to its description as the &quot;greyhound of the sea.&quot;;; Fin whales are baleen whales that feed mainly on small shrimp-like creatures called krill and schooling fish.  After the all night sail, we arrived in the fishing village of Chignik at about 7 am.; Located on the Alaska Peninsula, about 450 miles southwest of Anchorage, Chignik consists of predominately Alaskan Native or part Native community members.;; A couple of fishing boats cruised by with some deckhands on board who made it abundantly clear that they were not too happy with our presence.; But then, a couple of other boats of salmon fishermen pulled right up alongside and began chatting with the crew, talking about those damned draggers and how bad they are for the sea bed and the marine life.;;; We talked with fishermen about the Greenpeace fisheries campaign, explaining away the myth, which corporate types in the fishing industry just love to propogate, 'Greenpeace is out to stop all fishing'!;; Nothing could be further from the truth.;; We just want to see the fishing become sustainable and provide good jobs for good people indefinitely.;; A lot of the people we've been talking to on our journey so far say that's what they want to.


The fisherfolk in Chignik were feeling a wee bit dissapointed today because the fish and game administrators had put a two day closure on the salmon purse seining to ensure that enough breeders get through to the rivers and spawn new salmon up in the headwaters.;; Makes sense and the fishermen didn't seem too fussed.; How's the salmon running? I wanted to know.; Not many out there this year, apparently.; Fishing's not so good.  What was really bugging them, though, is the fact that they're only being paid 70 cents (US) a pound for the red salmon they're catching and, on the other hand, spending about $2.50 a gallon for grade two diesel fuel.;; Costs are up, prices are down.; Hard to make a living.;; There was a time when a pound of salmon fetched well over $2.50 a pound.; ;  ;But, why are prices so low? I wanted to know. &quot;It's that darned farmed salmon&quot; was the consensus opinion.  Farmed salmon, including Atlantic and Pacific varieties, is the basis of a two billion dollar a year global industry pumping out more than 2.6 million tons of the stuff in 2006.; Norway is the the world's biggest producer, followed closely by chile at number two.; Other big producers include the UK (especially Scotland), Canada, the USA, Australia, Ireland and various others, including Japan and New Zealand.;;;; If you've tried farmed and wild caught salmon, I'm sure you'll agree that wild caught salmon has it all over the farmed garbage (must be all the chemicals and antibiotics they pump into the farmed stuff).  Unfortunately, most aquaculture projects that produce high value species such as salmon or shrimp exert numerous and substantial pressures on the environment.;; Farmed carnivorous species (flesh eaters) such as salmon and shrimp currently require fish oil and fishmeal in their feed and these are derived from other wild caught fish. For example the total amount of wild fish used to produce one tonne of farmed salmon is between 2.7 and 3.5 tonnes. To give an idea of scale, between 1985 and 1995 the world's shrimp farmers used 36 million tonnes of wild fish to produce just 7.2 million tons of shrimp. In general, carnivorous species require 2.5 &ndash; 5 times as much fish as feed as is produced out the other end.;; What's wrong with this picture? ;  In many parts of the world, aquaculture developments, particularly for shrimp, have been developed at enormous cost to coastal communities. Resulting social problems include decreased food security and poverty, the displacement of communities and landlessness, pollution of drinking water and poor working conditions with detrimental impacts on health and education. ;  Excess food and untreated wastes enter the environment so elevating the nutrient levels and resulting in algal blooms and subsequent oxygen depletion causing habitat destruction and cascading negative ecological effects.; ;  Diseases can spread from farmed fish or shellfish to wild populations, further depleting wild stocks. Chemicals from aquaculture feed, antibiotics and pesticides used for disease control enter the local environment and may also enter the food chain of end consumers.; ;  Building fish or shellfish farms can damage surrounding habitats. The destruction of vast tracts of mangrove forests cut down to make way for shrimp farms is an obvious example. ;  The introduction of non-native or genetically engineered organisms into the wider marine environment may impact on local wild populations &ndash; escapes of farmed fish from sea cages are common.  In short, some forms of aquaculture, especially salmon and shrimp farming, are really bad for the environment and people.  The unsustainable practices associated with the farming of salmon and shrimp is not the way forward. ;  Instead, Greenpeace supports aquaculture that is sustainable.; Sustainable aquaculture is the production of seafood that:  &middot;;; ;does not result in negative environmental impacts in terms of discharges/effluents to the surrounding environment, require harmful habitat alterations, cause negative effects to local wildlife or cause a risk to local wild populations;  &middot;;; ;cultivates species that do not require fish meal/oil or have fish oil/meal conversion ratios of less than one, or the feed originates from sustainable sources and/or is using alternative sources of omega 3 (algal derivates, grape seed oils etc);  &middot;;; ;does not deplete local resources and is energy efficient;  &middot;;; ;does not threaten human health; and,  &middot;;; ;supports the long-term economic and social well-being of local communities.  It's a simple formula and, come to think of it,; not unlike some of our ideas for sustainable fisheries.  Later, ;  Mike










Document Number: 7474 


Good news / bad news, take two 


Blogpost  by  jhocevar - October 18, 2006 at 7:36


First, the good news:  NOAA Fisheries  ;has announced that they are scrapping efforts to promote the disastrous  Open Ocean Aquaculture bill  .; NOAA's Bill Hogarth says they'll come back next year with a revised proposal that will have more environmental safeguards.


Advocates pushing to open up U.S. waters between 3 and 200 miles offshore to fish farms have argued that this will take pressure off dwindling wild fish stocks.; Unfortunately, large scale open ocean farms are likely to do more harm than good.; These farms tend to use carnivorous fish, which still rely on wild fish for food.; In addition to the obvious problem with catching wild fish to feed farmed fish, there are also concerns about disease and parasites associated with dense concentrations of farmed fish - and about the steps taken to minimize these risks, such as use of genetically modified fish or antibiotics.


So it's definitely good news to hear that the next version of the bill will be more environmentally friendly, but it's pretty likely that the new bill won't;fix the problems with open ocean aquaculture either.


On to the bad news:; after catching three billion pounds of Alaska pollock per year, the stock size is starting to decline.; The  North Pacific Fishery Management Council  ;announced a preliminary decision to reduce the Bering Sea pollock quota by over 4%, and rumors are flying that the reduction could ultimately be much larger.; Projections for 2008 are worse still.;


If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it comes in the hope that this will serve as a wake up call to fishery managers.;;It's time to take a more precautionary,  ecosystem-based approach  to fishery management.; We need to leave enough fish in the ocean;to feed the rest of the marine mammals, sea birds, and fish that depend on them for food - not to mention the fishing dependent communities;that are already struggling from the impacts of &quot;localized depletion.&quot;;


For the oceans -


John H










Document Number: 8223 


Deep Green: What the Greens got right 


Blogpost  by  Rex Weyler - January 18, 2011 at 10:38


An activist dripping in 'oil' protests at the World Energy Congress (WEC) in Montreal - urging participants to move beyond oil. Image: Fran&ccedil;ois Pesant / Greenpeace. Deep Green is Rex Weyler's monthly column, reflecting on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own. &ldquo;Ecology is a subversive subject.&rdquo;  Paul Sears, BioScience, July 1964  Last November, British television&rsquo;s Channel 4 aired &lsquo;What the Green Movement Got Wrong&rsquo;, attacking environmentalism while supporting  nuclear power  , DDT,  genetically modified crops  and geoengineering. The diatribe was laced with bias, misrepresentation and outright errors.  One of the show&rsquo;s contributors, Adam Werbach, is a former member of  Greenpeace International&rsquo;s  Board of Directors. Werbach reported that the Channel 4 producers misled him about the content of the documentary, misrepresented his ideas and used his comments to support points of view he opposes.  Willing contributors included Florence Wambugu, lobbyist for biotech giants Monsanto and DuPont, and Stewart Brand, consultant for ExxonMobil, Cargill, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and Bechtel - a virtual Who&rsquo;s Who of socially predatory and ecologically-destructive companies.  Propaganda as news &ldquo;The &lsquo;control of nature&rsquo; is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology.&rdquo;  Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962  The errors and biases of this show have been exposed by George Monbiot at The Guardian, The Weather-Makers author Tim Flannery, Greenpeace scientist Dr. Doug Parr, Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and many others. Naidoo points out that the focus on GM foods to solve hunger, for example, undermines the real solutions, such as improving soil fertility and providing access for the poor to land, water and agricultural financing.  Other obvious errors:  Nuclear Power : Climate blogger and nuclear power promoter Mark Lynas claimed on the show &ldquo;Nuclear power is ... a massive potential source of zero-carbon power.&rdquo;  Zero carbon? Dead wrong. Nuclear power is among the most carbon-intensive forms of energy. Why?  Start with cement, a massive carbon-consuming product. Add mining, milling, enriching and transporting uranium; forging high-alloy steels for pressurised containment vessels; construction of complex plants; and handling, shipping, reprocessing and storing radioactive waste. All of these stages require fossil fuel supplies.  Mark Jacobson at Stanford University compared the lifetime CO2 emissions of energy sources in a Review of Global Warming Solutions. He found wind and concentrated solar emit 3 to 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams per kWh. Mr. Lynas was wrong.  Nuclear energy is not zero-carbon &ndash; it&rsquo;s a carbon hog! It also presents unsolved problems with security, weapons proliferation, radioactive emissions, decommissioning and waste storage.  DDT  : Stewart Brand claimed that the &lsquo;green movement&rsquo; is responsible for millions of malaria deaths because environmentalists &ndash; including Greenpeace &ndash; campaigned for and won a worldwide ban on DDT, resulting in malaria epidemics. Brand, repeating a myth created by corporate interests to sabotage environmentalism, was wrong on all counts.  First of all, Greenpeace has never conducted a campaign to ban DDT worldwide and has never opposed the use of DDT for disease control. Never. Secondly, there is no worldwide ban on DDT, and never has been. The only international instrument to regulate DDT - the 2001 Stockholm Convention - restricts agricultural use so as to avoid producing DDT-resistant mosquitoes, and never mentions a ban for disease control.  &ldquo;Brand and Lynas present themselves as heretics,&rdquo; wrote George Monbiot at The Guardian, &ldquo;but their convenient fictions chime with the thinking of the new establishment: corporations, think tanks, neoliberal politicians. The true heretics are those who remind us that neither social nor environmental progress are possible unless [political] power is confronted.&rdquo;


A hot air balloon floats over the ruins of the ancient Mayan city of Chichen Itza, as delegates prepare to meet for UN Climate Negotiations COP16 in nearby Cancun, Mexico.  Image: Luis P&eacute;rez / Greenpeace


What environmentalists got right  &ldquo;Love of the wilderness is &hellip; an expression of loyalty to the earth which bore us and sustains us, the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise we ever need.&rdquo;  Edward Abby, Desert Solitaire  Historically, ecologists and environmentalists have offered thousands of genuine solutions and critical ideas to help humanity achieve peace and sustainability. The problem is not that ecologists offer no solutions. The problem arises because those solutions are not convenient for those who want to concentrate wealth and political power.  Corporate promoters like Brand, Lynas and Channel 4 insist on high-tech, complex solutions such as nuclear power, biotechnology and geo-engineering because those ventures promise more wealth and centralised control for the wealthy. They attack the genuine solutions offered by ecologists because those solutions require less reckless consumption and more community power. Nevertheless, over the decades, ecologists and environmentalists got a lot of things right. Here are some examples:  Poisons have unintended consequences  : Rachel Carson was right. The overuse of DDT and other biocides killed wildlife, damaged human health, and undermined disease control by creating resistant insects. A public relations campaign financed by Philip Morris tobacco company mocked her. Meanwhile, DDT use expanded to agriculture. The world experienced a brief reduction of malaria followed by the return of DDT-resistant mosquitoes and new epidemics, as Carson warned. In 1969, the World Health Assembly acknowledged that eradicating malaria with DDT was not feasible.  Lead, mercury and other heavy metals are toxic: In 1923, General Motors and Standard Oil (ExxonMobil / Chevron) introduced leaded gasoline. Harvard toxicologist Alice Hamilton warned them of the public health dangers in the Journal of the American Medical Association.;  GM and Standard Oil launched a public relations campaign, smeared Hamilton, and persuaded the New York Times to print "there is no measurable risk to the public.&rdquo; Meanwhile, leaded gasoline&rsquo;s neurotoxic effects caused mental deterioration, madness, antisocial behaviour, sickness and death among the public.  The US finally banned the toxic gasoline in 1995, 70 years after Hamilton&rsquo;s warning, as oil companies continued to sell it elsewhere. Africa finally banned leaded gasoline in 2006. Ms. Hamilton had been right; GM and Exxon, wrong. Millions suffered. Similar tragedies with mercury poisoning and other heavy metals have claimed thousands of victims.  Radiation kills  : Channel 4 attempted to minimize the  Chernobyl nuclear accident  health impact, but as ecologists and medical doctors have warned, ionising radiation causes DNA damage, mutation, replication errors, early aging and cancers, including leukaemia, thyroid, liver, lung, myeloma and so forth.  There is no safe dose. Any increase in radiation results in an increase in risk. Twenty-eight rescue workers at Chernobyl died from radiation sickness. Medical researchers traced a certain link between Chernobyl radiation and 1,800 thyroid cancer cases. Thousands of others died from Chernobyl&rsquo;s radiation. How many? It is not the environmentalist&rsquo;s job to count the dead for the nuclear apologists. One death is too many. Radiation kills. We were right.  CO2 will heat the planet  : Swedish physicist Svente Arrhenius reported in 1896 that carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon combustion would heat the planet. He estimated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels would cause a 5&deg;C temperature rise. Current estimates range from 3&deg; to 7&deg;C, depending on successful mitigation and feedback factors. Arrhenius was right. Ecologists were right. Greenpeace first voiced concern in 1979. Meanwhile, oil companies financed a campaign to deny this simple, physical science.  Laws of Ecology  : In the 1970s, Greenpeace published its first ecology manifesto, The Declaration of Interdependence. We suspected that the next century&rsquo;s battle would be to reconcile human enterprise with nature&rsquo;s rules. The Declaration included three &lsquo;Laws of Ecology&rsquo;: Interdependence, Stability through Diversity, and Consumption Limits. Pardon the immodesty, but we were right then and we&rsquo;re still right today.  ;;; * Interdependence: Life forms remain interdependent. We co-evolve and co-survive in complex, dynamic ecosystems. Predator and prey collaborate in the genetic process; all organisms share nutrient and energy cycles in a habitat. Ecologist Gregory Bateson was correct that the &lsquo;survival unit&rsquo; in evolution is not the individual, nor a single species, but species within an ecosystem.  ;;; * Stability through Diversity: In an ecosystem, species diversity provides stability in dynamic homeostasis. Since the 1960s, ecologists and naturalists &ndash; Rachel Carson, Edward Wilson, Yvonne Baskin and others &ndash; have warned of species loss risk. Norman Myers calculated in the 1970s that the human-caused extinction rate was 100 times the natural rate. Few listened, and society&rsquo;s response has proven ineffective. By 2000, extinction rates reached 1,000 times natural rates, and today the figure approaches 10,000 times. Myers also warned that habitat destruction reduced evolution&rsquo;s capacity to generate new species. Human activity is now causing the greatest diversity collapse since a meteorite hit the Earth 64 million years ago, weakening the entire planetary ecology.  ;;; * Consumption limits: This remains the most disturbing ecological fact for our society. Captains of industry and their paid pundits deny and ridicule this idea, but it remains absolutely true. We live on a finite planet. No species in any habitat can grow forever. Donella Meadows and her co-authors were right about Limits to Growth in their 1972 book of that name. We witness the evidence in degraded soil, drained aquifers, forest loss, global warming, and resource depletion.


A young girl is amongst up to 100,000 people who took part in a demonstration on the Global Day of Action against climate change in Copenhagen just ahead of the UN climate negotiations held there in 2009. Image: Christian &Aring;slund / Greenpeace Peak oil  : Ecologists and geologists have warned about oil depletion for decades. Geophysicist M. King Hubbert described the phenomenon in 1956. He was largely ignored. Global peak oil per capita occurred in 1979 and we have now arrived at the absolute peak - just as predicted.  Net Energy  : Oil depletion and society&rsquo;s oil addiction drives us toward lower-grade reserves, such as tar sands, with a low net energy, costing more energy to retrieve, returning less to society and emitting more CO2 pollution. Researchers such as Charles Hall at the State University of New York warned society about this in the 1970s.  Habitat Overshoot  : In 1980, William Catton published Overshoot, explaining that humanity had &lsquo;already overshot [Earth&rsquo;s] carrying capacity&rsquo;. He was right. No one in power listened. Humanity has now reached about 30% overshoot, using more resources each year than Earth can replenish. Newsflash: a species cannot grow out of overshoot.  Reduce consumption  : William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia devised the &lsquo;Ecological Footprint&rsquo; analysis to help individuals and communities gauge their role in global overshoot and reduce their consumption. Rees explained that our challenge is less technical and more &lsquo;behavioural and social&rsquo;. We hear of hundreds of large-scale industrial &lsquo;solutions&rsquo; but the only genuine solution to habitat overshoot is this: Consume less stuff.  Biomimicry : We&rsquo;ll find the keys to genuine sustainability in the patterns and laws of nature itself. We can design an authentically sustainable human society, but only by apprenticing ourselves to nature, as described by Janine Benyus, John Todd, Wes Jackson, Elaine Ingham, David Suzuki and many other ecologists.  Ecological Economics  : In the 19th century, economist John S. Mill cautioned that industrial growth would eventually reach Earth&rsquo;s physical limits and require &lsquo;stationary state&rsquo; economics. Donella Meadows and colleagues (Limits to Growth), Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (The Entropy Law and Economic Process), Herman Daly (Steady-State Economics), Mark Anielski (Genuine Wealth) and others have since refined these essential and inevitable new ecological or biophysical economics.  It would take a very long book to introduce all the important, accurate and visionary ideas that ecologists, environmentalists and biophysical scientists have contributed to society: Organic farming, voluntary simplicity, transition towns, environmental rights, the conserver society and so forth. Ecologists such as Paul Shepard, Chellis Glendinning and Kathy McMahon examined the psychological impact of the ecology crisis.  Arne Naess introduced &lsquo;Deep Ecology&rsquo; and &lsquo;richer lives with simpler means&rsquo;. Vandana Shiva, Mary Jo Breton, Rosemary Ruether and others describe the importance of feminism for ecology. Southern hemisphere nations such as Bolivia have raised the issue of environmental justice. Gregory  Bateson introduced the link between mind, cybernetics and ecology, and wrote &ldquo;My knowing is a small part of a wider integrated knowing that knits the entire biosphere of creation.&rdquo;  The anti-environmental sophists bark for their patrons like the medieval henchmen who burned scientists and healers at the stake and conducted inquisitions and programs. And like those agents of institutionalized ignorance, they will end up on the wrong side of history.  But being wrong isn&rsquo;t the problem. The problem appears in the destruction and suffering caused by this deceit, misinformation and propaganda. Every day, as Earth spins through the heavens, species blink from existence, cancers and illnesses attack people, children starve and communities suffer.  We aren&rsquo;t quibbling about facts here. We&rsquo;re battling for lives.










Document Number: 5841 


Drinking Dry the Sea 


Blogpost  by  Michelle Frey - August 13, 2010 at 10:45


This blogs comes from Mark Floegel, a senior investigator in Greenpeace USA&rsquo;s research unit.  Consider the environmental woes that confront us. Consider drinking dry the sea. They feel about the same.  Global warming, overfishing, deforestation, uncontrolled release of genetically modified material, nuclear waste.  So cut it down, make it manageable. Choose a single issue - say the release of toxic chemicals into our air, soil, water and our bodies. Reduce it further; only look the effects on human health &ndash; in fact, just look at the effect on the health of children.  Even this, perhaps, is more than we can bear.  Poisoned for Profit by Philip and Alice Shabecoff (Chelsea Green, 2010) tours the  landscape and history of post-war America&rsquo;s poisoning of its population, particularly its  children.  How can it be? How can a nation that has attained so much and claims such moral high  ground in human rights and social values simultaneously pump out poisons that have sent  American rates of birth defects, childhood cancer, asthma and diabetes on an ever-rising  trajectory?  Laying out their case in the form of an indictment, the Shabecoffs present the evidence,  naming names &ndash; at least some of them. General Electric, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont.  Poisoned for Profit details the manufacturing processes of each of these companies create  the poisons that now infest the nation&rsquo;s human environment.  Detailed reporting reopens old wounds for anyone who has witnessed or been affected by  modern toxification. How the industrial feedstock chemicals get into our air and water,  invade our bodies, how the bodies of children are so much more susceptible than those of  their parents.  The Shabecoffs show how, worse still, the corporations responsible for this pollution &ndash; the Dows and Monsantos - knew early on what the likely effects of their activities would be. How those same corporations act &ndash; singly and in industry-wide concert &ndash; to shift the blame for their poisons onto the victims themselves, to obfuscate issues, distort science  and economics and use cohorts of attorneys and war chests of cash to pervert the justice  system &ndash; all with the single goal of corporate profit. This is the sea that must be drunk  dry, if we as a species are to thrive.  To the PR staff at General Electric or Dupont, childhood illnesses due to environmental  poisons (not theirs, they&rsquo;ll stress, maybe someone else&rsquo;s), is an &ldquo;unintended by-product&rdquo;  of this late industrial age. As social commentator Joan Dickenson pointed out, there are  no &ldquo;by-products.&rdquo; There are only products. Whether the corporation intends them or  not, cancers and birth defects are products of the corporation, just as much as Teflon or a  quarterly dividend.  Poisoned for Profit shows how state and federal agencies tasked with protecting health  and the environment are manacled by the same cohort of attorneys, plus lobbyists, plus  trade associations. The politicians of the legislative and executive branches, who should  intervene on behalf of citizens &ndash; children in this case &ndash; are trapped, perhaps too willingly,  by the need for constant infusions of campaign cash, of a magnitude multinational  chemical companies can afford but sick children cannot.  To hold this ocean &ndash; or even, say, the Gulf of Mexico - in one&rsquo;s mouth seems impossible.  Perhaps it is, but parents, their communities, dedicated environmentalists and journalists  like Phil and Alice Shabecoff are draining this ocean every day.  The appendices to  Poisoned for Profit  provide helpful information for protecting yourself  and your family, beginning from the moment you plan your family and working outward  through your home diet and community. It&rsquo;s difficult and painstaking and it shouldn&rsquo;t  fall to parents to go to such lengths to protect their children from corporations that would  poison them, but it&rsquo;s the only way to drink the ocean dry.


--Mark










Document Number: 6800 


G8 - Environment Nil! 1.;; ;Never do today what you can keep putting off until tomorrow... 


Feature story - July 10, 2008 


zoom g8 bush banner


So what have we learned from the G8's three wasted days?


1.;; ;Never do today what you can keep putting off until tomorrow...


Global emissions have to start falling by 2015 and must be cut by more than 50 percent by 2050, compared to 1990 levels. With the G8 countries accounting for 62 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, it's clear that industrialised countries need to take the lead, cutting emissions by at least 30 percent by 2020, and by between 80 and 90 percent by 2050.


The G8, in fact, called on the world to aim for a 50 percent goal - and not more - in 2050, and failed to give any clear commitments on mid-term measures; this is simply not good enough. We need action today.


The  World Bank Climate Investment Funds  that the G8 has announced do not even exclude coal, the world's most polluting energy source. Unless we end our addiction to fossil fuels and start an energy revolution based on renewable energy and energy efficiency now, the world of 2050 will be a nightmarish one indeed.


All the G8 leaders have effectively done is postpone the responsibility for tackling global climate change to future generations; to the politicians who succeed them, and to the children who will have to live in the nightmare world of 2050 as envisioned by the G8.


2.;; ;Never miss the opportunity - whatever the crisis - to make a quick sale&hellip;


Bush, Berlusconi and others have used the G8 meeting to act as lobbyists for their own energy giants, trying to sell dangerous, expensive and uninsurable nuclear power plants.


It's a fact that nuclear energy today is based on risky reactors, leads to proliferation and security hazards and produces long lived deadly nuclear waste with no solution for its safe disposal.


To say that nuclear power will save the climate is absurd and downright dangerous. We need solutions based on renewables and energy efficiency to defeat climate change and ensure true energy security.


It's not even as though it's difficult for the G8 to find these solutions - we set it all out, loud and clear, for them in our  Energy [R]evolution scenario  last year. Maybe it's time for the G8 leaders to get their heads down into reading this report, instead of having their heads in the (hopefully, not mushroom-shaped) clouds.


3.;;; You can have your cake  and  eat it - so long as it's genetically modified&hellip;


It's said, "You are what you eat." Yet, the G8 continues to support treating our soil like dirt, contaminating our water with toxic chemicals and the planting of more genetically engineered crops that yield less and fail under bad weather conditions.


Industrial agriculture has undermined global food security and led us to a food crisis. Rather than shift public investment to proven ecological methods that provide higher yields, better food and more resilience to climate change, the G8 leaders repeat their usual mantra that countries should rely on the global market for their food security.


On top of this, Bush, Berlusconi and others have been pushing for genetically engineered food as the solution to the food crisis. They pretend that liberalizing trade will lower food prices. It has not and will not - all it will do is drive poor farmers, especially those in the developing world, off their land.


We need farming that is ecological and biodiverse, rather than continuing with chemical-intensive farming or pursuing the false promise of genetic engineering. We need public investment in research and development on ecological and climate change resilient farming; the end of funding for GE crops and the prohibition of patents on seeds; and the phasing out of the most toxic chemicals and the elimination of environmentally-destructive agricultural subsidies.


It was time for G8 leaders to admit that their old policies have failed and that they need to start building a trade system based on equity and sustainability; that 'business as usual' is not an option. Instead, they fell back on their usual ritual of calling for a swift end to the Doha Round of trade talks, failing to recognise that further trade liberalisation will spell disaster for poor people and the environment.


4.;; ;Acknowledge the problem, and hopefully it'll go away&hellip;


The G8 acknowledged there are unsustainable biofuels - but didn't do anything about them.


Due to this inaction even more land will be diverted away from food production - mandatory biofuel targets in developed countries need to be suspended and legislation introduced to ensure biofuel production does not threaten food security, particularly in developing countries.


And due to this inaction, even more forests will be felled - increasing global climate change.; Protecting intact forests is crucial for preserving biodiversity and combating climate change.


Oil is running out, but the answer to the world's transport needs does not lie with unsustainable biofuels. In order to satisfy the rich world's addiction to cars, instead we are simply driving deforestation, driving the food crisis and driving climate change.


It seems the G8 may have driven through all the climate red lights and stop signs in Toyako.


5.;; ;Always look on the bright side of life&hellip;


While the Arctic ice is melting, the G8 froze into inaction. Instead of protecting the climate, the G8 effectively protected the interests of industry, most notably the nuclear and GE industries. We're no further forward than where we were a year ago, at the last G8 meeting in Heiligendamm.









Document Number: 3973 


The Esperanza in Chignik Alaska 


Blogpost  by  mikehagler - July 6, 2007 at 20:40


G'day.;; Mike again, your roving Greenpeace New Zealand Oceans campaiger from on board the Esperanza in Alaska.;;


;  After the Independence Day celebrations with the residents of Old Harbor on Kodiak Island, we've sailed for about 20 hours through some stunning scenery along the Gulf of Alaska coast. Along the way we passed one particular area that appeared to just be teeming with marine life including a couple of dozen or more humpbacks trailing out in a long procession for what seemed about a mile (2.5 kms).; Everyone was on deck taking photos when skipper Pete Wilcox came out and reminded us that &quot;the Japanese whalers are planning to kill about 150 of those down in the Southern Ocean come December&quot;


What a come down.;;; A while later we came across a small group of fin whales (or finback whales) one of the rorquals, a family that includes the humpback whales we'd seen earlier, blue whale, Bryde's whale, sei whale, and minke whale. Rorquals all have a dorsal fin and throat grooves that expand when the animal is feeding. The fin is second only to the blue whale in size and weight. Among the fastest of the great whales, it is capable of bursts of speed of up to 23 mph (37 km/hr) leading to its description as the &quot;greyhound of the sea.&quot;;; Fin whales are baleen whales that feed mainly on small shrimp-like creatures called krill and schooling fish.  After the all night sail, we arrived in the fishing village of Chignik at about 7 am.; Located on the Alaska Peninsula, about 450 miles southwest of Anchorage, Chignik consists of predominately Alaskan Native or part Native community members.;; A couple of fishing boats cruised by with some deckhands on board who made it abundantly clear that they were not too happy with our presence.; But then, a couple of other boats of salmon fishermen pulled right up alongside and began chatting with the crew, talking about those damned draggers and how bad they are for the sea bed and the marine life.;;; We talked with fishermen about the Greenpeace fisheries campaign, explaining away the myth, which corporate types in the fishing industry just love to propogate, 'Greenpeace is out to stop all fishing'!;; Nothing could be further from the truth.;; We just want to see the fishing become sustainable and provide good jobs for good people indefinitely.;; A lot of the people we've been talking to on our journey so far say that's what they want to.


The fisherfolk in Chignik were feeling a wee bit dissapointed today because the fish and game administrators had put a two day closure on the salmon purse seining to ensure that enough breeders get through to the rivers and spawn new salmon up in the headwaters.;; Makes sense and the fishermen didn't seem too fussed.; How's the salmon running? I wanted to know.; Not many out there this year, apparently.; Fishing's not so good.  What was really bugging them, though, is the fact that they're only being paid 70 cents (US) a pound for the red salmon they're catching and, on the other hand, spending about $2.50 a gallon for grade two diesel fuel.;; Costs are up, prices are down.; Hard to make a living.;; There was a time when a pound of salmon fetched well over $2.50 a pound.; ;  ;But, why are prices so low? I wanted to know. &quot;It's that darned farmed salmon&quot; was the consensus opinion.  Farmed salmon, including Atlantic and Pacific varieties, is the basis of a two billion dollar a year global industry pumping out more than 2.6 million tons of the stuff in 2006.; Norway is the the world's biggest producer, followed closely by chile at number two.; Other big producers include the UK (especially Scotland), Canada, the USA, Australia, Ireland and various others, including Japan and New Zealand.;;;; If you've tried farmed and wild caught salmon, I'm sure you'll agree that wild caught salmon has it all over the farmed garbage (must be all the chemicals and antibiotics they pump into the farmed stuff).  Unfortunately, most aquaculture projects that produce high value species such as salmon or shrimp exert numerous and substantial pressures on the environment.;; Farmed carnivorous species (flesh eaters) such as salmon and shrimp currently require fish oil and fishmeal in their feed and these are derived from other wild caught fish. For example the total amount of wild fish used to produce one tonne of farmed salmon is between 2.7 and 3.5 tonnes. To give an idea of scale, between 1985 and 1995 the world's shrimp farmers used 36 million tonnes of wild fish to produce just 7.2 million tons of shrimp. In general, carnivorous species require 2.5 &ndash; 5 times as much fish as feed as is produced out the other end.;; What's wrong with this picture? ;  In many parts of the world, aquaculture developments, particularly for shrimp, have been developed at enormous cost to coastal communities. Resulting social problems include decreased food security and poverty, the displacement of communities and landlessness, pollution of drinking water and poor working conditions with detrimental impacts on health and education. ;  Excess food and untreated wastes enter the environment so elevating the nutrient levels and resulting in algal blooms and subsequent oxygen depletion causing habitat destruction and cascading negative ecological effects.; ;  Diseases can spread from farmed fish or shellfish to wild populations, further depleting wild stocks. Chemicals from aquaculture feed, antibiotics and pesticides used for disease control enter the local environment and may also enter the food chain of end consumers.; ;  Building fish or shellfish farms can damage surrounding habitats. The destruction of vast tracts of mangrove forests cut down to make way for shrimp farms is an obvious example. ;  The introduction of non-native or genetically engineered organisms into the wider marine environment may impact on local wild populations &ndash; escapes of farmed fish from sea cages are common.  In short, some forms of aquaculture, especially salmon and shrimp farming, are really bad for the environment and people.  The unsustainable practices associated with the farming of salmon and shrimp is not the way forward. ;  Instead, Greenpeace supports aquaculture that is sustainable.; Sustainable aquaculture is the production of seafood that:  &middot;;; ;does not result in negative environmental impacts in terms of discharges/effluents to the surrounding environment, require harmful habitat alterations, cause negative effects to local wildlife or cause a risk to local wild populations;  &middot;;; ;cultivates species that do not require fish meal/oil or have fish oil/meal conversion ratios of less than one, or the feed originates from sustainable sources and/or is using alternative sources of omega 3 (algal derivates, grape seed oils etc);  &middot;;; ;does not deplete local resources and is energy efficient;  &middot;;; ;does not threaten human health; and,  &middot;;; ;supports the long-term economic and social well-being of local communities.  It's a simple formula and, come to think of it,; not unlike some of our ideas for sustainable fisheries.  Later, ;  Mike










Document Number: 4568 


Deep Green: What the Greens got right 


Blogpost  by  Rex Weyler - January 18, 2011 at 10:38


An activist dripping in 'oil' protests at the World Energy Congress (WEC) in Montreal - urging participants to move beyond oil. Image: Fran&ccedil;ois Pesant / Greenpeace. Deep Green is Rex Weyler's monthly column, reflecting on the roots of activism, environmentalism, and Greenpeace's past, present, and future. The opinions here are his own. &ldquo;Ecology is a subversive subject.&rdquo;  Paul Sears, BioScience, July 1964  Last November, British television&rsquo;s Channel 4 aired &lsquo;What the Green Movement Got Wrong&rsquo;, attacking environmentalism while supporting  nuclear power  , DDT,  genetically modified crops  and geoengineering. The diatribe was laced with bias, misrepresentation and outright errors.  One of the show&rsquo;s contributors, Adam Werbach, is a former member of  Greenpeace International&rsquo;s  Board of Directors. Werbach reported that the Channel 4 producers misled him about the content of the documentary, misrepresented his ideas and used his comments to support points of view he opposes.  Willing contributors included Florence Wambugu, lobbyist for biotech giants Monsanto and DuPont, and Stewart Brand, consultant for ExxonMobil, Cargill, Dow Chemical, General Electric, and Bechtel - a virtual Who&rsquo;s Who of socially predatory and ecologically-destructive companies.  Propaganda as news &ldquo;The &lsquo;control of nature&rsquo; is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the Neanderthal age of biology.&rdquo;  Rachel Carson, Silent Spring, 1962  The errors and biases of this show have been exposed by George Monbiot at The Guardian, The Weather-Makers author Tim Flannery, Greenpeace scientist Dr. Doug Parr, Greenpeace International Executive Director Kumi Naidoo and many others. Naidoo points out that the focus on GM foods to solve hunger, for example, undermines the real solutions, such as improving soil fertility and providing access for the poor to land, water and agricultural financing.  Other obvious errors:  Nuclear Power : Climate blogger and nuclear power promoter Mark Lynas claimed on the show &ldquo;Nuclear power is ... a massive potential source of zero-carbon power.&rdquo;  Zero carbon? Dead wrong. Nuclear power is among the most carbon-intensive forms of energy. Why?  Start with cement, a massive carbon-consuming product. Add mining, milling, enriching and transporting uranium; forging high-alloy steels for pressurised containment vessels; construction of complex plants; and handling, shipping, reprocessing and storing radioactive waste. All of these stages require fossil fuel supplies.  Mark Jacobson at Stanford University compared the lifetime CO2 emissions of energy sources in a Review of Global Warming Solutions. He found wind and concentrated solar emit 3 to 11 grams of CO2 per kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity. Nuclear electricity emits between 68 and 180 grams per kWh. Mr. Lynas was wrong.  Nuclear energy is not zero-carbon &ndash; it&rsquo;s a carbon hog! It also presents unsolved problems with security, weapons proliferation, radioactive emissions, decommissioning and waste storage.  DDT  : Stewart Brand claimed that the &lsquo;green movement&rsquo; is responsible for millions of malaria deaths because environmentalists &ndash; including Greenpeace &ndash; campaigned for and won a worldwide ban on DDT, resulting in malaria epidemics. Brand, repeating a myth created by corporate interests to sabotage environmentalism, was wrong on all counts.  First of all, Greenpeace has never conducted a campaign to ban DDT worldwide and has never opposed the use of DDT for disease control. Never. Secondly, there is no worldwide ban on DDT, and never has been. The only international instrument to regulate DDT - the 2001 Stockholm Convention - restricts agricultural use so as to avoid producing DDT-resistant mosquitoes, and never mentions a ban for disease control.  &ldquo;Brand and Lynas present themselves as heretics,&rdquo; wrote George Monbiot at The Guardian, &ldquo;but their convenient fictions chime with the thinking of the new establishment: corporations, think tanks, neoliberal politicians. The true heretics are those who remind us that neither social nor environmental progress are possible unless [political] power is confronted.&rdquo;


A hot air balloon floats over the ruins of the ancient Mayan city of Chichen Itza, as delegates prepare to meet for UN Climate Negotiations COP16 in nearby Cancun, Mexico.  Image: Luis P&eacute;rez / Greenpeace


What environmentalists got right  &ldquo;Love of the wilderness is &hellip; an expression of loyalty to the earth which bore us and sustains us, the only home we shall ever know, the only paradise we ever need.&rdquo;  Edward Abby, Desert Solitaire  Historically, ecologists and environmentalists have offered thousands of genuine solutions and critical ideas to help humanity achieve peace and sustainability. The problem is not that ecologists offer no solutions. The problem arises because those solutions are not convenient for those who want to concentrate wealth and political power.  Corporate promoters like Brand, Lynas and Channel 4 insist on high-tech, complex solutions such as nuclear power, biotechnology and geo-engineering because those ventures promise more wealth and centralised control for the wealthy. They attack the genuine solutions offered by ecologists because those solutions require less reckless consumption and more community power. Nevertheless, over the decades, ecologists and environmentalists got a lot of things right. Here are some examples:  Poisons have unintended consequences  : Rachel Carson was right. The overuse of DDT and other biocides killed wildlife, damaged human health, and undermined disease control by creating resistant insects. A public relations campaign financed by Philip Morris tobacco company mocked her. Meanwhile, DDT use expanded to agriculture. The world experienced a brief reduction of malaria followed by the return of DDT-resistant mosquitoes and new epidemics, as Carson warned. In 1969, the World Health Assembly acknowledged that eradicating malaria with DDT was not feasible.  Lead, mercury and other heavy metals are toxic: In 1923, General Motors and Standard Oil (ExxonMobil / Chevron) introduced leaded gasoline. Harvard toxicologist Alice Hamilton warned them of the public health dangers in the Journal of the American Medical Association.;  GM and Standard Oil launched a public relations campaign, smeared Hamilton, and persuaded the New York Times to print "there is no measurable risk to the public.&rdquo; Meanwhile, leaded gasoline&rsquo;s neurotoxic effects caused mental deterioration, madness, antisocial behaviour, sickness and death among the public.  The US finally banned the toxic gasoline in 1995, 70 years after Hamilton&rsquo;s warning, as oil companies continued to sell it elsewhere. Africa finally banned leaded gasoline in 2006. Ms. Hamilton had been right; GM and Exxon, wrong. Millions suffered. Similar tragedies with mercury poisoning and other heavy metals have claimed thousands of victims.  Radiation kills  : Channel 4 attempted to minimize the  Chernobyl nuclear accident  health impact, but as ecologists and medical doctors have warned, ionising radiation causes DNA damage, mutation, replication errors, early aging and cancers, including leukaemia, thyroid, liver, lung, myeloma and so forth.  There is no safe dose. Any increase in radiation results in an increase in risk. Twenty-eight rescue workers at Chernobyl died from radiation sickness. Medical researchers traced a certain link between Chernobyl radiation and 1,800 thyroid cancer cases. Thousands of others died from Chernobyl&rsquo;s radiation. How many? It is not the environmentalist&rsquo;s job to count the dead for the nuclear apologists. One death is too many. Radiation kills. We were right.  CO2 will heat the planet  : Swedish physicist Svente Arrhenius reported in 1896 that carbon dioxide from hydrocarbon combustion would heat the planet. He estimated that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from pre-industrial levels would cause a 5&deg;C temperature rise. Current estimates range from 3&deg; to 7&deg;C, depending on successful mitigation and feedback factors. Arrhenius was right. Ecologists were right. Greenpeace first voiced concern in 1979. Meanwhile, oil companies financed a campaign to deny this simple, physical science.  Laws of Ecology  : In the 1970s, Greenpeace published its first ecology manifesto, The Declaration of Interdependence. We suspected that the next century&rsquo;s battle would be to reconcile human enterprise with nature&rsquo;s rules. The Declaration included three &lsquo;Laws of Ecology&rsquo;: Interdependence, Stability through Diversity, and Consumption Limits. Pardon the immodesty, but we were right then and we&rsquo;re still right today.  ;;; * Interdependence: Life forms remain interdependent. We co-evolve and co-survive in complex, dynamic ecosystems. Predator and prey collaborate in the genetic process; all organisms share nutrient and energy cycles in a habitat. Ecologist Gregory Bateson was correct that the &lsquo;survival unit&rsquo; in evolution is not the individual, nor a single species, but species within an ecosystem.  ;;; * Stability through Diversity: In an ecosystem, species diversity provides stability in dynamic homeostasis. Since the 1960s, ecologists and naturalists &ndash; Rachel Carson, Edward Wilson, Yvonne Baskin and others &ndash; have warned of species loss risk. Norman Myers calculated in the 1970s that the human-caused extinction rate was 100 times the natural rate. Few listened, and society&rsquo;s response has proven ineffective. By 2000, extinction rates reached 1,000 times natural rates, and today the figure approaches 10,000 times. Myers also warned that habitat destruction reduced evolution&rsquo;s capacity to generate new species. Human activity is now causing the greatest diversity collapse since a meteorite hit the Earth 64 million years ago, weakening the entire planetary ecology.  ;;; * Consumption limits: This remains the most disturbing ecological fact for our society. Captains of industry and their paid pundits deny and ridicule this idea, but it remains absolutely true. We live on a finite planet. No species in any habitat can grow forever. Donella Meadows and her co-authors were right about Limits to Growth in their 1972 book of that name. We witness the evidence in degraded soil, drained aquifers, forest loss, global warming, and resource depletion.


A young girl is amongst up to 100,000 people who took part in a demonstration on the Global Day of Action against climate change in Copenhagen just ahead of the UN climate negotiations held there in 2009. Image: Christian &Aring;slund / Greenpeace Peak oil  : Ecologists and geologists have warned about oil depletion for decades. Geophysicist M. King Hubbert described the phenomenon in 1956. He was largely ignored. Global peak oil per capita occurred in 1979 and we have now arrived at the absolute peak - just as predicted.  Net Energy  : Oil depletion and society&rsquo;s oil addiction drives us toward lower-grade reserves, such as tar sands, with a low net energy, costing more energy to retrieve, returning less to society and emitting more CO2 pollution. Researchers such as Charles Hall at the State University of New York warned society about this in the 1970s.  Habitat Overshoot  : In 1980, William Catton published Overshoot, explaining that humanity had &lsquo;already overshot [Earth&rsquo;s] carrying capacity&rsquo;. He was right. No one in power listened. Humanity has now reached about 30% overshoot, using more resources each year than Earth can replenish. Newsflash: a species cannot grow out of overshoot.  Reduce consumption  : William Rees and Mathis Wackernagel at the University of British Columbia devised the &lsquo;Ecological Footprint&rsquo; analysis to help individuals and communities gauge their role in global overshoot and reduce their consumption. Rees explained that our challenge is less technical and more &lsquo;behavioural and social&rsquo;. We hear of hundreds of large-scale industrial &lsquo;solutions&rsquo; but the only genuine solution to habitat overshoot is this: Consume less stuff.  Biomimicry : We&rsquo;ll find the keys to genuine sustainability in the patterns and laws of nature itself. We can design an authentically sustainable human society, but only by apprenticing ourselves to nature, as described by Janine Benyus, John Todd, Wes Jackson, Elaine Ingham, David Suzuki and many other ecologists.  Ecological Economics  : In the 19th century, economist John S. Mill cautioned that industrial growth would eventually reach Earth&rsquo;s physical limits and require &lsquo;stationary state&rsquo; economics. Donella Meadows and colleagues (Limits to Growth), Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen (The Entropy Law and Economic Process), Herman Daly (Steady-State Economics), Mark Anielski (Genuine Wealth) and others have since refined these essential and inevitable new ecological or biophysical economics.  It would take a very long book to introduce all the important, accurate and visionary ideas that ecologists, environmentalists and biophysical scientists have contributed to society: Organic farming, voluntary simplicity, transition towns, environmental rights, the conserver society and so forth. Ecologists such as Paul Shepard, Chellis Glendinning and Kathy McMahon examined the psychological impact of the ecology crisis.  Arne Naess introduced &lsquo;Deep Ecology&rsquo; and &lsquo;richer lives with simpler means&rsquo;. Vandana Shiva, Mary Jo Breton, Rosemary Ruether and others describe the importance of feminism for ecology. Southern hemisphere nations such as Bolivia have raised the issue of environmental justice. Gregory  Bateson introduced the link between mind, cybernetics and ecology, and wrote &ldquo;My knowing is a small part of a wider integrated knowing that knits the entire biosphere of creation.&rdquo;  The anti-environmental sophists bark for their patrons like the medieval henchmen who burned scientists and healers at the stake and conducted inquisitions and programs. And like those agents of institutionalized ignorance, they will end up on the wrong side of history.  But being wrong isn&rsquo;t the problem. The problem appears in the destruction and suffering caused by this deceit, misinformation and propaganda. Every day, as Earth spins through the heavens, species blink from existence, cancers and illnesses attack people, children starve and communities suffer.  We aren&rsquo;t quibbling about facts here. We&rsquo;re battling for lives.










Document Number: 3040 


Protests Continue as President Bush Tours Central and South America Contaminated Rice Spurs Protest of Bush-Calderon Meeting in Mexico


Feature story - March 12, 2007 


zoom bush protest in mexico


Activists staged a mock "wedding" between Presidents Bush and Calderon, including the throwing of an abundance of genetically modified rice at the couple.;; We are demanding that the Mexican government suspend the import of genetically contaminated rice, and instead shift agricultural policies towards strengthening domestic rice production and food security.;


"We call on President Calderon to use this meeting with President Bush tomorrow to make clear that the commercial relationship between Mexico and the U.S. should not imply that Mexico will silently accept the genetically modified food that is rejected by other countries," said Gustavo Ampugnani, anti-genetic engineering campaigner with Greenpeace Mexico.; "Mexico is not the dumping ground for the U.S. genetic engineering experiment, and the relationship Mexico has with the U.S. should not be one of submission, nor one that allows GMO products that other nations are rejecting into our country."  Find out more about the contamination  .


Just days ago, supporters held a demonstration in Sao Paulo as Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva met with President Bush to discuss biofuels and ethanol.  Find out more










Document Number: 715 


Good news / bad news, take two 


Blogpost  by  jhocevar - October 18, 2006 at 7:36


First, the good news:  NOAA Fisheries  ;has announced that they are scrapping efforts to promote the disastrous  Open Ocean Aquaculture bill  .; NOAA's Bill Hogarth says they'll come back next year with a revised proposal that will have more environmental safeguards.


Advocates pushing to open up U.S. waters between 3 and 200 miles offshore to fish farms have argued that this will take pressure off dwindling wild fish stocks.; Unfortunately, large scale open ocean farms are likely to do more harm than good.; These farms tend to use carnivorous fish, which still rely on wild fish for food.; In addition to the obvious problem with catching wild fish to feed farmed fish, there are also concerns about disease and parasites associated with dense concentrations of farmed fish - and about the steps taken to minimize these risks, such as use of genetically modified fish or antibiotics.


So it's definitely good news to hear that the next version of the bill will be more environmentally friendly, but it's pretty likely that the new bill won't;fix the problems with open ocean aquaculture either.


On to the bad news:; after catching three billion pounds of Alaska pollock per year, the stock size is starting to decline.; The  North Pacific Fishery Management Council  ;announced a preliminary decision to reduce the Bering Sea pollock quota by over 4%, and rumors are flying that the reduction could ultimately be much larger.; Projections for 2008 are worse still.;


If there is a silver lining to this cloud, it comes in the hope that this will serve as a wake up call to fishery managers.;;It's time to take a more precautionary,  ecosystem-based approach  to fishery management.; We need to leave enough fish in the ocean;to feed the rest of the marine mammals, sea birds, and fish that depend on them for food - not to mention the fishing dependent communities;that are already struggling from the impacts of &quot;localized depletion.&quot;;


For the oceans -


John H










Document Number: 674 


Greenpeace Jaguars Roar into Action


Feature story - August 24, 2005 


zoom Greenpeace "jaguars" prowl the forests of Argentina to stop destruction and the expansion of genetically engineered soya.


The pack has returned to Argentina and this time the team on the ground is supported by two helicopters in its efforts (who said jaguars can't fly?).; The view from above provides an unmistakable image of the extent of deforestation.; The destruction that is happening in this area far exceeds the world average rate of deforestation.; The forests here are being burned and logged to make way for the expansion of  genetically engineered (GE) soya  .


New faces on the scene include two seasoned activists: Rex Weyler and John Watterberg.; Rex is one of the original Greenpeace founders and recently published the hit book  Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists and Visionaries Changed the World .; You may remember John as one of the  Smokestack Six  .; As Greenpeace Jaguars were making a name for themselves in Argentina last summer, John was climbing to the top of one of the dirtiest power plants in the United States.


Last weekend, after the establishment of the "Pizarro Station" - a permanent operational base for the campaign - the indigenous people of the area held an emotional ceremony to welcome John and Rex as official jaguars.; Bob Hunter and David McTaggart - recently departed Greenpeace founders - were also honored as "honorary" jaguars.


Stay Tuned!


The group is off to a tremendous start!; We'll keep you posted as they fight to protect our forests, and stop the expansion of genetic engineering.










Document Number: 7773 


Bush Suppresses GE Crop Warnings


Feature story - October 19, 2004 


zoom Mexican activists take action against U.S. genetically engineered maize. (c) Greepeace/Adan


The report, written by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) of the North American Free Trade Agreement (United States, Canada and Mexico) recommends that all genetically engineered (GE) maize imports be labelled as such and that all U.S. maize entering Mexico should be milled upon entry, to prevent living seeds from being planted intentionally or accidentally.


The Bush administration has intervened several times to delay the publication of the report -- completed three months ago -- and there is still no official date for its publication.


Contaminated Food


The scandal began in September 2001 when the Mexican government announced that scientists had discovered contamination of indigenous varieties of maize with genetically engineered varieties. The likely source of the contamination is imported maize from the United States.


Indigenous and local communities in Oaxaca were horrified, and non-governmental environmental organizations in Mexico started a campaign to bring the contamination to the attention of the world.


As the genetic home of maize, Mexico is on the forefront of natural diversity in the crop. There are hundreds of local and wild varieties of Mexican maize, all of which could be marginalized and overtaken by aggressive GE strains. Loss of these varieties would put the world's food security at risk since farmers rely on these genetic resources to create new varieties, especially ones adapted to changing environmental conditions.


The Study Begins


One of the first things Mexico did was to request the CEC to look into the matter. The CEC began a process to investigate the contamination; possible impacts on human health, communities, and the environment; and eventually to provide recommendations to the three NAFTA governments on how to address the contamination. The CEC finished the long-awaited report on the contamination of Mexican maize by U.S. GE maize way back in June.


"The recognition of real environmental risks of GE maize and the consequent recommendation to mill U.S. maize upon entry into Mexico will clearly damage the U.S. position in its WTO case against Europe. It is no wonder they worked so hard to try to prevent its release," said Doreen Stabinsky, genetic engineering campaigner for Greenpeace International.


There are at least two reasons why the United States might want to delay publication of a report that highlights the environmental, human health and socio-cultural risks of GE maize - the WTO case and GE food aid.


The WTO Case


In 2003, the United States, Canada and Argentina launched a case against the European Union for a de facto moratorium on new approvals on GE varieties in place in Europe since 1998. The CEC report is likely to provide strong support for Europe's scientific arguments. It calls attention to the huge gaps in knowledge that exist regarding the impacts of GE maize in Mexico, stating explicitly that risk assessments carried out in the United States are not adequate to determine potential impacts in Mexico.


"The WTO suit was clearly a politically motivated attack on the environment and on European consumers. It is highly significant that another trade body has now confirmed that there are unique risks to genetically engineered organisms and that there is scientific backing for a precautionary approach on genetic engineering," said Stabinsky. "The only appropriate next step for the U.S. government is to follow the CEC's recommendations and mill their maize exports."


GE Food Aid


A number of African countries have rejected whole U.S. maize as a potential threat to their environment, and requested only milled maize. The report backs up these demands as it concludes that there is insufficient data on which to conclude safety of transgenic maize for the Mexican environment and recommends milling of maize to reduce these risks.


What Bush doesn't want you to see:


Conclusions from the CEC Mexican Maize report (unoffical English translation)


The CEC report on GE maize contamination in Mexico (Spanish)


Confidential comments from  US  and  Canadian  governments on the CEC report.


In-Depth:


The CEC advisory group - who are they?


History of the CEC report on Mexican maize


Mexican Maize: the Truth


The CEC's scientific findings on Maize contamination in Mexico


CEC website


Maize Under Threat - GE Maize Contamination in Mexico










Document Number: 8739 


Greenpeace Jaguars Caged Saving Argentine forests from destruction


Feature story - August 31, 2004 


zoom Greenpeace JAGUARS activists on motorbikes patrol the clearcut area in the native forest region of North Argentina and stop bulldozers from destroying the forest to expand genetic engineered soya monoculture. Greenpeace is demanding the Argentinean government to stop further destruction of the remaining forests.


Among the nine is Martin Prieto the Executive Director of Greenpeace Argentina. The Jaguars' lawyer was also thrown into jail, thus depriving them of legal representation. Our team in Argentina has spoken with the Jaguars and for now they remain in good spirit.


We believe that they were arrested for the misdemeanor of trespassing, so far the judge has decided not to release them and could keep them in jail for days. For now they are being held under custody in the Intelligence Brigade of the State Police of Salta in a local police station.


The Jaguars have been prowling Argentina's native forests for over a month now, tracking down its destruction and trying to halt the onslaught of GE Soya monoculture.


TAKE ACTION NOW!


Write to the President of Argentina asking him to ensure the activists are promptly released from jail and the problem of genetically engineered soy expansion is tackled instead.










Document Number: 5173 


True Food Shopping List


Feature story - July 20, 2004 


zoom Greenpeace activists plaster warning labels over products containing GE ingredients.


Buying whole and organic foods are the best ways to avoid GE ingredients. Most fresh fruit and vegetables, and whole grains and beans are not genetically engineered. Also, by definition, organic food is produced without genetic engineering.


When buying packaged food, be sure to keep a lookout for common genetically engineered ingredients such as: corn oil, corn syrup, corn starch, soy protein, soy oil, soy sauce, lecithin, cottonseed and canola oil. If your package lists one or more of these ingredients, chances are these are GE foods, unless it is otherwise labeled organic or non-GE.


In an effort to make your trip to the supermarket a little easier, Greenpeace has created the first-ever consumer guide to avoiding GE food: The True Food Shopping List. The True Food Shopping List is not a complete manual, but rather a starting point for consumers who want to shop smarter and safer. We will update this list as we get new information and as companies' policies evolve.


It is true that many mainstream supermarkets do not carry a variety of foods made by natural and organic producers who avoid GE ingredients. One way to change this is to talk to the manager at your local supermarket. Polite requests from concerned customers can go a long way toward bringing alternatives to your store.


McKinsey's 'bad influence' over rainforest nations around the world  Media release Senator Casey Votes Against the Clean Air Act and American Lives Blog Frontline Project Director (SF or DC)  Job Facebook Should Announce Clean Energy Plan Blog Students Demand that Facebook Unfriend Coal Blog Field team finds high levels of contamination outside of Fukushima... Blog Ocean dumping: Fukushima far from under control Blog Coal Industry: We Overestimate Jobs and Underestimate Cost Blog US Poo Poos Measuring Climate Policies, Toots Own Horn Blog Expanded Fukushima radiation monitoring team back in the field Blog










Document Number: 8784 


Victory! Monsanto Drops GE Wheat 


Feature story - May 11, 2004 


zoom  Greenpeace/Mike Pettypool


"This is a victory for the environment, farmers and consumers," said Pat Venditti, our GE campaigner in Canada. "Strong rejection of GE wheat from virtually every corner of the globe once again showed the resistance to GE foods."


Monsanto announced today that they will defer all further efforts to introduce Roundup Ready wheat, and that they will discontinue breeding and field-level research of the crop. This follows a similar announcement in 2003 when the company announced its withdrawal from the development of pharmaceutical crops.


"Let's hope GE wheat permanently joins GE flax, GE tomatoes and GE potatoes in the dustbin of bad ideas. Rather than having to restage this battle in four years time, we hope that Monsanto has heard loud and clear that genetically engineered wheat is a non-starter," continued Mr. Venditti. "The Canadian Government should make a note of this and re-think its devotion to this unnecessary technology."


According to the Canadian Wheat Board 87 percent of Canadian wheat buyers now require non-GE certification of wheat. In a survey of countries willing to accept GE wheat by the US Department of Agriculture, only four - Peru, Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Yemen - said they would buy it.


Our GE team leader Dan Hindsgaul added: "Last year Monsanto dropped GE pharmaceutical crops and now they have chosen to write off huge investments in developing Roundup Ready GE wheat. Consumers and farmers have long lost confidence in the company that also gave us pesticides, PCBs, Agent Orange and GE growth hormones for cattle. It's only a matter of time when Monsanto also lose the backing they have enjoyed in certain government offices and among financial analysts."










Document Number: 5533 


Global Action for a Global Problem


Feature story - June 1, 2004 


zoom Swedes protest against genetically modified organisms in their food and animal feed.


Actions!


Italy  - Our three-day blockade of a ship carrying 40,000 tons of GE soy results in the Italian police inspecting the GE soy in order to check whether the GE cargo complied with European Union legislation.


Spain  - We closed a soy processing facility of the world's largest soy trading company, Bunge, in Cartagena, Spain. As a result, the company quickly committed to turning one of its five facilities in Spain non-GE and invited us for a meeting at its corporate headquarters in New York.


Brazil  - Our ship, the  Arctic Sunrise,  blocked the entrance of a ship into the port of Paranagua, Brazil. The ship is carrying 30,000 tons of genetically engineered soy from Argentina.


Australia  - As a major global producer of GE soy, Argentinian forests are being cut down to clear areas to grow GE soy. We held several protests around the country resulting in the Santiago del Estero province to place a moratorium on GE soy expansion.


In April, the European Union granted consumers the right to reject genetically engineered food. Greenpeace "Gene Detectives" were on hand in  France, Germany and Luxembourg,  to help consumers choose non-GE food.


Results!


May 11, 2004, Monsanto - the chemical giant responsible for more than 91 percent of all GE crops in the world - announces that it would suspend further development of its genetically engineered wheat.  Find out more.


March 31, 2004 - A controversial government approval of GE corn for commercial planting is suspended. Upon pressure from us and other groups, the only company authoried to grow the GE corn withdraws its application.  Find out more.


May 20, 2004 - In New Zealand, McDonald's announces that it will seek non-genetically-engineered feed for its chicken products.  Find out more.


In the United States


Visit  GEAN  to find out how Americans can avoid GE food in our supermarkets.










Document Number: 8840 


Taking Action at the WTO to Stop Forced Trade 


Feature story - September 15, 2003 


zoom


Early Friday morning we took action against a ship delivering an illegal shipment of U.S. genetically engineered corn to the Mexican port of Veracruz. Activists occupied the anchor chain of a ship carrying a 40,000 ton cargo for 13 hours. Although the Captain announced that the ship had been called back to the U.S., military escorts brought it into dock where its contaminated cargo was unloaded.


In response, Greenpeace Mexico is filing a legal case against six high-ranking government officials.


The following day, the entire Meeting officially collapsed without agreements being reached by the delegates.


Find out more from updates and radio broadcasts from our team in Mexico from the  Greenpeace weblog.










Document Number: 2927 


Quarantine at Canadian Farm


Feature story - June 5, 2003 


zoom


5 June 2003 - Morden, Manitoba, Canada: Greenpeace protester; Genevieve Marion-Seguin chained to the gates of the Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC) Research Farm in Morden, Manitoba. The AAFC farm at Morden is one of the sites where open air field trials of genetically engineered wheat will take place in 2003. The Canadian Wheat Board estimates that up to 80 per cent of Canada's $3 billion wheat market will not purchase genetically engineered wheat.


&copy; Greenpeace/Michael Aporius/Canadian Press










Document Number: 2436 


Behind The Label: Stay Informed 


Feature story - June 1, 2003 


zoom


What are food companies telling consumers?


Greenpeace compiled the True Food Shopping Guide from communication with food producers, including correspondence, phone calls and company statements passed on to us from consumers. Below, find a sampling from some companies with products found in the Guide.


Companies not using genetically engineered ingredients or those taking action to eliminate genetically engineered ingredients:


"Eden Foods has had a policy since 1993 requiring affidavits from all of its growers and suppliers guaranteeing that their food is free of genetically engineered organisms...We are fundamentally opposed to these foods for moral, ethical and practical reasons." - Eden Foods Statement, May 2000


"Turtle Island is categorically against the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs)...(W)e are discontinuing the use of any product that has the remotest possibility of containing GMOs. This figures to be an expensive yet proper course of action...we have asked all suppliers for paperwork assuring that their products meet our standards and [we] have begun testing our products to assure the absence of GMOs." - Turtle Island Foods Policy, August 2000 Update


"In part because of concern about genetically modified corn and canola oil, Clif Bar products were reformulated this spring to eliminate any corn and canola oil. Clif Bar's director of R&amp;D looks at the source of every ingredient to assure that no genetically modified organisms are used in any Clif Bar product.";-;Clif Bar, consumer letter, August 2000


"We continue to work with suppliers to research the source of all ingredients in all Kettle brand products. Our goal is to have documentation that all our products are GMO free.";-;Kettle Foods, letter to consumer, August 2000


"Spectrum Organic Products is committed to the right of consumers to know what is in the foods they eat...we have established a GMO testing process utilizing a third party lab.";-;Spectrum Organic Products brochure, August 2000


"We have had specific and repeated discussions with our suppliers on the GMO and non-GMO issue...Our suppliers have given us written statements that explicitly assure us that all commodities we purchase and use to manufacture Bob's Red Mill brand whole grain foods are non-GMO." - Statement of Policy, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods, December 1999


"Cascadian Farm is a grower, buyer, processor and marketer of organically grown foods. Genetically modified organisms are not compatible with the principles of organic agriculture and food production...";-;Policy Statement, Cascadian Farm, November 1999


Companies using genetically engineered ingredients:


"Kellogg Company uses grain from a number of suppliers, so our supply would likely include biotechnology-produced grain... " - Kellogg, consumer letter, April 2000


"In countries where public opinion rejects ingredients derived from genetically modified crops, even though food legislation permits their use, Nestle respects the consumers' preference and will provide its customers, in as far as technically possible, with products that do not contain these ingredients. Nestle will continue to use ingredients derived from genetically modified crops where we have complete confidence in their safety and where they are generally accepted by consumers." - Nestle, consumer letter, March 2000


"Now that there is a renewed interest in biotechnology by regulatory agencies and some consumer concern exists, we did not feel it appropriate to ask our growers to include bt [GE] crops in what they sell to us...Since we are also a large buyer of agricultural commodities, just like any other food companies, we could have biotechnology ingredients in our products." - Frito-Lay, consumer letter, March 2000


"(I)t is probable that genetically modified soybean, corn, or other crops are used to produce the ingredients in some of our products." - Keebler Company, consumer letter, August 2000


"It is possible that our products may contain genetically modified food materials." - M &amp; M Mars, consumer letter, August 2000


"In all likelihood some of our products do contain biotech ingredients from [genetically modified] crops." - Kraft Foods, consumer letter, October 1999


"There is a high probability that some of Quaker's products contain foods developed through biotechnology.";-;Quaker Oats Company, consumer letter, March 2000


"(I)t's certainly possible that some of our products may contain ingredients that have been improved through biotechnology." - General Mills, consumer letter, August 2000










Document Number: 7636 


Drinking Dry the Sea 


Blogpost  by  Michelle Frey - August 13, 2010 at 10:45


This blogs comes from Mark Floegel, a senior investigator in Greenpeace USA&rsquo;s research unit.  Consider the environmental woes that confront us. Consider drinking dry the sea. They feel about the same.  Global warming, overfishing, deforestation, uncontrolled release of genetically modified material, nuclear waste.  So cut it down, make it manageable. Choose a single issue - say the release of toxic chemicals into our air, soil, water and our bodies. Reduce it further; only look the effects on human health &ndash; in fact, just look at the effect on the health of children.  Even this, perhaps, is more than we can bear.  Poisoned for Profit by Philip and Alice Shabecoff (Chelsea Green, 2010) tours the  landscape and history of post-war America&rsquo;s poisoning of its population, particularly its  children.  How can it be? How can a nation that has attained so much and claims such moral high  ground in human rights and social values simultaneously pump out poisons that have sent  American rates of birth defects, childhood cancer, asthma and diabetes on an ever-rising  trajectory?  Laying out their case in the form of an indictment, the Shabecoffs present the evidence,  naming names &ndash; at least some of them. General Electric, Monsanto, Dow, Dupont.  Poisoned for Profit details the manufacturing processes of each of these companies create  the poisons that now infest the nation&rsquo;s human environment.  Detailed reporting reopens old wounds for anyone who has witnessed or been affected by  modern toxification. How the industrial feedstock chemicals get into our air and water,  invade our bodies, how the bodies of children are so much more susceptible than those of  their parents.  The Shabecoffs show how, worse still, the corporations responsible for this pollution &ndash; the Dows and Monsantos - knew early on what the likely effects of their activities would be. How those same corporations act &ndash; singly and in industry-wide concert &ndash; to shift the blame for their poisons onto the victims themselves, to obfuscate issues, distort science  and economics and use cohorts of attorneys and war chests of cash to pervert the justice  system &ndash; all with the single goal of corporate profit. This is the sea that must be drunk  dry, if we as a species are to thrive.  To the PR staff at General Electric or Dupont, childhood illnesses due to environmental  poisons (not theirs, they&rsquo;ll stress, maybe someone else&rsquo;s), is an &ldquo;unintended by-product&rdquo;  of this late industrial age. As social commentator Joan Dickenson pointed out, there are  no &ldquo;by-products.&rdquo; There are only products. Whether the corporation intends them or  not, cancers and birth defects are products of the corporation, just as much as Teflon or a  quarterly dividend.  Poisoned for Profit shows how state and federal agencies tasked with protecting health  and the environment are manacled by the same cohort of attorneys, plus lobbyists, plus  trade associations. The politicians of the legislative and executive branches, who should  intervene on behalf of citizens &ndash; children in this case &ndash; are trapped, perhaps too willingly,  by the need for constant infusions of campaign cash, of a magnitude multinational  chemical companies can afford but sick children cannot.  To hold this ocean &ndash; or even, say, the Gulf of Mexico - in one&rsquo;s mouth seems impossible.  Perhaps it is, but parents, their communities, dedicated environmentalists and journalists  like Phil and Alice Shabecoff are draining this ocean every day.  The appendices to  Poisoned for Profit  provide helpful information for protecting yourself  and your family, beginning from the moment you plan your family and working outward  through your home diet and community. It&rsquo;s difficult and painstaking and it shouldn&rsquo;t  fall to parents to go to such lengths to protect their children from corporations that would  poison them, but it&rsquo;s the only way to drink the ocean dry.


--Mark










Document Number: 4227 


GE food: COMING SOON!?!?! - to a supermarket near you? What's the big deal? 


Feature story - March 3, 2010 


The European Commission has just authorized the cultivation of a genetically engineered crop for the first time since 1998. Health Commissioner John Dalli, in agreement with EU President Barroso, used a procedural move -- the so-called 'written procedure' -- to authorize a genetically engineered potato and thereby avoided a debate in the College of Commissioners. The genetically engineered potato (known as Amflora) has been developed by German agro-chemical company BASF.


It is widely accepted that  GE crops pose an unacceptable risk to the environment  , as well as to human and animal health. However, the Health Commissioner has literally forced the authorization of this crop without even holding a debate with his fellow Commissioners. By hiding behind bureaucratic formalities the EU Commission is essentially force-feeding Europeans with products that they don't want. Such a decision is shocking and sets a dangerous precedent that the profit-driven agro-chemical companies will undoubtedly take advantage of.


What's the big deal?


The BASF GE potato contains a gene resistant to certain antibiotics.  The World Health Organization  together with the European Medicines Agency have warned about the impact of the Amflora potato. Releasing it into the environment could raise bacterial resistance to life-saving medicines, including drugs used for the treatment of tuberculosis. And in this respect, BASF's GE potato will come into conflict with EU law. Since 2004, it is forbidden to market crops with antibiotic resistant genes that could pose a threat to human health and the environment.


Barroso has been trying to force GE food onto the European market against the wishes of many member states and public opinion. He has allowed thousands of agro-chemicals to the markets without health or environmental safety tests.


It's not just about potatoes...


We have urgent concerns about the intention of President Barroso and Health Commissioner Dalli to authorise the cultivation of genetically engineered crops in Europe. Hot on the trails of the GE potato are three pesticide-producing maize varieties produced by Monsanto (MON810), Pioneer (Bt11) and Syngenta (1507) all awaiting authorization.


GE crops cause many environmental problems. Most of them are created to resist high does of herbicides (developed and sold by the same companies that market the GE crop). As a consequence weed populations become resistant to herbicides and farmers need to increase the amount of chemicals spread on fields. Apart from hitting farmers economically the chemicals could affect their health. And the increased usage of agro-chemicals has serious effect on insects that are naturally part of the eco system and are an essential part of it. Throwing the insect population out of balance could result in the need for heavy use of insecticides to control them, adding to the chemical cocktail on our food, soils and water. On top of that GE crops could sporadically spread and interbreed with non GE environments, contaminating and taking over farmer's crops. This sometimes creates 'monster plants' and gives farmers no other choice but to purchase GE seeds and the chemicals to grow them, from agro-chemical giants like Monsanto or BASF.


A-maize-ing in Mexico


In Mexico - our activists scaled a national monument and unfolded a massive banner in Guadalajara - where an international conference started this week on agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries. The banner called on the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) to stop GE crops and protect maize.


We expect this conference to heavily promote the propaganda that GE is one of the tools needed to help developing countries out of hunger and poverty. This conference is taking place just as Mexico is about to unleash GE maize in experimental field trials. Mexico is the center of origin and diversity for this staple crop. Cultivating GE maize here will irreversibly contaminate a center of biodiversity.


Our office in Mexico is also contributing to the organization of a parallel forum that is going to run during the FAO conference, with round tables on risks and alternatives to GE, movie showings, a demonstration and meetings with media and local celebrities who support ecological farming.


GE-free Germany


On Monday, over 500 of our activists from all over Germany ate a GE-free lunch at the Brandenburg Gate to protest the GE-friendly policies of the government. Even though most Germans  object to genetically manipulated food  , the government wants to promote GE agriculture, especially -- yes you've guessed it! -- the GE 'Amflora potato' from BASF. The banquet was set up so that the tables spelled out 'NEIN' (NO) when seen from above. According to a public poll in January, 79 percent of Germans oppose GE crops for cultivation because of the ecological risks. And they don't want to be 'guinea-pigs' for the GE industry.


Flogging a dead horse


In April 2008, the World Bank and several UN bodies concluded the Global Agricultural Assessment Report, the first-ever scientific assessment of global agriculture. It was compiled over four years by more than 400 scientists from around the world and signed by 58 governments. Contrary to the GE industry propaganda, this assessment sees no role for GE crops in eradicating hunger and ensuring food security. The future of agriculture lies in agroecological systems that create jobs and stimulate rural development, defend nature and people by protecting soil, water and climate, and promote biodiversity. Such farming systems ensure healthy farming and healthy food for today and tomorrow, and do not contaminate the environment with chemicals or genetic engineering.


European citizens mostly reject GE food and have done so consistently for almost 15 years. About 60 percent of the EU population oppose the use of GE crops in agriculture. In 2009 European farmers planted 11 percent fewer GE crops compared to the previous year, due to higher prices and the low appeal of GE crops.  the EU Comission is now by-passing proper procedures for GE authorization.


Take Action!


Show your support for sustainable agriculture.










Document Number: 8945 


Mr. Potato Head goes organic On yer bike! 


Feature story - May 29, 2009 


zoom GE-Potatoes


The  PieperPad  (Dutch for "Potato Trail") is a 1,000 kilometer long cycling tour designed to raise awareness about the importance of ecological farming in the Netherlands by encouraging members of the public to get out into the countryside and enjoy potatoes, a well loved Dutch staple, in a totally new way.


A member of Parliament, called Mr. Pieper (yes, he's actually called "Mr. Potato"!) was a special guest at the premiere of the first track along with Gert van der Zwan, principal of the Carolus Clusius College (Carolus Clusius is the botanist who brought the potato to Holland around 1600). Copies of the cycling guide were given to these two sensibly dressed fellows who then donned potato costumes, hopped on their bike and rode to the first potato exhibition field sporting 15 kinds of potatoes. Assisted by students of the Carolus Clusius College, the two special guests planted the last potatoes here.


The Pieperpad is an initiative by Greenpeace Netherlands together with Biologica. Both organizations defend biodiversity and campaign on environmentally and socially sustainable agriculture.


On yer bike!


In several Dutch cities the Pieperpad was promoted by volunteers handing out potatoes, flyers and riding around on bikes dressed as potatoes - through the center of Utrecht and organic markets in Amsterdam and Amerongen.


Dutch folks have been very enthusiastic about the project and requests are flooding in from individuals and businesses who want to hop on the Pieperpad. Greenpeace Netherlands has also started a competition asking supporters to create a name for the newest organic potato that will be ready at the end of 2009.


Organic revolution


We asked several organic farmers here in the Netherlands how they felt about going organic. J. Bakker, grows potatoes on his 80 hectare farm, in Munnekezijl. Mr. Bakker was a conventional farmer for 25 years, but in 2001 he decided to switch to organic farming. He says "Genetic engineering is the biggest threat to agriculture, because there is so much uncertainty."


Joute Miedema, in Oudebildtzijl, went completely organic in 2009. From 1967 till 2000 he worked as a conventional farmer. But when he realised that organic farming was economical feasible he decided to make the gradual switch to organic farming. He enjoys being an organic farmer a lot more. "It demands more creativity and alertness", says Miedema. "Marketwise it's more pioneering and I like it more and more." Because he uses organic fertilizers in stead of artificial ones, his soil gets more body and life returns to his acres. "Birds of prey have returned, just like hares, deer, quails, while they have been away for years."


Erik Ploer runs a farm with his family in the same region. When they first started working there he wanted to work in a way that was friendly to both humans, animals and the environment, that's why he decided to work organically. "Organic is the kind of farming I feel most at home with. In agriculture everything has to do with everything. You feed the soil, work together with the animals and for humans. Organic farmers make the right moves: No poison, rejecting genetically modified crops and no artificial fertilizers. Physical and mental health go first!"


The GM resistance


European countries continue to resist growing genetically modified (GM) crops.  Germany has just announced that it will become the sixth EU country to ban the cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize MON810  - the only GM crop that can be commercially grown in the region. But Monsanto is still pushing for this maize to be grown in more EU countries, with some worrying success. The EU Commission needs to take a stand against GM crops to ensure the protection of consumers, farmers and the environment.


In another bid to control our food,  Bayer, the German chemical giant  is hoping to get EU approval for the import of their GM rice variety LL62. This rice has genetically manipulated rice to withstand higher doses of a toxic pesticide called glufosinate, which is considered to be so dangerous to humans and the environment that it will soon be banned from Europe. If this rice gets approval - farmers in the US and elsewhere may soon start planting the manipulated crop.


We hope that governments around the world will follow the examples of countries like Germany and France by announcing a ban all GM crops.










Document Number: 4973 


Greenpeace Statement On Patrick Moore


Media release - October 10, 2008 


While it is true that Patrick Moore was a member of Greenpeace in the 1970s, in 1986 he abruptly turned his back on the very issues he once passionately defended. He claims he "saw the light" but what Moore really saw was an opportunity for financial gain. Since then he has gone from defender of the planet to a paid representative of corporate polluters.


Patrick Moore promotes such anti-environmental positions as clearcut logging, nuclear power, farmed salmon, PVC (vinyl) production, genetically engineered crops, and mining. Clients for his consulting services are a veritable Who's Who of companies that Greenpeace has exposed for environmental misdeeds, including Monsanto, Weyerhaeuser, and BHP Minerals.


Moore's claims run from the exaggerated to the outrageous to the downright false, including that "clear-cutting is good for forests" and Three Mile Island was actually "a success story" because the radiation from the partially melted core was contained. That is akin to saying "my car crash was a success because I only cracked my skull and didn't die."


By exploiting his former ties to Greenpeace, Moore portrays himself as a prodigal son who has seen the error of his ways. Unfortunately, the media - especially conservative media - give him a platform for his views, and often do so without mentioning the fact that he is a paid spokesperson for polluting companies.


The following provides a brief overview of Patrick Moore's positions and his history of working for corporate polluters.


TRUTH V. FICTION ON PATRICK MOORE:


Patrick Moore claims he is an environmentalist and represents an independent scientific perspective on forest issues.


TRUTH: Moore was paid by the British Columbia Forest Alliance, an industry-front group set up by the public relations firm Burson-Marsteller (the same PR firm that represented Exxon after the Valdez oil spill and Union Carbide after the Bhopal chemical disaster). The BC Forest Alliance is funded primarily by the logging industry. He also has ties to other corporations including Monsanto and Weyerhaeuser.


According to Moore, logging is good for forests causing reforestation, not deforestation.


TRUTH: Webster's Dictionary defines deforestation as "the action or process of clearing of forests." The argument advanced by forest industry spin-doctors that clear-cutting "causes reforestation, not deforestation" is without basis in fact. It is like arguing that having a heart attack improves your health because of the medical treatment you receive afterwards.


According to Moore: "Forward-thinking environmentalists and scientists have made clear, technology has now progressed to the point where the activist fear mongering about the safety of nuclear energy bears no resemblance to reality."


TRUTH:


- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) concluded years ago that the lack of containment on Department of Energy (DOE) sponsored advanced nuclear reactor designs constituted a "major safety trade-off."


- Patrick Moore has recently begun touting the "safety" of nuclear energy at the behest of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), which is being bankrolled by the nuclear industry to promote nuclear energy as clean and safe energy. The public relations firm Hill &amp; Knowlton has been hired to roll out a multi-million dollar campaign to repackage Moore's propaganda to convince congressional leaders of public support for the building of new nuclear plants.


Hill and Knowlton are most well known for their public relations work defending the tobacco industry. The PR firm has also worked for industry interests to stall action to protect the ozone layer by executing "a carefully designed campaign attacking the science behind the ozone depletion and delaying government action for two years. This was enough time for DuPont to bring new, ozone-friendly chemicals to market." Austin American Statesman, Cox News Service Jeff Nesmith June 26, 2005 http://www.statesman.com/search/content/insight/stories/06/26doubt.html


More information on Hill and Knowlton can be found at:


http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Hill_%26_Knowlton


Moore's recent call that the U.S. should generate 60 percent of U.S. electricity from nuclear power is ludicrous. These plants are acknowledged by the federal government's own National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States - commonly referred to as the 9/11 Commission - as terrorist targets. An accident or terrorist attack at a nuclear plant could result in thousands of near-term deaths from radiation exposure and hundreds of thousands of long-term deaths from cancer among individuals within only fifty miles of a nuclear plant.


His proposal not only fails to address the risk posed to the American public by our existing plants, but also fails to address the urgent issue of global warming. According to Dr. Bill Keepin, a physicist and energy consultant in the U.S., "given business-as-usual growth in energy demand, it appears that even an infeasibly massive global nuclear power programme could not reduce future emissions of carbon dioxide. To displace coal alone would require the construction of a new nuclear plant every two or three days for nearly four decadesin the United States, each dollar invested in efficiency displaces nearly seven times more carbon than a dollar invested in new nuclear power."


According to Moore, "Three Mile Island was actually a success story in that the radiation from the partially melted core was contained."


TRUTH:


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission estimates that 10 million curies of radiation were released into the environment by the Three Mile Island Meltdown. Expert witnesses in the TMI law suits estimated that 150 million curies escaped, because the containment at Three Mile Island was not leak tight and the NRC ignored many of the potential escape routes for the radiation.


VVPR info:  Jane Kochersperger, 202-319-2493










Document Number: 1693 


Greenpeace Exposes Anheuser Busch's Use of Genetically Engineered Rice in Beer Brewing Process


Media release - October 8, 2007 


Bayer LL601 rice was the source of the 2006 contamination of at least 30 percent of rice stocks in the United States. The GE contamination had a massive negative economic impact on the U.S. rice industry as many countries subsequently stopped or significantly restricted the import of U.S. rice.


"Anheuser-Busch must make a clear statement about the level of GE contamination of the rice used to brew Budweiser in the U.S. and spell out what measures are in place to ensure this beer does not reach the company's export markets," said Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace agriculture campaigner.


"U.S. beer drinkers need Anheuser-Busch to explain why it is not preventing use of this genetically engineered rice in the U.S. If, as the company has informed Greenpeace, all of the Budweiser exported from the U.S. or manufactured outside of the U.S. does not contain genetically engineered rice, then Anheuser-Busch needs to state this publicly, and explain the double standard," added Stabinsky.


Greenpeace informed Anheuser-Busch of the test results prior to their release and sought clear information from the company on the extent of contamination and its global policy on the use of GE ingredients. Anheuser-Busch responded that the rice is approved for use in the U.S. and is not used in brewing Budweiser destined for export. The full extent of the contamination remains unclear.


The rice strain in question, Bayer LL601 rice, was retroactively granted approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) in an effort to reduce public concern and company liability, despite 15,000 public objections. The European Food Safety Authority, however, stated that there was insufficient data to make a finding of safety. Greenpeace believes that U.S. consumers have a right to know if GE-contaminated rice is used to make Budweiser. Last Friday, the USDA released inconclusive results of a 14-month, 8,500 staff hour study into the contamination incident, providing little insight into how the contamination occurred, and showing no evidence that regulators or industry have any idea how to prevent future contamination scandals.


Anheuser-Busch is the largest single rice buyer in the US, buying six to ten percent of the annual U.S. rice crop, and is one of only a few beer producers that use rice as an ingredient. The brand is found in approximately 60 countries through a mix of exports and local brewing arrangements.


"Anheuser-Busch should make a global commitment to produce all of its beer without GE ingredients. Anything less will leave a bad taste in the mouth of Budweiser drinkers," concluded Stabinsky.


VVPR info:  steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org


Notes:  For more information, visit:  http://usaphoto.greenpeace.org/gebud/










Document Number: 9326 


Greenpeace Renews Call for G.E.-Free Budweiser Beer Giant Claims Group's Statements on GE-Rice in Its Beer Are Misleading, False


Media release - October 11, 2007 


"We are disappointed that Anheuser-Busch didn't simply come clean and join other major brewing concerns, like Heineken, that have gone GE free," said Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace International GE campaigner. "Anheuser-Busch's threat of legal action is no way to address the public concerns raised by Greenpeace. The solution is for Anheuser-Busch to reassure its customers in the U.S. and abroad about the purity of its product. It's a simple question of the public's right to know."


In the faxed reply to a fax from Anheuser-Busch to Greenpeace sent Monday, Greenpeace International's lawyer reiterates a call for the company to issue a clear public statement giving details of the company's global policy on genetic engineering and the testing and segregation systems it has in place to ensure that its export production is entirely GE-free and that U.S. consumers have the same right to GE-free beer as Europeans.


The problem at the root of the dispute emerged in 2006 when various strains of GE rice contaminated a significant proportion of the U.S. long grain rice crop. While Anheuser-Busch was not responsible for the contamination, independent analyses, conducted recently on behalf of Greenpeace, revealed the presence of GE rice in three of four samples of rice taken from a mill in Arkansas that is operated by Anheuser-Busch to brew Budweiser. The GE rice in question, Bayer LL601, is not approved for use in any country other than the United States. It was approved in the U.S. only after the extent of the contamination became apparent.


"It is not unreasonable to insist that beer drinkers in the U.S. are guaranteed the same degree of assurance against genetically modified products as consumers abroad," continued Dr. Stabinsky.


"Anheuser-Busch's claims that Greenpeace is retaliating against the company for refusing to join an advocacy campaign against GE crops is misleading," added Stabinsky. "We told Anheuser-Busch from day one that the test results would be made public. However, we suggest that instead of supporting the GE industry by buying GE-contaminated rice, the company use its considerable influence to support U.S. farmers and traders who are now suing Bayer in an attempt to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars they have lost as a result of the contamination."


VVPR info:  steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org


Notes:  Correspondence between Greenpeace and Anheuser-Busch can be found at:  http://usaphoto.greenpeace.org/gebud










Document Number: 1604 


Mexico Closes Border to Genetically Engineered Rice from the United States Measure Comes Nearly Two Weeks After Greenpeace Demanded Action


Media release - March 15, 2007 


Developed by Bayer CropScience, LLRICE601, which is experimental, was last grown in 2001, and neither Bayer nor the U.S. government has been able to explain how the contamination occurred following the discovery in August 2006. Many U.S. rice import markets, including Europe and Japan, have already put measures in place to prevent the contaminated imports from entering. This is the first time that Mexico has taken a precautionary measure on the importation of genetically engineered foods.


The measures taken by the Mexican government comes almost two weeks after Greenpeace demanded the immediate suspension of genetically engineered rice imports. Since issuing that call, Greenpeace activists held two demonstrations in Mexico, one in front of the Ministry of Health, and the second preceding the meeting between Presidents Bush and Calderon.


"Mexico has a golden opportunity to make a 180-degree turn in its genetic engineering policies, to work with the rice industry in elevating domestic production and advancing towards the goal of agricultural self-sufficiency," said Gustavo Ampugnani, anti-genetic engineering campaigner with Greenpeace Mexico.


Mexico is currently the largest export market for U.S. rice. In 2006, U.S. rice exports to Mexico were valued at a record $205 million, according to the USA Rice Federation, which is also in contact with the U.S. embassy in Mexico City over the border closing. It is estimated that 63 percent of the value of U.S. rice imports have been affected by the LLRICE601 variety.


The contaminated rice has been found in rice supplies throughout the southern U.S., and the LLRICE601 contamination scandal, discovered in August 2006, has been the worst crisis for the U.S. rice industry in recent memory. The USA Rice Federation adopted an emergency plan to keep the contamination from next year's harvest, although the bulk of the 2006 harvest is yet to be sold. With the discovery last week of further unidentified contamination, the USDA has taken the unprecedented  step of ordering a ban on sales and planting of contaminated rice seed and the uprooting of rice that has already been planted.


VVPR info:  steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org


Exp. contact date:  2007-04-15 00:00:00










Document Number: 6574 


Greenpeace Protest Over Contaminated Rice Precedes Bush-Calderon Meeting in Mexico Mexico Is Not The U.S. Trash Can, Says Environmental Group


Media release - March 12, 2007 


"We call on President Caldern to use this meeting with President Bush tomorrow to make clear that the commercial relationship between Mexico and the U.S. should not imply that Mexico will silently accept the genetically engineered food that is rejected by other countries," said Gustavo Ampugnani, anti-genetic engineering campaigner with Greenpeace Mexico. "Mexico is not the dumping ground for the U.S. genetic engineering experiment, and the relationship Mexico has with the U.S. should not be one of submission, nor one that allows rice into our country that other nations are rejecting," he added.


The mock wedding comes a week after huge volumes of U.S. rice were found to be contaminated with LLRICE601, a variety developed by Bayer CropScience that has not been approved for consumption in Mexico. Also late last week, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced the discovery of another as-of-yet unidentified gene adulterating U.S. rice supplies.


"The U.S. is clearly incapable of protecting consumers, both in the U.S. and abroad, from the unknown effects of genetic engineering," said Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace scientist based in the U.S. "Many countries around the world, including all of Europe, Japan, and South Korea, have all clearly told the United States that they will not accept their contaminated rice. Mexico should do the same."


The contaminated rice has been found in rice supplies throughout the southern U.S., and the LLRICE601 contamination scandal, which began in August 2006, has been the worst crisis for the U.S. rice industry in recent memory. The USA Rice Federation has adopted an emergency plan to keep the contamination from next year's harvest, although the bulk of the 2006 harvest is yet to be sold. With the discovery last week of further unidentified contamination, the USDA has taken the unprecedented  step of ordering a ban on sales and planting of contaminated rice seed and the uprooting of rice that has already been planted.


Mexico is currently the largest export market for U.S. rice. Last week, Greenpeace Mexico activists staged a demonstration at the Ministry of Health's headquarters demanding action to stop the import of contaminated rice.


VVPR info:  steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org


Exp. contact date:  2007-04-12 00:00:00










Document Number: 5491 


Greenpeace Investigation Reveals U.S. Source of Genetic Contamination in Mexican Rice Mexicans Eating Rice Variety Unapproved for Human Consumption


Media release - March 9, 2007 


"Our worst fears have been confirmed: we are eating genetically engineered rice without even knowing it," said Gustavo Ampugnani, genetic engineering campaigner with Greenpeace Mexico. "And even worse is that this contamination is coming from experimental fields and has come here illegally, since at least last August." "We know testing is happening and segregation is possible - Europeans are demanding and receiving uncontaminated rice. U.S. rice exporters are taking advantage of Mexican government apathy and disposing of their adulterated rice south of the border," he continued.


Last year, huge volumes of U.S. rice were found to be contaminated with LLRICE601 and export destinations from Europe to Japan put in place measures to prevent these contaminated imports. The USDA retroactively approved the variety for cultivation in the United States (no food approval is required in the U.S.), but the experimental variety is still not approved for consumption in any U.S. rice export market, including Mexico. The USA Rice Federation adopted an emergency plan to keep the contamination from next year's harvest, but the bulk of the 2006 harvest is still to be sold.


"These test results and the latest USDA declarations prove that contamination isn't only possible, but is reaching epidemic proportions in the U.S.," added Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace scientist based in the U.S. "The U.S. regulatory system is clearly incapable of protecting consumers here and abroad from untested and unapproved genetically engineered varieties. The only sure way for governments around the world to protect their citizens seems to be to stop purchasing U.S. agricultural products."


Greenpeace is putting pressure on officials in Mexico to take action to prevent the contaminated rice from being imported from the U.S., especially in light of the upcoming meeting between Presidents Felipe Calderon and George W. Bush. More detailed information about the results is available.


VVPR info:  steve.smith@wdc.greenpeace.org


Exp. contact date:  2007-04-09 00:00:00










Document Number: 2205 


Greenpeace Jaguars on the Prowl Activists Stop Bulldozers from Destroying Forests


Media release - July 29, 2004 


The "jaguars" located the bulldozers clear cutting and burning the forest while on the prowl in Salta, on the border of the Great Chaco and Yungas forests. Five "jaguars" used motorbikes to intercept the bulldozers and block their path to the forest. They locked the machines using chains to immobilize them and stamped "Blocked by Greenpeace" on the diggers.


"Argentina's rich biodiversity is being swallowed up by Monsanto's genetically engineered soya. The Argentinean Government must intervene and stop these unique jaguar forests being destroyed," said Emiliano Biodiversity Campaign Coordinator, Greenpeace Argentina.


Greenpeace "jaguars" have been tracking down bulldozers since Monday. So far, eight machines remain immobilized and stamped, and the "jaguars" are still on the prowl for more.


The sharp increase in soy cultivation is causing social as well as environmental problems in Argentina. Ramn Ferriera, who lives in the Great Chaco forest, said, "They force us to leave our land, often with guns. Then they come with these powerful machines, knock down all the trees, burn them and plant soya. We see no economic benefit from such great destruction and we lose all we have."


More than 5,400 people around the world have telephoned their Argentinean Embassies this week, to demand that Argentinean President, Dr. Nstor Kirchner, stops the forest destruction.










Document Number: 771 


Greenpeace Stops Ship Carrying Contaminated Corn


Media release - September 12, 2003 


This morning, two Greenpeace activists, from Argentina and Mexico, attached themselves to the anchor chain of a ship carrying 40,000 tons of genetically engineered corn destined for the port of Veracruz, the largest port in Mexico. This action reinforces the Mexican government's rights to reject U.S. genetically engineered (GE) corn, put in place yesterday.


"The U.S. dumping of genetically engineered corn in Mexico must stop immediately," says Doreen Stabinsky, Greenpeace campaigner. We are dealing with an emergency situation where one of the world's most important staple food crops is at risk due to genetic contamination. Mexico is the biological origin for corn and it needs to be protected."


U.S. companies like Monsanto are ignoring Mexico's right to reject genetically engineered corn. Greenpeace has stopped the first shipment of genetically engineered corn entering Mexico since a new international law to protect biodiversity came into force yesterday allowing countries to reject genetically modified organisms (GMOs).


The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety entered into force yesterday-- a treaty which Mexico has ratified. The international community has adopted this legally binding global agreement to safeguard the environment, biological diversity and human health against the irreversible risks posed by GMOs. The Protocol clearly states that countries must take action to prevent the adverse effects of GMOs on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.


Greenpeace is calling on the Mexican and other governments to ensure that the Biosafety Protocol prevails over the WTO and its environmentally and socially destructive trade rules," said Stabinsky. The Biosafety Protocol allows developing countries to protect their food supplies from corporate interests"


"The U.S. is defending its continued dumping of crops on export markets at 30 percent below the costs of production despite growing demands from the South to end dumping. At the same time the US is defending the interests of biotech giants like Monsanto by using the WTO as a political weapon to aggressively attack GMO restrictions worldwide," says Stabinsky.


Last month Greenpeace intercepted and blocked a trainload of U.S. maize as it tried to enter Mexico, demanding that the Mexican government undertake an assessment of the scope and magnitude of the GE contamination in Mexico and declare an immediate halt to the importation of GE corn.










Document Number: 6741 


Greenpeace Intercepts Train Filled With U.S. Contaminated Corn at Mexican Border Mexican Government Under Pressure to Resist U.S. GMO Dumping


Media release - August 17, 2003 


Greenpeace activists intercepted a trainload of U.S. corn today as it tried to enter Mexico, in response to new evidence that the United States was dumping genetically engineered crops across the border. The transport of this corn contravenes international agreements, and undermines the diversity and health of Mexican corn and the people who rely on it.


Activists suspended themselves from the train's axles to hang below the railway bridge over the Rio Grande - the Mexican-U.S. border - while the Greenpeace Mexico office negotiated with the Mexican Government for a ban on the U.S. dumping of genetically engineered corn into Mexico.


Scientific analysis from an independent U.S. laboratory of U.S. corn samples entering Mexico last fall showed that roughly one third of the corn was genetically engineered. Corn imports from the U.S. are thought to be responsible for widespread contamination of traditional varieties of corn grown by peasants in the mountainous regions of central Mexico. Much of the corn entering Mexico is Monsanto's  Bt  corn, engineered to produce a toxin that kills insects, threatens native butterflies and moths and damages the fertility of the soil. The long term impacts of engineered crops on humans and the environment are currently not known.


"NAFTA opened up Mexico's borders to massive imports of U.S. corn -- and now over 5 million tons of U.S. contaminated corn is imported into Mexico every year," said Doreen Stabinsky of Greenpeace. "This contaminated corn poses unacceptable threats to Mexico's unique and valuable stores of biological diversity. Moreover, the dumping of U.S. corn in Mexico has had significant negative impacts on the agricultural sector, displacing millions of peasants who are put out of work by cheap corn imports."


In January 2003, over 100,000 Mexican peasants staged a protest in Mexico City demanding an end to cheap corn imports. The U.S. is using trade agreements such as NAFTA and the WTO to force Mexico to accept contaminated corn, at the same time endangering the environment and putting Mexican corn producers out of business.


"Against our will, Mexicans are witnessing the destruction of our number one food source, as well as the health and environment of the people who depend on it. This is happening because governments around the world are allowing the United States to determine global trade policy that benefits the interests of biotech corporations over any other interests," said Liza Covantes, a campaigner from Greenpeace Mexico.










Document Number: 7949 


Greenpeace Shuts Down Shaw's Markets Main Distribution Center &amp;nbsp;


Media release - February 19, 2003 


Activists Demand Shaw's Stop The Genetic Food Experiment


Methuen, MA, February 19, 2003 - In a dramatic action to get Shaw's/Star markets to rid its store brand products of genetically engineered (GE) food, Greenpeace parked three buses in front of Shaw's main distribution center in order to block deliveries of GE food to Shaw's stores. Six Greenpeace activists were locked to the buses, painted with the message, "Shaw's: Stop Genetically Engineered Food" and "The Genetic Experiment Ends Here." Today's lockdown comes after two years of widespread consumer activism across New England in what has become a growing movement against Shaw's continued use of GE food.


"Tens of thousands of Shaw's customers have demanded that their food no longer contain these genetic experiments, but Shaw's has ignored them," said Heather Whitehead, Campaigner with the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign. "Shaw's won't stop the flow of genetically engineered food to its stores, so Greenpeace activists will."


During today's blockade, Greenpeace sent representatives to Shaw's Headquarters in West Bridgewater, Massachusetts to request a meeting with Shaw's CEO, Paul Gannon. In December of last year, Greenpeace awarded Mr. Gannon with the "#1 Food Polluter in New England" plaque for the supermarket chain's continued use of GE food in its store brands. At the same time, over 200,000 consumer emails were sent to the company asking that they remove GE food.


Doctors and scientists warn that genetically engineered foods could trigger food allergies, have increased levels of toxins, or could hasten the spread of antibiotic resistance.


"It is astounding that Shaw's has not changed their stance on genetically engineered food," said Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, science advisor to Greenpeace. "Shaw's is playing Russian Roulette with the health and environment of its customers."


Genetic testing requested by Greenpeace found that four out of five of the tested Shaw's brand products contained genetically engineered ingredients: Shaw's Brand Crispy Corn Puffs Cereal, Shaw's Brand Yellow Corn chips, Shaw's Brand Complete Pancake and Waffle Mix, and Shaw's Brand Taco dinner. Shaw's parent company, UK- based J Sainsbury, has already stopped using GE ingredients in its food because of consumer demands.


Contact the Greenpeace media department  .










Document Number: 8310 


National Academy of Sciences Confirms Food Supply Risks from GE Animals Greenpeace Calls for Ban - Risks are too Great


Media release - August 20, 2002 


The study notes that health risks include contamination of the food supply with engineered chemicals, pharmaceuticals and genetically engineered growth hormones. For example, milk from cows that have been genetically engineered with pharmaceuticals could inadvertently enter the human food supply. Greenpeace is calling for a ban on the environ-mental release of genetically engineered animals.


"The NAS has now confirmed that genetically engineered animals threaten to wipe out wild species and contaminate our food supply," said Charles Margulis of Greenpeace. "This is an unnecessary risk to our environment and health. Greenpeace is calling for a immediate ban."


The authors of the NAS report, "Animal Biotechnology: Identifying Science Based Concerns," were asked by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to identify issues associated with this new field of gene engineering. Already in development, though not yet on the market, are genetically engineered or cloned dairy cows, chickens, pigs, and beef cattle. The NAS study notes specifically that GE fish may represent the greatest environmental threat, as they cannot be contained and will easily compete with wild fish for food and habitat.


A Massachusetts company, AF Protein, has already submitted an application to FDA for approval to sell genetically engineered salmon. Last year, Greenpeace protested at the company's development facility, and called on FDA to deny any application for commercial sale of gene altered fish. Dozens of other fishing organizations and scientists have called for a moratorium on GE fish, including the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, Canada's leading scientific body the Royal Society, and Jean-Michel Cousteau, President of Ocean Futures.










Document Number: 6463 


Greenpeace and the Organic Consumers Association Speak Out at Safeway's Shareholder Meeting


Media release - May 16, 2002 


Groups Demand Safeway take Risky Genetically Engineered Ingredients out of Its Store Brand Products


San Ramon, California, May 16, 2002  - Following a Mothers Day rally on Friday in front of the Safeway headquarters and a Mother's Day "UnSafeway" newspaper ad on Sunday, Greenpeace and the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) were at Safeway's Annual General Meeting of Shareholders today to voice their concerns about the company's continued use of genetically engineered ingredients in their Safeway brand products.


"Genetically engineered foods are untested, unnecessary and unwanted," said Heather Whitehead, of the Greenpeace genetic engineering campaign. "If Safeway truly cares about its customers and its shareholders, it will live up to its name and stop doing business the Un-Safeway," added Whitehead, "Safeway needs to decide who they represent - their customers or the biotech industry."


Wearing "UnSafeway" t-shirts, the groups handed out flyers and postcards about the risks of genetically engineered foods, to the entering shareholders.&Yacute; The group also held a large banner reading "The UnSafeway: Stop Genetically Engineered Food". In March 2002, Greenpeace tested Safeway Select brand Soy Infant Formula and Safeway Brand Popped Corn Cakes, both tested positive for having genetically engineered ingredients. The groups also sent a representative into the shareholders meeting on a proxy from concerned shareholders.


"Genetic engineering fundamentally alters nature by crossing the species barrier for the first time in history," said Simon Harris, of the Organic Consumers Association. "Safeway needs to do the right thing and stop the genetic experiment with our food."


Greenpeace and the Organic Consumers Association are both members of the GE-Free Markets Coalition, a coalition of consumer and environmental groups from all over the country. The Coalition is targeting Safeway and other grocery chains to force them to follow the lead of supermarkets in Europe, along with Whole foods, Wild Oats and, most recently, Trader Joe's, by removing GE foods from store brand products.










Document Number: 1286 


Mexican Groups, Greenpeace Launch NAFTA Appeal to Force Action Against Genetic Contamination &amp;nbsp;


Media release - April 24, 2002 


The Hague, Netherlands, April 24, 2002  -- Mexican community groups, environmental organizations and Greenpeace launched an appeal today before the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) under the North American Free Trade Agreement to investigate the damage caused by widespread contamination of Mexican corn with genetically engineered (GE) corn from the United States. The contamination was discovered over six months ago in Oaxaca, Mexico, the center of originand diversity for the world's corn, and has recently been found by the Mexican government to be much more widespread than originally thought.


The appeal requests that the CEC review the impact of the genetic contamination on corn and on biodiversity in the affected regions; to explain how the indigenous varieties have been contaminated with genes of GE varieties; and to halt all exports of GE corn into Mexico.


A positive decision by the CEC would push both the Mexican and U.S. governments to take long-overdue action to seal off the source of the genetic pollution and to find a solution to the current situation in the provinces of Oaxaca. Over 300 local and wild corn varieties are in jeopardy due to contamination that most likely has originated from U.S. imported GE maize.


In September, the Mexican Government confirmed that indigenous Mexican maize varieties in 15 out of 22 communities tested in the states of Oaxaca and Puebla were affected by genetic pollution. The latest information from a government source indicates even higher levels of contamination than originally feared -- between 20-60 percent in the four communities tested. This is the first case of genetic contamination of a center of origin and diversity for one of the world's most important food crops.


Earlier this month an article published in Nature magazine detailing the contamination in Mexican corn was challenged by some scientists who disagreed with the study's technical aspects, though not the findings of contamination.New evidence provided by the Mexican government of far worse contamination than that found in the research has vindicated the study's lead authors, Ignacio Chapella and David Quist of U.C. Berkeley, and has given added urgency to calls from indigenous communities in Mexico to protect their corn from additional contamination.


Because of the high risk GE corn poses to local varieties and wild relatives, Mexico prohibited field trials and commercial planting in 1998. However, each year approximately 6 million tons of corn are still imported from the U.S., at least 25 percent of which is GE.


Speaking at the intergovernmental conference on the implementation of the UN Biosafety Protocol, Miguel Ramrez Domnguez, President of the Communal Property Commissariat of Capulalpan de Mndez, Ixtln, Oaxaca, one of the communities affected by the contamination, said: "We call for a thorough investigation about the consequences of the presence of genetic contamination in the indigenous maize varieties and effective remedial measures. This pollution not only affects Mexico but puts the world's food security at risk since farmers around the world rely on these genetic resources to create new varieties, which adapt to changing environmental conditions."


Greenpeace and 40 Mexican groups have proposed an emergency plan that calls on the U.S. government to halt exports of all GE corn to Mexico, and for the Mexican government to file legal action against Monsanto, Syngenta and Aventis, responsiblefor the production of GE corn.


Contact:


Greenpeace at the Biosafety meeting in the Hague:


Hector Magallon, Genetic Engineering Campaigner, +31-(0)-629-001-138;


Dr. Doreen Stabinsky, Science and Biosafety Expert for Greenpeace International, +31(0) 629-001-144.


In the United States:


Alisa Arnett, Greenpeace, (415) 255-9221, ext. 330










Document Number: 3671 


Shaw's/Star Markets Target of Anti-GE Food Campaign


Media release - March 12, 2002 


A national campaign to rid grocery stores of genetically engineered (GE) foods got its start today when Shaw's/Star Market was the target of a protest over its use of these controversial ingredients. Consumers joined Greenpeace and Clean Water Action, both members of the GE-Free Markets Coalition, in demanding that Shaw's/Star Market ("Shaw's") remove controversial and untested GE ingredients from its store brand products. The protesters conveyed their message in front of the Allston, Mass., store with a banner reading "Stop Genetically Engineered Food" and by handing out pamphlets outlining the health and environmental risks of GE foods. The group says it will continue to pressure the grocery chain at stores around the region until it commits to going GE-free.


"Shaw's customers need to know that they don't have to buy the lie," said Linda Setchell of Clean Water Action in Boston. "These experimental foods are untested and unwanted, and we're here calling people to action to get them out of our grocery stores."


Genetic testing requested by the coalition found that four Shaw's brand products tested contained genetically engineered ingredients. Those products testing positive included Shaw's Brand Crispy Corn Puffs cereal, Shaw's Brand Yellow Corn Chips, Shaw's Brand Complete Pancake and Waffle Mix, and Shaw's Brand Taco Dinner.


Shaw's parent company, UK-based J Sainsbury, has already stopped using GE ingredients in its food due to consumer demands. According to coalition representative Beverly Thorpe, Shaw's has a responsibility to "end this double standard" and offer the same assurances of GE-free food to its American consumers.


Thorpe adds that Shaw's ability to get GE foods off its shelves is clear from its boast that it has control of its products "from the field to the supermarket." Also, 40 percent of Shaw's foods are store brand products over which they have the most control.


In addition to the protest in Boston, consumers and activists demonstrated at Shaw's and Star Markets in Vermont, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Maine. Students with MASSPIRG also handed out flyers and postcards calling on Shaw's to go GE-free.


Last November, pressure from the coalition caused the grocery chain Trader Joe's to stop using genetically engineered foods in its private label products. In announcing its plan to go GE-free, Trader Joe's said its policy change was the result of "talking with our customers," and finding that "it is clear that if given the opportunity, the majority of our customers would prefer to have products made without genetically engineered ingredients."


The GE-Free Markets Coalition is advising shoppers to:


let Shaw's/Star know they don't want genetic experiments in their food;


buy organic and whole, unprocessed foods;


become informed shoppers by reading labels and identifying foods that are commonly engineered, like corn, soy, and canola or cotton seed oil;


and visit  www.cleanwaterfund.org/safefoods










Document Number: 6138 


Grocery Chain Trader Joe's Drops Gene-Altered Food


Media release - November 14, 2001 


The company says the change is the result of "talking with our customers," and finding that "it is clear ... that if given the opportunity, the majority of our customers would prefer to have products made without genetically engineered ingredients."


"This announcement marks the first time a mainstream grocery chain has dropped genetically engineered ingredients in response to consumer demand," said Heather Whitehead of the Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaign. "By responding to its customers, Trader Joe's has set an industry standard and has helped put other mainstream retailers on notice."


During an exit strategy discussion with a Greenpeace representative, a Trader Joe's spokesperson acknowledged that 90 to 95 percent of customers said they wanted the chain to stop using genetically engineered ingredients.


Trader Joe's has almost 200 stores in 15 states located primarily on the East and West Coasts. The company sells mainly its own brand products and a good selection of organic and natural foods. Its two main competitors are Safeway and Whole Foods. Whole Foods has already gone non-GE in its store brand products.


"Greenpeace will be looking at other retailers still using genetically engineered foods to determine where to apply pressure next," added Whitehead. "With Trader Joe's getting rid of gene-altered ingredients, grocery chains in the U.S. can no longer say, 'We can't do it in this country.'"


Greenpeace, along with several grassroots groups that formed the GE-Free Market Coalition, have focused attention on Trader Joe's for the past year. The coalition includes GE-Free L.A, Organic Consumers Association, GE-Free Marin, NW RAGE, BAN NY, Genetic Engineering Action Network, GeneWise (Chicago), and the Boston Safe Foods Campaign. Thousands of consumers around the country have participated in the effort by sending faxes, e-mails and letters to the company, and by protesting outside Trader Joe's stores in over 20 cities.










Document Number: 7340 


Genetic Engineering Is Risky Business For California Wine Industry


Media release - June 18, 2001 


"Consumers at home and abroad say they don't want genetically engineered wine," said Jeanne Merrill of Greenpeace. "California must support real solutions for grape growers, not genetic experiments that put our environment and our economy at risk."


The Greenpeace report, "GM Grapevines," found that British wine sellers were unanimous in their rejection of genetically engineered wine. Tesco, the largest supermarket and wine retailer in the country wrote: "We do not differentiate between wine and food in our policy, it is clear we will not accept GM (genetically modified) in either."


The report also found widespread rejection of genetic engineering elsewhere in Europe. In France, wine makers have called for a moratorium on GE vines and increased state research into alternative solutions. The institute that supervises the specifications of French wines currently forbids any modified grape varieties. In Italy, the Association of Wine Producing Towns and the regional councils of Tuscany and Valle d'Aosta have opposed GE wine experiments.


News reports of field trials conducted by the University of Florida to engineer a wine grape resistant to Pierce's Disease have been touting the grape as a potential panacea for California's grape disease problem. However, the researchers have acknowledged that the gene inserted into wine grapes creates a protein similar to a substance in bee venom that can cause anaphylactic shock in some people. One GE grape researcher told the magazine New Scientist that it may not be possible to alter the grapes in such a way to keep the potentially deadly substance out of the human food chain.


GE grapes pose a tremendous risk to the California wine industry and to organic wine growers. Jem Gardener, Director of the UK organic wine importer and wholesaler Vinceremos explained, "Organic winemakeres and importers like ourselves are very concerned about the contamination of organic vineyards by wind- and insect-borne GE pollen. As the proud custodians of the purity of their fruit, organic vignerons have much to fear from genetic engineering. If there is accidental contamination, the damage will be irreversible"










Document Number: 5582 


New Study Finds Monsanto Soy Means More Pesticides, Less Food


Media release - May 3, 2001 


Farmers who grow the nation's most widely planted genetically engineered crop, Monsanto's Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans, use massive amounts of pesticides and see lower yields, according to a report from the independent Northwest Science and Environmental Policy Center (NSEPC). The Center's analysis, reported in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, warns that the widespread cultivation of the gene-altered soybeans will lead farmers to spray an additional 20 million pounds of pesticides this season.


Monsanto promotes RR soybeans as reducing herbicide use, but according to NSEPC, "Monsanto has manipulated data in ways that fall between misleading and dishonest." Dr. Charles Benbrook, the author of the NSEPC report and a former Director of the National Academy of Sciences Agricultural Board, told the Post- Dispatch that "You just can't say with a straight face that the Roundup Ready system reduces herbicide use."


"This study confirms that genetic engineering means more&Yacute; chemicals in our environment and our food," said Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace genetic engineering specialist. "We need real solutions for farmers and safe food for consumers, not more of Monsanto's genetic experiments and hollow promises."


The report, "Troubled Times Amid Commercial Success for Roundup Ready Soybeans," also found that thousands of University- based field trials have shown that Monsanto's soybean has lower yields than genetically similar conventional soy varieties. According to NSEPC, "There is voluminous and clear evidence that RR soybeans produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre" than otherwise identical conventional soybeans.


The NSEPC analysis further warned that overuse of the Roundup herbicide could be responsible for resistant weeds that farmers and scientists are already seeing in some fields. Farmers widespread use of RR soybeans each season and sometimes in rotation with other RR crops has meant increasing amounts of chemicals needed for harder to control weeds.


The new analysis by NSEPC contradicts Monsanto's claims that Roundup Ready soybeans are reducing herbicide use. In fact, the report found that the emergence of weeds that are tolerant to Roundup means that many farmers are spraying the chemical two to three times per season, as opposed to the single application promised in Monsanto's promotional materials. Farmers are also finding that they need to add other chemicals in addition to Roundup, meaning even more herbicides are used.


"More chemicals from gene altered soy means more profit for Monsanto," added Margulis. "But the company clearly puts profits ahead of telling the truth about its toxic products."


The report is available at:


http://www.biotech-info.net/troubledtimes.html  . Visit  www.truefoodnow.org










Document Number: 8404 


Kelloggs Corn Contamination Confirmed: Kelloggs Forced to Recall Product After Finding of StarLink Contamination is Verified


Media release - March 14, 2001 


"Kellogg's slow response to this corn crisis is a warning to consumers who don't want genetic experiments in their food - be wary of all Kellogg's corn products," said Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Specialist. "Kellogg's admits that it uses genetically engineered ingredients, but it refuses to label these risky foods."


In laboratory analyses commissioned by Greenpeace, Kellogg's Morningstar Farms brand meat-free corn dog tested positive for StarLink. The corn dog and two other products tested positive for genetically altered soy. A series of letters and e-mails from Kellogg's to consumers claims that Morningstar Farms brand foods are made without gene- altered soy. Concerned that Kellogg's was stalling on removing the tainted corn dogs, Greenpeace sent more samples for independent testing, and a second lab confirmed the presence of StarLink in Kellogg's corn.


"Kellogg's now has an obligation to test every corn product it makes to determine just how far this StarLink contamination has gone," added Margulis. "For six months Kellogg's has been assuring consumers that its Morningstar products don't contain genetically modifed soy, yet we found gene altered soy and illegal GE corn in these Kellogg's foods. What does this mean for all its other products?"


Last October, Kellogg's was forced to stop production at a Memphis plant due to concerns about StarLink contamination, but the company claimed that no food products were affected. Kellogg's refused to respond to a Greenpeace survey asking about StarLink or other genetically engineered ingredients in its products.


"Americans are shopping in the dark when they buy Morningstar Farms products," said Margulis. "These genetically tainted foods are not labeled, and Kellogg's can't be trusted. We urge consumers to stop buying Morningstar Farms products until Kellogg's promises to stop using all gene altered ingredients in all of its U.S. products."


Interviews available with Charles Margulis, Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Specialist, and the person responsible for commissioning the tests of Kellogg's Morningstar Corn Dogs.










Document Number: 6269 


Farmer Percy Schmeiser Finds That GMOs Come With a Stiff Price  Even if You Dont Grow Them


Media release - March 30, 2001 


A Canadian court ruled yesterday that farmer Percy Schmeiser must pay Monsanto after his fields were found to be contaminated by the company's genetically engineered canola. Pollen from neighboring fields was the source of the contamination. The award amounts to over $15,000 plus damages, which could amount to another $75,000, and came after Monsanto company investigators trespassed on Schmeiser's land and found the company's genetically engineered canola growing in his field. The court found that because Monsanto owns patent rights on the genes used in the altered canola, the farmer was liable for growing the crop, even though he did not intentionally plant the engineered seed.


"It will take totally all of my wife's and myself's retirement funds that we've worked for all our life," said a disappointed Percy Schmeiser, 70. "I've lost 50 years of work because of a company's genetically altered seed getting into my canola, destroying what I've worked for, destroying my property and getting sued on top of it."


"It's outrageous that farmers are forced to pay for genetic pollution from unwanted crops," said Charles Margulis, a Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Specialist. "The same chemical companies that polluted our food with pesticides are now polluting our food with their new genetic technology."


In the U.S., farmers have become increasingly concerned about genetic pollution since environmentalists revealed that StarLink, an engineered variety not approved for human food, has contaminated the food and seed supply. Earlier this month USDA revealed that it would spend as much as $20 million to buy StarLink-contaminated seed. Other engineered seed contamination has been detected in cotton, soy and other crops, yet farmers have no protection from this genetic seed pollution. If the Schmeiser case sets a precedent, any farmer whose crop is contaminated via tainted seed, pollen drift, or other unavoidable environmental pollution will be forced to pay biotech companies for unwanted genetic pollution.


"It's as if a pesticide drifted into your field and destroyed your crop, and instead of getting compensation, you have to pay the company for using its chemical," added Margulis.


According to The Washington Post, in response to the Schmeiser decision, the U.S. National Farmers Union said: "We're extremely concerned by what liabilities may unfold for the farmer, particularly with cross-pollination of genetically modified plants."


Trish Jordan, Monsanto's spokeswoman in Winnipeg was cited as admitting the company's reputation has been damaged by the case. "For Monsanto, it is a bit of a no-win situation. It's pretty easy to paint this as the multinational beating up on the poor little farmer," she was quoted as saying.










Document Number: 6496 


FDA Genetic Food Policy Denies Americans The Right To Know What They Are Eating


Media release - January 17, 2001 


"This is a terrible day for American consumers-the government has failed to protect their health and their interests," said Kimberly Wilson, a Greenpeace Genetic Engineering Campaigner in San Francisco. "While the rest of the world is moving to label genetic foods, U.S. consumers are still denied free choice in the grocery store. Americans deserve to know what's in their food, yet FDA is working with industry to keep genetic engineering a secret ingredient." Last week, a report by the Consumer Federation of America echoed Greenpeace's calls for mandatory labeling of all genetically engineered food.


Labeling of genetically engineered foods is required throughout Europe, and in Japan, Russia, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.


Food makers do not have to inform consumers if their products contain genetically engineered ingredients under the new FDA policy. FDA will allow gene-altered foods on the market without long- term safety tests for effects in the diet or the environment.


A new Greenpeace report, Genetically Engineered Food: Still Unlabeled and Untested, has found that only three health studies on genetically engineered foods have been published in peer-reviewed journals. None of these met scientists' recommendations that gene altered foods be tested for 90 days, nor did they meet the FDA's own testing requirements for food additives that would require, in some cases, up to two years multiple feeding studies. The biotech company studies that FDA relies on to assess new altered crops are generally not submitted for peer review and not available for public scrutiny.


Doctors and scientists warn that genetically engineered foods could trigger allergies, have increased levels of toxins, or could hasten the spread of antibiotic resistance. The medical journal the Lancet has stated: "It is astounding that FDA has not changed their stance on genetically modified food. Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."


Last fall, Greenpeace released the True Food Shopping List, a detailed report of thousands of foods made with genetically engineered ingredients. "FDA has refused to require labels, so Greenpeace took action," added Wilson. "We labeled genetically engineered food to give consumers a fighting chance when they go to the store."










Document Number: 2723 


Contaminated Corn Dumped On EPA


Media release - November 16, 2000 


EPA has refused to approve the animal feed corn for human consumption due to its potential to cause food allergies. The corn has widely contaminated the U.S. food supply, resulting in the recall of nearly 300 food products. Costs to Aventis from the recall are estimated to approach $1 billion dollars. To forestall further losses, the company is now seeking temporary approval of the feed corn for human consumption.


"The EPA must not risk public health to protect corporate profits," said Kimberley Wilson, Greenpeace genetic engineering campaigner. "By approving StarLink , EPA would be rewarding the company for unlawfully contaminating the nation's food supply."


StarLink corn produces an insecticidal protein called Cry9C that could cause dangerous allergic reactions in some people. The EPA's review of StarLink found that many of the allergenicity data submitted on StarLink were "either inconclusive or indicate that Cry9C exhibits some characteristics of known allergens." In October, an EPA advisory panel heard from scientists who warned that there is no known safe level of allergens in food.


"For two years, EPA has refused to approve StarLink because scientists say the genetically engineered corn could cause dangerous allergies," added Wilson. "But now that the industry is facing hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, the agency says they will make a decision in less than two months."


The Greenpeace activists were joined outside EPA by members of the Organic Consumers Association, Pesticide Action Network, the Ecology Center and the Ruckus Society, demanding that the EPA protect the food supply from StarLink corn.


"EPA's own scientific advisors say they don't know if this corn is safe for people," said Simon Harris of the Organic Consumers Association. "The health of Americans should not be put at risk simply for the convenience of the biotech industry." On November 28, EPA will hear from a Scientific Advisory panel that will present its findings by December 1. EPA is expected to rule shortly after that.










Document Number: 6534 


Americans Tell Kellogg's: Stop Using Scary Corn


Media release - October 31, 2000 


"Americans know that a breakfast of Kellogg's cereal is a breakfast of contaminated corn," said Greenpeace GMO Specialist Charles Margulis, speaking in front of Kellogg's headquarters. "On Halloween, your kids don't have to dress up, because Kellogg's has already made them guinea pigs in this experiment on our food."


Last week Kellogg's admitted that it was forced to stop production at a Memphis cereal plant over concerns about contamination by a variety of GMO corn that is meant only for animal feed. The corn, called StarLink, is not approved for human food because scientists believe it could trigger dangerous allergic responses in some people. According to the Des Moines Register, more than half of the two billion bushels of corn grown in Iowa could be contaminated with StarLink.


Earlier this month, Greenpeace wrote to Kellogg's asking what steps the company is taking to insure that StarLink is not contaminating its corn supplies. The company has refused to respond. Greenpeace and other leading environmental organizations also sent a letter to President Clinton last week, urging him to ensure that StarLink is not now approved for human food.


Kellogg's acknowledges that it uses GMO ingredients in their U.S. products, but in a letter to Greenpeace, Kellogg's European division has said that the company is eliminating GMOs there, and that "we hope to have completed this process by the end of the year." Kellogg's tells American consumers that its use of gene-altered food is merely a matter of "consumer preference." But Greenpeace has learned that over 28,000 consumers have contacted Kellogg's in the past month over concerns of GMOs in their food.


"Americans have told Kellogg's that they don't want to eat gene altered food," said Margulis. "If Kellogg's cares about American consumers, they will stop using scary corn."










Document Number: 2202 


Genetically Engineered Foods 'Labeled' In Greenpeace Shopping List


Media release - October 4, 2000 


"Consumers should not be used as guinea pigs by companies who continue to sell genetically contaminated food," said Jeanne Merrill, Greenpeace True Food Network coordinator. "Since the FDA refuses to protect consumers and the environment, Greenpeace created the Shopping List. The Shopping List gives consumers who want to avoid genetically engineered foods a fighting chance."


Organized like supermarket aisles, the True Food Shopping List covers dozens of foods in each of 20 categories, including baby food, cereal, frozen foods, snacks and soups. The "Red" list shows genetically engineered foods, such as Kellogg's Corn Flakes. The "Green" list shows alternatives made by companies that have eliminated genetically engineered ingredients. The "Yellow" transitional list includes products made by companies that are working to eliminate genetically engineered ingredients.


Recently, store-bought Taco Bell taco shells tested positive for a variety of genetically engineered corn, called StarLink, that is not approved for human consumption. Kraft, which produces the supermarket brand shells, voluntarily recalled the tainted product. Aventis, the biotech company that makes the GE corn found in the taco shells, said it would stop selling the seed. The Agriculture Department said on Friday that it would broker the entire remaining StarLink crop for Aventis, to insure that it is only sold for feed. On Monday, FDA finally announced an official recall notice for the Kraft Taco Bell taco shells, and said that it would begin testing other corn products for contamination. The agency acknowledged that the engineered corn could cause "temporary adverse health effects."


"Clearly, Americans can't trust the biotech industry to keep its genetic experiments out of our shopping carts," said Charles Margulis, Greenpeace genetic engineering specialist. "While food companies have eliminated genetically engineered ingredients in Europe, the Shopping List is the only way American consumers can avoid GE-contaminated food."


Kellogg's and other food giants have already stopped using genetically engineered food in Europe, but these companies continue to use the experimental crops here. In Japan, Australia, Russia and throughout Europe, genetically engineered food must be labeled. Many companies have announced that their products in these countries will exclude genetically engineered ingredients. But in the U.S., the FDA has sided with the biotech industry in opposing mandatory labeling. Instead, FDA says that standards for "voluntary" labeling of GE or non-GE foods will soon be announced.










Document Number: 2263 


Greenpeace Targets Kellogg's for Double Standards on Food Safety


Media release - June 10, 2000 


The San Diego event coincided with another Greenpeace action this morning at Kellogg's headquarters in Battle Creek, Michigan as the company staged a massive public relations event, serving thousands of people at the world's largest breakfast table. In the midst of the proceedings Greenpeace activists erected a 12-foot cereal box of "Frosted Fakes", bearing the image of "FrankenTony", a genetically altered version of Kellogg's "Tony the Tiger".


Both events are part of an escalating campaign by Greenpeace to stop Kellogg's from using genetically engineered ingredients as it has done in Europe for consumers there.


"Kellogg's must provide Americans with the same protection as Europeans," said Greenpeace campaigner Beverley Thorpe in San Diego. "When it comes to the safety of our food supply and the protection of our environment, double standards are completely unacceptable."


During the coming weeks Greenpeace will intensify its campaign against Kellogg's in California where it is launching its True Food Network (  www.truefoodnow.org  )which will empower thousands of members of the public through the internet and public events to take action against Kellogg's on this issue.


In Europe consumer action by Greenpeace and other consumer groups has resulted in foods with genetically engineered ingredients being taken off most supermarket shelves.


Earlier this week, Greenpeace activists removed Kellogg's cereals from a popular grocery store in San Francisco and replaced them with locally available organic alternatives. There will be further events in the coming days.









Document Number: 9885
John Losey, Ph.D.

	
		
Losey, an assistant professor of entomology at Cornell University, conducted a lab experiment and found that monarch butterfly larvae were harmed if they fed on leaves that were dusted with bioengineered BT corn pollen.
		


The caterpillars feeding on those leaves dusted with the BT corn pollen ate less, they grew more slowly, and they suffered higher mortality. More of them died than in the other two treatments. In fact, almost half of those died--44 percent died over 4 days. ... The ones eating the regular corn pollen or the no pollen, none of those died over the 4 days of the treatment. ...

Your study didn't imply this would be happening in the natural environment, just that it could?

That's exactly how I would characterize it. We were saying, "Here's this potential effect, and we need to study it more." ... When people say, "Well, if the predictions you made from the lab study hold up in the field, then X will happen." I always say, "Well, I didn't make any predictions in the lab study." ...

So you're not convinced either way?

No. What I like to say is, based on the current data, I can absolutely guarantee you that the impact on monarch butterfly populations in the long term is going to be somewhere between negligible and severe. I can't put it any finer than that. I don't think anyone can, based on the current data. ...

Monarchs seem to be doing OK, in general. Their populations aren't crashing. But I don't think that means that we can ignore the [question: When] BT corn starts having a negative impact on monarchs or other butterflies, what does that mean for the long-term population cycles of those butterflies? 

Tony Shelton, Ph.D.

	
		
Professor of Entomology, Cornell University's New York State Agricultural Experiment Station 
		


This study [on the effects of BT pollen on monarch butterfly larvae] got tremendous publicity, compared to most articles.

It certainly did. I think that it became very, very unbalanced. It's tough to un-ring a bell when something like this hits the news. The monarch butterfly is a so-called symbol of nature, so I think people could really identify with it. ... The author of the article states that the risks and benefits of transgenic crops like BT corn have to be evaluated against the risks and benefits of applying another broader spectrum insecticide, say, by air. ... What scientists need to do is to evaluate the risks and benefits of this new technology, compared to other possible technologies, whether it be conventional agriculture, whether it be organic agriculture. ...

List what's at stake.

If we don't use some technology, we have to use another technology. We know some of the risks to our present technology of insect management. So if crops like BT corn or cotton are banned, then I think there will be increased pesticide use, insecticide use, that'll have some deleterious, long-term effects. 


 




Document Number: 3766 
What first brought you to this issue?

Back in 1983, the United States government approved the release of the first
genetically modified organism.  In this case, it was a bacteria that prevents
frost on food crops.  My attorneys immediately went into the federal courts to
seek an injunction to halt the experiment.  The position I took at the time was
that we hadn't really examined any of the potential environmental consequences
of introducing genetically modified organisms.  
President of The Foundation on Economic Trends, he is a longtime opponent of
biotechnology.   outlines why GM food is radically different from classical
breeding and discusses how there are better ways to apply bioengineering to
agricultural products. He also counters the argument that GM food is a solution
in helping to feed a hungry world and talks about the threat of life science
companies like Monsanto employing antitrust tactics in their patenting of gene
technology.  (Interview conducted August  2000.) 

We were making the first step out of the age of chemistry and physics, and into
the age of biology.  All of our regulations had been set up in an era in which
physics and chemistry ruled.  It seemed to me that we needed to have a thorough
and thoughtful global discussion on the potential environmental implications
of reseeding the earth with genetically modified organisms.  At that time, the
only discussion that had been held was a 20- to 25-minute meeting in a
congressional committee that was overseeing this particularly genetically
modified organism for release.  

So my attorneys brought litigation in the U.S. federal courts.  The judge ruled
in our favor.  We had an injunction that barred the government from conducting
this first experiment.  Then the government appealed, and we won in the appeals
court.  . . .

Before this, you had GMOs in labs, but this was the first time they would be
released.  Why was this a bigger deal?

They had taken a bacteria that's normally found in nature, Pseudomonas
syringae, which plays a role, they believe, in the formation of rain.  They
took the actual gene out that allows ice crystals to form, and they created an
ice-minus  version of this bacteria.  The idea was to seed our agricultural
regions with the ice-minus bacteria, which would edge out the traditional
bacteria that makes frost.  



Absolutely.  . . . What concerned us was the commercial introduction of this
genetically modified organism.  What if ice-minus were introduced, as they
planned, across  entire agricultural regions of the world, and it edged out the
traditional ice-forming bacteria, which we think plays a role in rain patterns?
There could be significant long-term ecological implications.   . . .  

When you introduce a genetically modified organism into the environment, it's
not like introducing a chemical product, or even a nuclear product.  Remember,
genetically modified products are alive.  So at the get-go, they're inherently
more unpredictable in terms of what they'll do once they're out into the
environment.  Secondly, GMOs reproduce.  Chemical products don't do that.
Third, they can mutate.  Fourth, they can migrate and proliferate over wide
regions.  And fifth, you cannot easily recall them to the laboratory or clean
them up.  So when we're dealing with genetically modified organisms, we're dealing with a
whole new genre of environmental and health questions, totally different than
when we introduce chemical or even nuclear products into the environment.  . .
.



There was a regulatory vacuum, and there is a scientific vacuum.  There has
been ever since.  Back in the mid-1980s, congressional hearings were held after
we brought this litigation, and held up the first experiment.  At that time, I
went in front of Congress, along with the major agencies involved with this.
And I asked Congress to make sure that, for every dollar spent in research and
development to put these GMOs into the environment, we spend an equal dollar on
the R&D to see if we can come up with a risk assessment  methodology to
judge the risk of introducing these into the environment.  At the time, all the
agencies--the  Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, the National Science Foundation--pledged  that they would devote
whatever money was necessary to develop a methodology to judge risk.  . . .

Here we are 17 years later.  Those agencies  never did come through. Even the
USDA, the only agency that has a budget, spends maybe $1.5 million. You can't
even do one risk assessment  experiment with that amount of money.  . . .

What about the issues of liability? . . .

The public should know that the liability issues  here have yet to be resolved,
or even raised.  If you're a farmer and you're growing a genetically
engineering food crop, those genes are going to flow to the other farm.  You
can't stop that from happening.  So if a conventional farmer or an organic
farmer goes to market and they find that their finished product has genes for
herbicide tolerance or pest resistance, and they can't then sell their product,
who's liable for those losses?  The insurance companies aren't covering that.
Should Monsanto be liable for these losses?   Should the state government?
Who's going to cover the losses?  . . . The fact is, here's an industry with no
long-term liability in place.  

There is an analogy here with the nuclear industry.  In the early days, the
nuclear industry realized that the chances of an accident were small, but if an
accident did happen, the damages  could be enormous and not coverable.  So the
nuclear industry went to the U.S. Congress to pass the Price-Anderson Act.
This act legislates that the nuclear companies are only responsible for a
certain amount of the damages, and then the government pays the rest.  The
American taxpayer pays the bill.  There's no comparable legislation  in place
here.  And believe me, the public would never accept comparable legislation in
place here.  . . .

Why did this take off in Europe recently?

To begin with, the media played a very important role.  The electronic media
introduced this idea to the larger audience very, very quickly.  We spent years
and years and years meeting with activists all over Europe to lay the
groundwork for a political response, as we did here.  So this did not come as a
surprise to any of the nongovernmental organizations.   . . .

I think it hit on such a large scale in Europe because it touched the nerve of
two great political sensitivities: preserving biodiversity . . . and preserving
cultural diversity and the cultural identity of European food and European
agriculture.  . . .

This was an attempt to keep US products out, like McDonald's . . 

It's broader than that.  Remember, half of these life science companies are
U.S. and half are European.  We do have Monsanto and DuPont in the U.S., but we
also have Novartis and AstraZeneca and other companies in Europe.  This was not
a response to the U.S.  This was a response to these new global companies who
were beginning to embark on a radical new approach to agriculture that had
tremendous significance--culturally, economically, and socially.  

In an era where Europeans were feeling increasingly unable to control their
individual destinies, and when there was more talk about globalization and a
European Union, the last thing people felt they had some control over was their
diet.  So when Monsanto came in heavy and fast into the European market, the
response was immediate, from the UK to France.  The public said, "We don't want
these foods.  This isn't something that we have invited into Europe." . . . 

In this country, the health concerns and the environmental concerns are as deep
as in Europe.  All the surveys show that.  But here, we didn't have the
cultural dimension.  This is a fast-food culture.  There is not a seamless web
between culture and cuisine in the U.S. market.  So we had half the response
here.  . . .

But even in Europe, you didn't have the support of the scientific community
saying this was a safety issue.

Let me respectfully disagree with that.  There were different opinions being
expressed in Europe.  For example, the environmental ministers and those they
consulted with in the ecological sciences were very much critical and concerned
about the introduction of GM foods in Europe.  So there was a constant battle
in various countries between the environmental ministers on one side, and the
agricultural ministers and economic and trade ministers on the other.  . . .

How far do you think it's going to go in Europe?

Europe will not accept genetically modified foods.  It doesn't make any
difference in the final analysis what Brussels does, what Washington does, or
what the World Trade Organization does.  In fact, this is going to be an
interesting test on how ephemeral the power is of these new international and
inter-regional bodies are.  . . .

I think the introduction of genetically engineered foods in Europe and in parts
of Asia, and hopefully in America, is going to be considered one of the great
financial miscalculations in the history of introducing a new commercial line
into the marketplace.  They're swimming uphill at these life science companies.
 I ask the life science companies, "When you look down the line, and the public
response to genetic foods, do you see light at the end of the tunnel?"  They
can't tell me they do.  

The fact is, as the public in Europe and increasingly in the U.S. and Asia
learns more about genetic foods, they become more concerned.  Now, this is
important, because Monsanto argued all along, from the time we began this
discussion back in the 1980s, that people were just ignorant, and if you made
them aware and knowledgeable about genetic foods, they would tend to be more
supportive.  The new surveys show us the exact opposite, which I've always
believed.  The more knowledgeable people are in genetic foods, the more likely
they are to raise questions and be critical.  . . .

So countries will violate the World Trade Organization if they have
to?

Absolutely.  President Clinton personally lobbied Prime Minister Blair in the
UK to introduce genetic foods and Monsanto's products into the UK.  Of course,
Clinton and Blair are very much involved in third-way politics.  They believe
you have to move the marketplace and make sure there are no fetters to
introducing new technologies.  Both of these world leaders believe that the
information sciences and the life sciences are the route into the 21st century.
Blair went with Clinton, and championed introducing Monsanto's GMO seeds into
the UK.  The public reaction was instant and overwhelmingly in opposition, and
Blair was caught by surprise.  Here's a man who was wildly popular.  His
political cachet began to lose momentum the moment he sided with President
Clinton and Monsanto.  . . .

A few weeks later, the environmental ministers met in Europe to discuss a
moratorium.  . . . The result of that was a de facto moratorium on the
introduction of any further GMO foods in Europe.  This was a very, very
important turning point in this debate.  With Europe establishing a two-year
moratorium, it meant U.S. farmers had to rethink their choices on whether they
put genetic seeds into the ground.  Since Europe would not accept those foods
in export, American farmers didn't want to be caught holding the bag.  As a
result, in the year 2000 growing season, for the first time in the three or
four years since introduction, the amount of seeds being bought leveled off and
began to go down.  

What makes you think the public debate over GM foods is going to travel to
here?

Every survey that I have looked at in the last few years, when the public is
asked, "Do you want genetically engineered foods?" . . . a majority of the
respondents say they're concerned and 90 percent of the respondents in the
surveys say they want the mandatory labels so they can make a choice. 	The
industry's not stupid.  The industry knows that if those foods are labeled
"genetically engineered," the public will shy away and won't take them.  In a
sense, the industry's hiding from its own technology.  . . .

Obviously, voluntary labeling is one of things that will come.  . . . An example would be a company like Gerber, whose products would say
"This does not contain GMOs." . . .

Gerber is owned by Novartis, which is one of the two major players in the GMO
food industry.  Just this week, Novartis' Food Division announced that they
would not accept any genetically modified food in any of their foods; whereas
Novartis' Agricultural Division is one of the two or three major players in the
world producing genetically engineered seeds.  This is a great commercial
story, and I think the media missed this story.  Here you have a company where
the executive board of the company is at odds with itself.  . . . When a
company like Novartis--which is championing this technology--won't actually
accept the final product, what does it say about the product?

Obviously, humans have been modifying nature genetically for 10,000 years
with selection, breeding, mutagenesis.  Why is this qualitatively different? .
. .

In classical breeding, genes are turned on and off when you cross strains.  I
have no problem whatsoever with classical breeding, because it's worked itself
over 10,000 years and it's also part of the evolutionary schema.   . . .

What's different here is that we have now technologies that allow these life
science companies to bypass classical breeding.  That's what makes it both
powerful and exciting.  In classical breeding, you can cross close relatives.
Taxonomy is an anthropocentric discipline anyway.  You can, for example, cross
various wheat strains and corn strains, etc.  . . . You can cross a donkey and
a horse in classical breeding--they're  very close relatives--and  you can get
a mule.  

But you can't cross a donkey and an apple tree in classical breeding.  What the
public needs to understand is that these new technologies, especially in
recombinant DNA technology, allow scientists to bypass biological boundaries
altogether.  You can take a gene from any species--plant, animal, or human--and
place it into the genetic code of your food crop or other genetically modified
organism.  Crossing genetic information from one species to another is
something we've never seen in 10,000 years of classical breeding.  . . .

But we're taking very small bits of it.

Those very small bits can change in qualitative ways when GMO is introduced.
Let's say you take a human growth hormone gene and place it into a salmon.
That's just one gene.  But if the salmon gets out into the marine ecosystem,
and it's growing twice as fast and twice as big, it can destabilize millions of
years of relationships in the oceans.  So one gene can be very, very powerful.
. . .

Where you're placing a gene from an unrelated species into the blueprint of the
second species, it's like introducing exotic organisms from native to
non-native habitats.  Here in North America, we brought a lot of organisms over
to this ecosystem from all over the world.  Some of those organisms fit in;
some of them died out; some of them became pests.  If you're from the South,
you know about kudzu vine; or in the North, Dutch elm disease or gypsy moth or
chestnut blight or starlings.  These are all non-native organisms.  When we put
them into North America, they had no natural pest enemies.   We can't deal with
them, and they cause billions of dollars of damage.  Ecologists tell us that
when we introduce a genetically modified organism with genes from unrelated
species, it's somewhat analogous to introducing exotics.   . . .

There's a second generation of genetically modified organisms being readied in
R&D.  These organisms are plants that act as chemical factories to produce
genes that code for proteins to produce vaccines and chemicals and drugs and
vitamins.  . . . This all sounds very good, except no one has stopped for even
a moment and paused and asked the following question.

When we seed millions of acres of land with these plants, what happens to
foraging birds, to insects, to microbes, to the other animals, when they come
in contact and digest plants that are producing materials ranging from plastics
to vaccines to pharmaceutical products?  There hasn't been as much as a single
congressional hearing, and as far as I know, there hasn't been a single
parliamentary debate anywhere in the world on introducing this second
generation of pharmaceutical and chemical-producing plants. 

They're introducing plants--corn, soy, cotton--that have herbicide-tolerant
genes and pest-resistant genes.  If your corn has a herbicide-tolerant gene, it
means you can spray your herbicides and kill the weeds; you won't kill your
corn because it's producing a gene that makes it tolerant of the herbicide.
The problem here is that what makes it beneficial also makes it environmentally
harmful.  It means you're going to be able to kill a lot of weeds but not
damage your corn.  The problem is, you can't kill all the weeds.  That means
that the more virulent weed strains will become dominant and build up
resistance quicker even than you had with petrochemical-based farming.  . .
.

I visited a farmer in the Midwest, and they just used two applications of
Roundup Ready, one at the beginning of the season and one halfway through.  It
was much less than they've ever used before.  . . .

I know quite a few farmers all over the United States who have tried this and
have said the opposite, that they have to use more herbicides, not less.  The
same holds true with BT.  Monsanto says, "Look.  We're going to introduce a
little gene into the plant that codes for a pesticide."  Every cell of the
plant is producing that pesticide, so the insect tries to eat the plant and
dies when it tries to digest the material.  Monsanto says, "This is a leap
forward.  We're ending pesticides, groundwater contamination."  

Well, yes and no.  Yes, they're ending the use of pesticides.   But now they're
introducing more toxin than they ever introduced with pesticides.  When you
spray a pesticide, it's infrequent, it's periodic.  When you are putting the
same toxin in the form of a gene into the plant, that plant is producing that
toxin 24/7, perpetually over millions of acres.  . . . A major study just came
out in this year--a big study--showing
that, when you introduce the gene for toxicity, it is going into the ground
soil.  . . .

Regarding the issue of resistance, Monsanto and the EPA requires that
farmers plant a refuge.  . . .

A refuge is supposed to prevent what?  The genes from flowing out of sight?  .
. . This refuge idea won't stop insects from moving across boundaries.  That's
absurd.  How many farmers are actually creating these refuges?  . . . I've
talked to enough farmers that say that it's too much time and trouble to do it.
Even if they did do it, and followed it chapter and verse the way they're
supposed to by the licensing arrangement, insects will pass through refuges at
will.  The idea that you can constrain them is absolutely absurd.  Ask any good
ecologist worth their salt, who's not on the corporate payroll of Monsanto, and
they'll tell you what I've just told you.

The issue is not whether insects move across the refuge.  The issue is the
buildup of resistance, isn't it?

You're going to get insects all crossing the refuges.  The insects that are
vulnerable to BT will die.  Those that aren't--the more virulent insects--will
reproduce.  That one gene resistance cannot deal with more virulent strains of
the insects.

When you do classical breeding, you cluster for hundreds of genes in a plant
that allow it to be resistant to a particular insect.  Here, it's like one-gene
resistance.   It's like the French Maginot Line before World War II.  The
French thought they had a strong wall against potential German invasion, and
the tanks went right over the wall.  When you only have one-gene resistance, it
will only take a few growing seasons--we're not talking about generations--for
resistant strains of insects to build up and to overcome that one gene.  Then
the companies will have to come up with another gene, and another gene, and
another gene.  It's not defensible from a systems point of view. 

But these are empirical questions. We don't know whether a refuge works or
not.

Monsanto says it does know the answer.  The United States government that's
OK'd all of this says it knows the answer.  They're saying that refuges work.
My question back to the U.S. regulatory agencies and to Monsanto is, "You're
saying the refuges work.  Show me the results.  Where are the tests?  Have you
tested this across ecosystems around the world where this is going to be
planted?  Where is your risk assessment methodology that shows you that this is
safe?"  

There obviously have been tests, like in Arizona.

There's been virtually nothing.  The amount of field testing to develop a
methodology for risk assessment is almost nil.  What we have here is a lot of
rhetoric about protocols, but with very little science to back it up in the
fields.  . . . 

The other major problem with introducing GMOs is gene flow.  This is as
significant as buildup of resistance, probably more significant.  During
pollenations, genes flow everywhere.  Now, of course the company will say,
"Well, the genes won't flow offsite.  We have refuges, etc."  Nonsense.  There
has now been a number of peer reviewed studies . . . that show that genes will
jump way offsite during pollination, either by the wind or by transport by
insects, etc.  If you have a herbicide-tolerant gene, or a pest-resistant gene,
and it flows off a site, what happens when wild relatives of those crops are
invaded by that pollen?  . . . How do you deal with a whole ecosystem where
wild grasses and weeds have become herbicide-resistant, pest-resistant, and
viral-resistant?

There are a couple of potential technical fixes.  Take genetically modified
salmon, for example. You make your salmon sterile.  With plants, you make the
so-called terminator gene.  . . . If that was done, wouldn't this be reassuring
to you?

The problem is that we know very little about how genes code for proteins and
how they're turned on and off.  So when you talk about all these fixes that
they're going to come up with, you have to realize that whether a gene turns on
and off and mutates depends, a great deal of the time, on the environmental
factors and triggers.  You can't get a guarantee that genes are going to turn
on and off the way you want them to.  You're dealing with life.  It's too
unpredictable.  

If we had a risk assessment science in place, a really full-blown methodology,
then maybe you could make some of these suppositions.  But right now, these
companies are running blind, saying, "We're going to make this fix and this fix
and this fix." . . . 

When I talk to environmental scientists, they're very, very uneasy about the
idea that you can create a quick fix at each step of the way with this.  It may
be that everything the life science companies are telling us will turn out to
be right, and there's no problem here whatsoever.  That defies logic.  When you
introduce a powerful new technology that can radically change the environment,
as they hope these technologies will, it's naive or disingenuous  to think that
that same introduction won't create equally troubling disharmonies  and
destabilization. 

Remember, these are the same companies that brought us the petrochemical
revolution.  They used similar arguments to the ones they're using now, saying,
"Look.  We'll have a quick fix.  We'll make sure that the chemicals don't ruin
the environment. All of the alarm on the other side is unfounded and
misguided."  Now they're embarking on an adventure that's much more radical
than chemical introduction, and that is actually changing the genetic
instructions in microorganisms--plants and animals--and  placing them into the
environment, a lot of it through clonal propagation, on a very large scale.  .
. . 

Is food safety an issue here, as you see it?

Yes, because what we're dealing with is the introduction of new genetic foods
that have genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed.  So when you
place a Chinese hamster gene into your food crop, for example, and we consume
it in raw or processed food, we just don't know what the reaction's likely to
be.  The fact is, we know that with traditional foods, 8 percent of children
and 2 percent of adults have allergenic reaction to traditional foods.  We
spent a long part of our history testing various things we could eat, and a lot
of people have died as part of this grand experiment to see what we could
consume.  . . . 

Many of the genetically modified foods will be safe, I'm sure.  Will most of
them be safe?  Nobody knows.  The fact is, even the Food and Drug
Administration, in internal documents by their own scientists that were forced
out in a lawsuit, suggested that these foods could pose some potentially
serious allergenic and toxic reactions among consumers. 

But everyone's aware of allergenicity as an issue, aren't they?  This is not
a secret.  . . .

The American public is not aware that there might be potential allergenic and
toxic reactions.  . . . With regular food, at least people know which foods
they have an allergy to.  People know if they have an allergenic reaction to
peanuts, for example.  Here, you don't know, because the foods aren't labeled.
Because these genes that they're placing in the foods have never been tested in
the human diet, it's one big health roulette gamble.  . . .

Of course, you can remove allergenicity genes, can't you? . . .

Only if you know they are allergenic.  You can eliminate, for example, a Brazil
nut gene if you know that it will create an allergenic effect.  The problem
here is, they're going to be introducing hundreds, then thousands and thousands
of genes that code for proteins that we've never consumed.  We simply don't
know if they cause allergenic or toxic reactions.  . . .

But you just said there was no way, in practice, that we 

This is the Catch-22.  So do you want to take the risk when you don't need to?
Maybe at some point down the line, the new genetics will tell us a lot more
about the genomic makeup of all of our creatures.  . . . We may be able to know
which genes code for proteins against every single genetic profile on earth.
We don't have that now.  I don't think the activists in the public are
over-reacting.  I don't think there's any hysteria in the streets here.  What
there is, is guarded and careful response.  And I think the public is saying,
"Why should we be put in jeopardy?  Why should we be the guinea pigs in this
experiment?" . . .

With food, we don't have an absolute standard of safety, obviously.  The
food supply that we have is not safe.  So the question is about balancing risks
and benefits.  . . . One example is the papaya story, where a viral pathogen on
the Hawaiian Islands was destroying all of the crops. The only solution anybody
can think of is a transgenic crop.  Is that a good risk-benefit calculation? .
. . That's a risk-benefit where the benefits are immediate. . . .

This is the same thing we faced with the nuclear industry and the petrochemical
industry.  Obviously, there were short-term benefits in introducing nuclear
power and petrochemical-based technologies and agriculture.  The problem is,
nobody at the get-go wanted to look at the long-term potential environmental
and health risks down the line.  In the long run, we saddled the environment
and future generations with tremendous environmental and health costs.  So when
you talk about cost-benefit, the problem is, the benefits are always here and
now.  The costs always come later.  . . .

This is why I've been involved in this discussion for more than 25 years now.
I wanted to make sure that this be the first scientific and technology
revolution in history in which the public thoroughly discussed all the
potential benefits and all the potential harms, in advance of the technology
coming online and running its course.  

But your aim, then, isn't to stop it? . . .

The issue here is, how do we apply that science in the commercial arena, in our
social life, and in the political life of the country and civilization?  I
believe there's a hard-path and a soft-path way to move into the age of
biology.  . . . 

What's the hard path?  Genetic foods.  You turn that little piece of corn into
a soldier in the fields, a little warrior.  That little piece of corn is armed
with all sorts of weapons--a gene for pest resistance and viral resistance and
herbicide tolerance.  This is hard path, old-fashioned nineteenth-century
applied science.  It's reductionist; it's not a systems approach; and it won't
deliver ultimately in the field.

What's the soft path?  We could use this same information we're learning on
genomic nature of our plants and our ecosystems to create a sophisticated,
market-driven, cheap, efficient organic-based approach to agricultural
production in the 21st century.  In the soft path, there's no gene splicing
between species.  Instead, we upgrade classical breeding with state-of-the-art
genomic science.   . . . You use the genomic information in your plants to find
out which strains are best integrated into the environment.  The environment's
not the enemy.  The environment's the partner.  . . . 

What I'm suggesting to you is that this could be a renaissance.  We may be on
the cusp of a future which could provide a tremendous leap forward for
humanity.  Instead of playing God and being an architect and creating a second
genesis, and trying to rearrange millions of years of genetic blueprints, what
we ought to be doing is understanding the genomic makeup of the world around us
and how genes interact with environments and ecosystems.   Then we can be a
steward, so we can better integrate our social and productive activity into
nature's activity. . . . 

I haven't spoken to the chemical companies yet.  I have spoken to scientists
at Cornell, UC-Davis, mainstream academic agricultural scientists. . . . Some
of the mainstream agricultural scientists are not that concerned about the
production of GMOs.

Many of the mainstream agricultural scientists, especially at the agricultural
schools, but at all of our major universities, are tied into all sorts of
contractual relationships and consulting relationships  with the life science
companies.   There's been a growing debate in recent months about the close
commercial ties between our academic institutions involved in this research,
and the companies that are in the life science field.  You really can't find a
good molecular biologist or geneticist worth their salt who isn't involved in
some equity relationship or consulting relationship or involved in some startup
companies.  

You think they're compromised, in other words?

. . . You may have seen in the , where there's been some
big stories in the last few months . . . about the change in the relationship
between the academy and the academic sector and the commercial sector.  We have
biologists across the United States and around the world whose research grants
depend on corporate financing.  We have major players in the agricultural
field, as well as the other sciences, who are all involved in equity relations
and have stock options and are part of these companies.  You can find some
independent scientists, but they are few and far between.  We now have whole
labs, especially in our ag schools, that are contracted out to Monsanto and
Novartis.  . . . 

There's a lot of GM stuff out there--not just soybeans and corn-- but if you
include genetically engineered enzymes, there's also cheese, beer, bread,
sodas.  This revolution has happened.  What makes you think it's
stoppable?

One thing I've learned over these last 30 or 40 years is that people make
history.  There's no fait accompli to any of this. We're on the cusp of a
revolution in science.  . . . The biotech century is going to be as complicated
as the Industrial Revolution.  Remember, in the Industrial Revolution there
wasn't one agenda.  For every capitalist, there was a socialist.  For every
entrepreneur, there was a trade unionist.  For every Enlightenment philosopher,
there was a Romantic poet.  There were many agendas and issues.  It was
complex.  There was great upheaval.  . . .

We now have an opportunity, though, to do something we didn't do in the
industrial age, and that is to get a leg up on this, to bring the public in
quickly, to have an informed debate.  If ever there was a scientific and
technological revolution that cried out for everybody's involvement, this is
it.  This revolution affects the most intimate aspect of life on earth: our own
biology, and the biology of our fellow creatures.   . . .

But there is a huge constituency of agricultural scientists who see this as
enormous potential for the developing world, for the hungry, for feeding the
burgeoning population of the world.  They fear that the reckless action of
activist groups may kill this.

Let me take some responsibility, since I spawned much of this opposition.  It's
a little bit disingenuous for some of the life scientists to say they want to
feed the world, when they create terminator genes designed to made a seed
sterile so it can't be reused by farmers.  We are already producing enough food
to feed the world.  We already have technology in place that allows us to
produce more than we can find a market for.  Here in the U.S. and in Europe, we
pay farmers not to produce.  The issue here isn't producing enough food.  The
issue really with feeding the world is, how do we create the effective
mechanism, so the fruits of the technologies we already have in place can be
shared equitably? 

That argument's a little bogus, isn't it?

No.  If we really want to talk about feeding the world, we have to talk about
eating lower on the food chain.  The fact is, we've had a great change in
agriculture in the twentieth century.  . . . Today, one-third of all the food
grown in this world is feed grain, which is then consumed by animals, so that
the wealthier people on the planet can eat high up on the food chain with
grain-fed meats.  

The interesting thing is, while we die of diseases of affluence from eating all
these fatty meats, our poor brethren in the developing world die of diseases of
poverty, because the land is not used now to grow food grain for their
families. Rather, it's used to grow feed grain for the animal husbandry
industry.  If we would only find it in our hearts as a species to move down the
food chain so that we could free up the land, so that instead of a third of it
being grown for feed grain, it's grown for food grain, we could feed the world
today and tomorrow and for many years in the future. . . . 

Do you want to say anything last on patent issues? . . .

We have less than 10 life science companies in the world that have bought up
all the independent seed companies in the last several years.  They're now
turning those seeds into intellectual property, so they have a virtual lock on
the seeds upon which we all depend for our food and survival.  The issue here
is, can companies like Monsanto use their control of intellectual property to
force the rest of humanity to accept their terms in the commercial arena?  

When Monsanto provides a seed to a farmer, there's no traditional sale.
There's no seller, there's no buyer, there's no exchange of the property. When
Monsanto enters into a licensing agreement with a farmer, the farmer is being
given access to the Monsanto network and being allowed to use the intellectual
property in that seed for one growing season.  That means the new seeds at
harvest, which traditionally farmers have considered their own, now belong to
Monsanto.  If the farmer uses those new seeds, it's a violation of the
intellectual property agreement.  

Monsanto, if they had their way, would probably never want to sell another seed
again.  They'd much rather that every farm in the world enter into a licensing
agreement and have to access the seeds, the intellectual property in those
seeds, 24/7, every growing season.   . . . That's chilling in its potential
impact.  

Does that raise antitrust issues?

There is now a precedent-setting antitrust lawsuit in the federal courts.  The
10 largest antitrust law firms in the United States have gone into the federal
courts charging Monsanto with creating a global conspiracy in violation of the
antitrust laws, to control the global market in seeds.  The plaintiffs are
farmers in the U.S. and France.  . . .



Yes.  The antitrust litigation currently in the federal courts in the U.S.
against Monsanto will be the test case in the life sciences, just as the
Microsoft case was the test case in the information sciences.  As we move to a
network-based global economy, the real issue here is, can companies like
Microsoft in the information sciences, and Monsanto in the life sciences,
control these networks by controlling the intellectual property in the software
or the wetware?  

The difference is that the government was bringing the case against
Microsoft.

Interesting enough, the chief litigator for the government was David Boies.
His law firm is also involved in our litigation.  The litigation's being
spearheaded by Michael Hausfeld, one of the distinguished trial lawyers and
litigators in the United States.  So this is going to be a great test case.  .
. . I think it's going to set the framework, if you will, for the life science
revolution, as Microsoft and that case has set the precedents for the future of
the information science revolution.




wheat photograph h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright 2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 




Document Number: 5985 


In the broader sense, biotechnology  is literally thousands of years old.
We've been modifying the world around us since we first realized we could make
such things as cheese and bread and, very importantly, brew alcohol.  . . . 

In the distant past?  Brewing alcohol thousands of years ago?
She is director of the Biotechnology and Life Sciences Informatics Program at the University of California,
Davis.  offers an overview of crossbreeding techniques over the centuries, how it compares with new GM technology, and explains how much of human genes already are shared with plants. She also addresses Europe's GM food fight, U.S. food safety and regulatory performance, and multinational companies' intellectual property rights on GM seeds. (Interview conducted August 2000.)

Yes.  They discovered shards of pottery outside Edinburgh that had the remains
of Neolithic beer.  . . . That pottery dated back to 6500 B.C.  We've also been
modifying plants and animals literally for thousands of years, through
selective breeding and culling of animals, for example, that didn't have the
traits we want. 

Why have we been modifying nature?  If we just took what was there, what
would we find?

If you took what was available in the wild, the population of the world would
be much smaller than it is.  The capability of generating sufficient food to
feed individuals from wild produce is very low.  You literally would still be a
hunter-gatherer society.  We wouldn't be settled; we definitely wouldn't have
cultivated agriculture; and we wouldn't have any of the technology we have
today.  Agriculture is the underpinning of advancement of mankind, because we
could now concentrate on doing more exciting things than just focusing on where
the next meal is coming from.

Comparing today's crops with their wild ancestors, what would we notice? . .
.

The ancestors of modern day corn or potatoes are so totally unlike the present
cultivars that they would be absolutely unrecognizable for most people.  There
are also obviously a lot of negative aspects with respect to the ancestors of
these plants, insofar as being able to supply sustenance.  They are very small.
They have poor yield.  They oftentimes taste pretty awful.  And in many
instances, actually, they can be quite toxic.  An example would be potatoes and
tomatoes.  They're all members of the deadly nightshade family.  . . . Over the
many years of breeding, we've managed to breed out most of these toxins.  . .
.

How does traditional crossbreeding work?

At first, it was a hit-and-miss process.  . . . You're looking for
characteristics in the parent plants that you want--traits like good yield,
good taste, a high level of disease and insect resistance.  And you're also
looking for something, of course, that you're going to be able to cultivate in
large fields, which is not always the case for many wild plants.  So what you
do is basically cross these plants to get the particular traits that you're
looking for.  It takes a long time to get rid of the traits you don't want,
because you are dealing with tens of thousands of genes, and you have no
control whatsoever at the molecular level.

So you take two plants and you just shuffle them?Yes.  You take the pollen from the male plant and put it onto the flowers of
the female plant to get the product, whether it be a seed or a fruit or
whatever. Then you backcross it to the parent plant that has the
characteristics you want. ...  

I'll give you an illustration.  . . . The normal tomato cultivar that's used in
processing is low in what's called soluble solids, which are the holy grail of
processing tomatoes.  There's a wild variety of tomato ... which ... has much
higher level of soluble solids.  This tomato, if you saw it, is really awful
looking.  It's small, it's green, it's pretty ugly tasting, it has poor yield,
and in fact it is a little toxic, because it's a member of the deadly
nightshade family.  It took 15 years of crossing with the good parent to
introduce the trait we wanted, which was the high soluble solids, and to get
rid of all the traits you didn't want.  Using biotechnology, this was done in
one step. ...  

What's new about so-called genetic modification? . . .

Over this century, we've been introducing an awful lot of technologies in
addition to the original selection and breeding.  I think a lot of people don't
realize this.  We've been using mutagenesis breeding since the middle part of
this century, and it's still done quite a lot.  . . . Several plants, in fact,
something like 1,800 cultivars, have been introduced using this mutagenesis
breeding approach.  . . . 

Another type of technology was introduced in the middle of this century--a
technology called wide cross, or embryo rescue.  In this instance, you're
crossing two plants that are not sexually compatible, that is, species that
would never interact in nature.  Basically you're using scientific tricks to go
in there and rescue that embryo that would normally be lost.  . . . It will
breed true after that.  . . . A large number of products come into the market
each year that are produced using these wide crosses.

These could never have been derived from traditional breeding?

These could not happen in nature.  Plus, you're also mixing huge numbers of
genes, tens of thousands of genes at the molecular level.  You have no clue
what you're doing.  With biotechnology, it's much more precise, much more
predictable, and much more controlled, because you're modifying single traits
or a couple of traits at a time.  So you know exactly what genes you're
modifying, and you know exactly what traits you're looking for.  

There's still, of course, the possibility of developing types of
characteristics that you don't want.  . . . The argument is often made that,
with using plant genetic engineering, you don't where the gene is inserted.
This is true using traditional breeding, too.  You don't know how these
chromosomes are going to mix.  But the technology is always evolving. Now we're
in the position of actually being able to use what's called site selection.
You can determine exactly where you're going to be able to put the gene in,
using some technological tricks.  So, in fact, this will make it even more
precise.  . . . 

Historically, genetic engineering was used for other applications, such as
medicine, and in making enzymes, and it didn't attract much attention.

About 200 million people worldwide have benefited from the products of
genetically engineered pharmaceuticals.   Diseases that were really
recalcitrant to treatment up until genetic engineering are now being treated
very effectively. For example, one of them is human growth hormone, which is
used to treat children who are suffering from human growth hormone deficiency.
Prior to genetic engineering, this had to actually be extracted from the
pituitary glands of corpses.  

Now, using genetic engineering, you're just making a copy of the gene, and
you're actually making human growth hormone in large fermenters.  It's easy to
purify, it's high effective, and it's much less expensive.  

Likewise, diabetes has been treated using genetically engineered insulin. Prior
to biotechnology, most insulin was produced using the pancreases of pigs.  Of
course, a lot of people were allergic to the product, because it wasn't human.
Now you make a copy of the human gene.  You put it into your microbe of choice
and grow it up again in fermenters.

Chymosin is another example.  About 90 percent of all cheese is produced now
using a genetically engineered enzyme.  Prior to that, you had to isolate this
enzyme from the forestomach of an unweaned calf.  . . . Using biotechnology,
you make a copy of that gene from the calf; you put it into your microbe of
choice; you grow it up in a fermenter.  It's actually secreted into the medium,
so it's very easy to make huge amounts of it.  It's also much easier to purify.
. . . It's much cheaper to keep microbes than to keep calves.  . . .

Detergents have about three or four different genetically engineered enzymes,
so that you can wash your clothes at room temperature.  

. . . In addition, there are enzymes that protect the quality of your clothes.
For example, there is a dye transfer enzyme that protects your clothes from
transfer of dyes. ...

But none of these things seemed to cause any fuss.

No, because nobody is even aware of the fact that they're in our products.
Indeed, there was no hullabaloo whatsoever when they were introduced, and they
have been continuously introduced over this last 10 years.  In fact, 90 percent
now of all industrial enzymes--used  in everything from food production to
leather tanning to paper pulping--use genetically  engineered enzymes.

The ones with the most publicity are input traits for farmers, such as
Roundup Ready traits and BT corn. What was the reason for doing this? . .
.

One, it's because that's what farmers wanted.  They wanted an alternative to
massive amounts of chemicals that are used today to produce our crop plants.
Farmers are incredibly productive, but it does come at a price.  There is a lot
of contamination of soils and groundwater with the excess use of chemicals that
are used to control weeds and insects and pests.  So this was an obvious area
that biotech could very quickly address issues of interest to the farming
community.  . . . 

At that point in time, the biotech companies weren't thinking specifically of
the consumer.  They really were thinking of the farmer.  The first traits that
are out there, the ones that have a high level of commercialization, or insect
resistance  . . . have been used by organic farmers for a long time to control
insects.   . . .

So this is a natural pesticide?

Yes.  . . . It's not toxic to you or to I or to animals, but in the guts of
these target insects, it turns into a toxin.  . . . Last year, 55 percent of
all soybeans were genetically engineered for another type of resistance gene,
and this was herbicide tolerance.  What this herbicide tolerance gene does is
allow a far more environmentally compatible herbicide--glyphosate--to be used
to control weeds. ... 

What kind of pathogens attack these corn and cotton crops?The main pathogen, especially for corn, is European corn borer.  That
particular pathogen comes up through the stalk of the plant itself.  It's very
difficult to get at, because it's literally inside the stalk. ... But with the
BT gene literally  the corn itself, when the larvae eat it, they are
immediately affected. 

If you look at the two plants--the control plant and the engineered plant--it's
like night and day.  The control plant is just completely infected with the
European corn borer.  The BT plant is completely clean. ... 

I've heard that 25 percent of the world's pesticide is for cotton.  Is that
accurate?

Yes, it is.  The amount of pesticides used in cotton is larger than pretty much
all other plants combined.  Again, I think people don't realize the intensity
of pest control, because it's so important.  . . .

But farmers still have to spray, even with BT cotton?

That's true using any of these systems.   I would never suggest biotech as a
panacea.  It's a very effective tool as part of an integrated pest management
program.  . . . 

A recent report from the U.S. National Food and Ag Council in Washington has
shown that, by using herbicide-tolerant soybeans,  farmers saved $280 million
in 1998.  This allowed them to use just a single herbicide.  They only had to
spray if the weeds emerged.  They didn't have to use multiple sprayings or
pre-sprayings.  Likewise, they didn't have to use complex cocktails of really
pretty nasty herbicides.  What about the argument that this is tampering with nature, playing God?
When you take a trait of a fish and put it into a strawberry, it seems to
people that something new is happening.

Yes.  . . . They were looking at taking a gene from the Arctic flounder to
increase the cold tolerance of tomato plants.  A similar type of gene exists in
plants as well. ...  It's a membrane protein that protects the integrity of the
cell, of the plant cell or the fish cell. ... 



It's not a fish gene.  Take an example.  There is a protein, 

cytochrome c, which is  a very important component of our respiratory
machinery.  Cytochrome c is identical in you, in a pea, in a cow.  It's the
absolute same gene. ... 

Tomatoes, flounders, humans.  People are not aware of how much is shared.
What percentage of our genome is common? . . .

If you're to look at it from a broad-based ballpark figure, we probably share
about 50 percent of our genes with plants, at the basic level.  You'll get
variations of everything from 20 percent to 80 percent, but it's in the middle
there somewhere.  With chimpanzees, we share 99.5 percent; there's a really
tiny level of difference there.  Much of the housekeeping genes--those that
help us breathe and metabolize food and live from day to day--are shared with
other organisms to a high degree.  

So from a genomic standpoint, it's not shocking to move . . .

No.  From a genomics point of view, it is not at all shocking, because you will
find these type of genes in nature being used in a similar way by all sorts of
different organisms.  This sharing has been going on for thousands of years.  .
. . 

What about food safety?  Some say that these new foods will be toxic or
allergenic. 

In fact, an enormous amount of research goes into every single product before
it even gets as far as the field, never mind before it gets to
commercialization.   It would be a very stupid company that would go ahead with
a product that may hurt its consumer.  That's not a very good business
strategy.  . . . 

For some, the bulk of the concern is ecological--gene migration, etc.
What's to stop some of these modifications getting to other plants?

With most of our crop plants, we actually are growing them in areas that are as
far away from where they originated.  However, of course, there are a few that
will have wild relatives in the area.  So the issue of potential gene flow--the
genetically engineered gene escaping into those wild relatives--has come up
quite a bit.  

First of all, we literally treat our crops like queens or princesses.  We
mollycoddle them.  We give them everything they want.  If they were to compete
in the wild, they would look very, very different.  For example, if you let
your cabbage grow wild, it would no longer be a nice, neat, compact green head.
It would be this long, stringy thing that you wouldn't dream of wanting to eat.
When these plants are competing in the wild, they're throwing off everything
that doesn't give them a selective advantage, because now they're competing.
. . . 

What about the buildup of resistance?

Of course, this is always a problem with biological systems.  Biological
systems are infinitely flexible and far smarter.  . . . They always seem to
manage to be very effective at overcoming whatever mechanism we use to try and
control them.  This has been the bane of the chemical industry forever.  You
constantly have to be one step ahead of the pest that you were controlling, as
it developed resistance.  And this is also a potential problem in biotech, if
you're going to be using single genes.  So several approaches are being taken
by researchers to address this area.

The first is one that's mandated by the EPA. Within these BT crop plantings,
you have to have at least 20 percent of the field planted to non-engineered
corn, for example.  By having this non-engineered corn, you're removing the
selective pressure.  So you're allowing these insects to grow up without
selection for resistance to BT.  So, effectively, what you're doing is diluting
out the resistance gene. ... 

Critics say that this is a case of corporations pushing things through too
fast with inadequate regulatory oversight.  What do you say?

I think the regulatory environment is very effective at looking at all the
potential problems, both from a consumer health point of view and an
environmental impact point of view.  The watchdogs in place at the USDA, EPA,
and FDA really look at all of the potential negative impacts of this
technology, and the checks and balances are in place to address this.

In many instances, the negative opinion of biotech is held because a lot of the
research and the commercialization, of course, are done by big multinationals.
It's as much a negative against the perception of  multinationals as it is a
fear of the science itself.  This notion that these multinationals are going to
hold on to the intellectual property components is really going to have a
negative impact on developing countries. ... 

Forgetting the corporations, regulatory agencies, and activist groups, how
would you characterize the position of agricultural scientists?

I think most agricultural scientists who are familiar with the science itself
and the technology itself are very supportive, seeing this as a new set of
tools that can be used to improve agricultural productivity, while minimizing
the impact on the environment.  . . . If you're going to look at increasing
productivity over the next 50 years, the demands on our soils and environment
are going to be enormous to be able to meet the world demands for these food.


If we're not going to resort to putting our national parks under the plow or
cutting down rainforest, we're going to have to increase productivity on the
land that's available right now.  We're going to have to be able to use
marginal soils that you can't use right now because of, for example, heavy
metal contamination, and because  of other environmental stressors, like
drought and cold and heat and high salt.  Using biotech, you can actually
develop crops that can grow in all of those types of severe high-stress
environments.  Without biotech, you couldn't do it.  . . . 

What is the future, the potential of this technology? ... 

There's an incredible probability of being able to use this technology to do
things you could never do in nature, for example, like producing nutriceuticals
in plants, therapeutics and vaccines.  For example, right now a company down
the road here in Vacaville, Large Scale Biology, is engineering tobacco plants
. . . to produce anti-cancer agents.  So now instead of 

In another example, Dr. Arntzen at the Boyce Thompson Institute is introducing
genes for vaccines against diseases that are really prevalent in developing
countries, like hepatitis B and cholera.  Right now he's producing these
vaccines in potatoes.  . . .  



These are edible vaccines.  Chewing on raw potato isn't exactly the most
palatable, but he's going to put these genes into bananas, so you're actually
going to be able to give these children bananas and vaccinate them against
cholera and hepatitis B.  Now, these will be controlled as medicines.  It's not
like you'll be able to grow your banana plant in your back yard and go out and
vaccinate yourself.  But it's an incredible way to be able to deliver these,
especially in countries where you can't maintain the cold chain, where
refrigeration is a problem.  . . .

Over the last few years, things have really gotten strained in
Europe.

I've seen the evolution, of the attitudes over there.  When I was over there
originally in 1993, 1994, it was really interesting.  When I went into Safeway
and Sainsbury's, I saw genetically engineered products on the shelves.  I saw a
can of tomato paste produced using a similar technology that Calgene used to
produced their Flavor-Saver tomato.  But, in fact, this was used to produce
processing tomatoes.  In addition to allowing the tomato to stay on the vine
longer, it actually built up the soluble solids and the flavors--all the things
you want in a tomato.  And the company, Zeneca, clearly labeled on the can,
"This product is produced using genetically engineered tomatoes grown in
California."  The tin was a little bigger than a normal tin, cost less, and it
was literally flying off the shelves.  People had no problem whatsoever with
buying it. 

But then mad cow disease struck and suddenly the whole country--in fact, the
whole continent--basically said, "Well, who's minding the shop?  Who's
protecting us?"  Mad cow disease, of course, had nothing to do with
biotechnology at all.  It just raised people's awareness. ... They really began
to say, "Hey, we're being left wide open here.  We don't have a regulatory
authority we can trust." . . . Perception is everything.  There was a major
backlash against all technology, and biotechnology got caught up in that whole
furor.   

There were, of course, several other issues and agendas--some hidden, some not
so hidden.  I remember one time asking a particular individual who's with the
group Genetic Concern, "If I could prove to you on every single count the
safety of this technology, both from a consumer perspective and from a
environmental perspective, would you accept it?"  And the individual said, "No,
because it's an American technology that's benefiting Midwest farmers.  Why
should we take any of the risks?" . . .

In Europe, they had scientific review panels, which said similar things as
were said here.  But in the balance, they got ignored, didn't they?

Yes.  Unfortunately, the science was ignored.  I'm quite familiar with many of
the scientists there, who were very frustrated by the fact that the reports and
recommendations that they put forward literally were ignored in favor of a
knee-jerk response to public opinion.  . . . There were some very loud groups
with a lot of rhetoric and a lot of time on their hands, and they were able to
put forward alternative views, even though those particular views were not
founded in science.

They stick to the idea that, although we've been modifying foods for
thousands of years, we're going to treat one process differently.  Is that
right

That's a complete departure, both from the original intent of regulations on
the U.S., and indeed on the European side, where the focus up until now had
been on the product, not the process by which it's produced.  If you look at a
package of sausages, it doesn't say, "This was produced using extrusion
processes."  Most people would never want to see how sausages are produced.  .
. . Agricultural practices or processing practices have never been a
requirement of labeling.  And now suddenly they are, which is a total departure
from the way regulations have been put into place on both sides of the
Atlantic.

So now they're singling out a particular process.  If it's produced using
recombinant . . .

Yes.  If it's produced using recombinant DNA technology, then you're required
to label it.  And there is a threshold level of 1 percent.  This decision, of
course, is made at a parliament level.  It had little input from the
scientists, because every scientist will tell you that it's impossible to
actually enforce those regulations because the type of tests that are out there
are notoriously inaccurate.  . . . [Researchers at] KPMG ... determined that
the overall costs of ... testing will put between 5 to 15 percent of cost that
will be passed on to the consumer, on all of these products.  Effectively, what
you're doing is imposing a tax on a technology that in fact is reducing
environmental impact and potentially increasing the healthfulness and safety of
our food. ...

Some of that fear of genetically modified food has spread to the U.S.  Some
individual manufacturers have been targeted.  What's happened for them?

There has been a very effective writing campaign to the food processors and
food manufacturers, because they are obviously the middlemen.  They're the
individuals who take the product from the producers, the farmers, and make it
available to grocery stores.  They feel they're in a very vulnerable position.
. . . Gerber, which is owned by Novartis, which has a huge focus on using
biotechnology in crop agriculture, decided that it's not going to use any
products of a recombinant DNA technology in its baby food. ... 

But purely from a food safety point of view, the raw material would be in
better shape if it was genetically modified, wouldn't it?

Yes, because you're not going to have the contaminants in there that you would
have if you're not controlling them.  The decision by Gerber had little, in
fact, had nothing, to do with science.  It had everything to do with public
perception.  . . .



The president of Frito-Lay happened to be visiting Europe and became aware of
the surge of anti-biotech feeling there, and called back and said, "We're
putting an announcement out that we're not using any GMOs."  Now, what they
were focusing on was GMO potatoes.  They're still using corn oil, which is
produced from GMOs.  . . . 

Can you imagine a scenario where things would be held back, where there
would be a rapid change in consumer feeling?

The only thing I could see that would do that is if there was some devastating
problem out there.  But that's interesting, because you've seen that happen
with other products, where food contamination has been an issue, and people
have died because of contamination.  With biotech products there hasn't been
one incident.  There's not been one negative instance from a biotech product in
25 years of research.  Any problems have been caught really early.  . . .

What about voluntary versus mandatory labeling?

Right now, as regulations stand, all food products that are approved by the FDA
do not require mandatory labeling, because what they focus on is the product,
not the process by which it was produced.  This particular stance, in fact, was
challenged in a number of lawsuits.  The one that had the highest profile was
the Ben & Jerry lawsuit some years ago in Vermont, where they were looking
at labeling milk produced from cows that had been treated with BST.  The judge
in that instance said, "If you were going to focus on labeling purely with the
notion of satisfying consumers' right to know, you'd have encyclopedias
attached to every single bottle of milk that's up there," and said that this
was not sufficient reason to demand labeling.  . . . 

There's such a huge public swelling of demand.  . . . So, from the companies'
point of view, it might be of value to these companies, as part of a public
relations effort, to say, "We will voluntarily label," so  have
control over what they're going to label.  There are a lot of problems with
doing that too.  . . . Every single term that you use is value-laden, and it's
really difficult to decide what is the most effective label that will inform
people as opposed to scare them.   . . . 

Some environmental groups argue for a return to another way of life.  "We
have enough food.  We just need to distribute it." They're not moved by your
environmental arguments, and they're trying to escape from your Third World
developing country arguments.

It would be wonderful if we could all live in a bucolic Turner chocolate-box
environment, where we all are back working on the earth, looking like a scene
from American Gothic.  But that's not a reality.  . . . The reality is, if
you're going to look at the productivity that you could achieve by going back
to zero-input agriculture, versus what you can achieve using biotech means,
they just do not balance up.  The costs would literally skyrocket.  You can
even see that today, with the cost of organic produce.   . . .

I would like to reiterate, I have no problem with organic produce whatsoever.
It is an alternative way of producing crops.  However, it is also an
alternative way that comes at a cost.  In many instances, it really is the
affluent who can afford the products of organic produce.  For many instances,
people living in inner cities would not be able to afford to pay the amount
that's necessary to be able to make organic farming a viable solution for all
agriculture.  . . . 

Poor farmers in developing countries are organic farmers, and they don't
want to be.

It's very difficult for them.  I always like to quote a researcher from Kenya.
Florence Wambugu has said that the real advantage of biotech is that it's
package technology in the seed.  You don't have to teach these farmers new
culture practices.  You don't have to get them to completely change the way
they do farming.  You just give them a seed, and that increases productivity in
that seed itself.  She said that for years, people have tried to change
cultural practices of these farmers, and it just hasn't worked.  It has been a
complete failure, because you have to modify infrastructure, you have to
re-educate them as to how to modify their farming practices themselves. 

But with biotech, the technology is in a seed.  All you have to do is give them
the seed.   At this stage, about 40 different countries are capable of
producing these biotech products.  They don't have to depend on the U.S. or
First World countries to provide them with this technology.

If they succeed in growing crops where they haven't before, that will
inevitably change those countries.

The complexities of food distribution are enormous.  They're affected by
politics, by local conflict, by so many other considerations.   I would never
suggest that biotech is going to be the answer to all of this.  You are going
to have to deal with the economic and political realities in the regions
themselves.  However, as I said, the advantage of biotech is that it can help
alleviate the situation.  . . . It definitely would be able to provide the
farmer with an alternative way of getting the nutritional requirements at a
sufficient level with minimum impact on the environment.  This, to me, is one
of the big advantages of biotechnology insofar as developing countries are
concerned.  . . .

Do you think some of the criticism of genetically modified foods has to do
with an issue of ownership as well?

Yes.  The whole focus on multinational corporations gaining a foothold or
gaining control of intellectual property is one of the big components, without
question, too.  . . . To give you an example, hybrid corn.  Hybrid corn has
been in existence for 50 years.  It's accepted the world over as a way of
producing vigorous corn . . . and it has been controlled by seed companies for
50 years.  

There's an interesting quote by a food scientist from 1940, who basically said,
"U.S. corporations are going to destroy agriculture the world over, because
they have this ownership of this new hybrid corn."  Of course, that hasn't
happened.  Everybody buys hybrid corn.  So I really think, if you look at
history, you do see the value--in fact, the necessity--of  having an exclusive
right to use a technology over a period of time, to be able to recoup the costs
of developing that technology.  Then it goes into the public domain.  . . .




wheat photograph h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright 2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 




Document Number: 3420 


There is now a federal and state rules that govern what "organic" is. But an
organic farm, in my opinion, is one that uses no synthetically compounded
materials. No GMOs are allowed in organic agriculture.

What do organic farmers have against synthetic chemicals? talks about  long-term costs and doubts
associated with GM food, outlines the problems caused by  large industrial
farming, and explains why he believes farmers are on a dangerous treadmill in
embracing biotechnology. (Interview conducted October  2000.) 

I think it came out of the 1960s and 1970s.  The issue of chemical agriculture
had a great many unknowns about it.  I grew up on a farm where we used
herbicides and we used 2,4-D.  We used a lot of things that are now banned.
When I began to ask questions about those things, a lot of the information
about the health effects of those materials were not directly available to
farmers.  It was a labyrinth.  A lot of those products have now been
discontinued because they were deemed unsafe. I felt like the farm was a bit of
a laboratory.  . . . I decided, and I think a lot of people at the same time
were deciding, that we needed to look at an agriculture that didn't have those
questions, and begin to re-orient it.  . . .

Do you think the chemical industry has lost trust and credibility? . .
.

It started with Rachel Carson and  (her book published in
1962 that unmasked some of the dangers of pesticides).  A lot of farmers felt
very angry that those issues were out there, and somebody was questioning the
technology.  But I think there are substantive questions about pollution and
groundwater, pollution in rivers, things that we are going to have to pay for
as a society in the long term.  Somebody's going to have to clean those things
up.  . . .

What does "sustainability" mean to you?

Sustainability means looking at a farm and seeing where it'll be in 100 years,
or 500 years.  Do we have the foresight to protect the soil resources, the
biological resources in that system, and grow crops as efficiently, or perhaps
more efficiently, than we are right now? . . . 

If biotech can reduce herbicide use, etc., doesn't that win a few
points?It's hard to argue with all the positive stories that are out there, in terms
of how biotechnology may prevent diseases or solve problems that we have in
certain industries.  There's a lot of promise there, and I'm not here to cast a
blanket criticism over all that promise.  But I do believe that we're going
down a road where perhaps we're not looking at other options that may, in the
long haul, be cheaper, be more sustainable, and may not have some of the
long-term costs and doubts associated with them.  . . . Do we really understand
the ramifications of putting BT, for example, in corn?

BT is a product used by organic farmers for pest control.

Basically a tool is being taken and it's being inserted in plants.  And you've
done some major changes there.  It's not a benign process.  You've made a
cornfield into a 24-hour-a-day pesticide factory.  In the long haul, it will
create insects that are resistant to BT, because that's what nature does.  The
ones that survive will be resistant.  It means that then there will have to be
a new technology evolved to deal with the resistant insects.   . . . 

You have a number of questions.  One is, what does that do in the soil?  Soil
is a complex system.  If you have BT in the roots there, are you killing
microorganisms in the soil that are affected by BT there?  

. . . Are you affecting again the biology of that system from bottom to top?
Are you affecting migratory insects that fly through here? . . .

But in cornfields or cotton fields, you would have used chemical pesticides.
So are you talking about the lesser of two evils? . . .

I think organic farmers are beginning to say, "Well, do we evolve as apologists
for a commercial agriculture system, where we keep looking for solutions for
problems we're creating?  Or, as organic farmers, do we begin to look at the
fundamental health of the system--that begins in the soil--and  all the things
that arise from that?  Do we begin to design a system that is perhaps more
sustainable over the long haul?" 

You inevitably run into monoculture issues when there is great demand for
certain crops.

Those are large questions that we have.  A question that has to be asked is, is
Midwestern agriculture sustainable?   Can you grow soybeans and corn, even in
the system they have right now, with biotechnology or with the latest pesticide
out there?  Or will we hit a point somewhere down the road where there're going
to be so many problems resulting from that system that we've had, that you're
not going to produce that surplus anyway?  I think those are substantive
questions.  We always expect technology to bail us out.  But we may be, in
fact, evolving a system where at one point there will be no bailout.  . . .

Nature is incredibly complex and it's not easy to deny it its due.  You can't
keep suppressing aspects of it and feel like you're going to be smarter than it
is.  . . . If you deny one aspect of that system, it's going to come back and
extract from you the need to pay it fairly.

So you might get short-term gain, but . . .

I think that's the formative question for Midwestern agriculture.  . . . Unless
we begin to look at other options, I see that we're heading down a road that is
a parallel to the pesticide road.  And we have a lot of people who have
questioned whether that is an appropriate technology for long-term
sustainability of our agricultural resources.

If a product offers less pesticide use and a longer growing season in the
short term, wouldn't you be tempted to take it?

That's a bit of a trap.  . . . You would be tempted to take it.  And that's why
a lot of farmers embrace biotechnology.  Not all of them, but a lot of farmers
do, because they see it as something that will lower their cost and allow them
to survive.  Farmers are on a treadmill.  That cotton farmer down there is part
of a system where there's been over-production for years.  Prices are low.  The
farmer's only response is to grow more, because prices are low, and the only
way he's going to see his bottom line come out is if he produces more at that
low cost.  But everybody's doing the same thing.  So everybody's producing more
and the price goes down further. Then you look for another technology to allow
you to produce more.  

What's not being accounted for is the whole environment, from the beneficial
insects to the monarch butterflies that fly through, to the waterways that have
to deal with what runs off his field.  . . . We're not reinvesting.  We're on a
notion that things in agriculture have to 
be
produced for a lower cost all the time, because there's always perennial
surpluses.   It gives us, as a nation, food security. 

By and large, for that cotton farmer to survive, he adopts the technology
that's there.  He looks to lower his costs, looks for that promise that's given
to him by the developers of that technology.  I really think that somewhere
down the road, that cotton farmer's going to say, "Wait a second.  The people
making money on my farm are the people who supply me with this BT-engineered
seed . . . the people who market my cotton and aren't concerned with whether
it's GMO or not."  

There are people all in that system making money, but the farmer isn't.  If you
look at how many farm families have been driven from agriculture over the past
30, 40, 50 years, it's incredible.  Farmers aren't making a living.

Is there anger because the BT crops might blunt a tool that you use?I think with time, resistance happens.  Pesticides are a great example. The
insects that survive will be the ones that are resistant to the pesticide.  So
you look for stronger pesticides all the time to introduce. It's what's called
a pesticide treadmill.  If insects develop that BT resistance, over the long
haul, it will take a tool away from organic farmers.  We won't have a tool to
use that's very effective and very non-toxic.  And in a sense, the companies
that developed those products--the BT corn and the BT cotton--will be taking
all the profits and all the benefits of that, and they're putting that in their
pocket right now.  It's a very short-term notion of how you capture
profitability in the system.  . . .

We've been manipulating genomes for a long time. . . . Crossbreeding is
slow.  What would be wrong about doing it quickly?

I can't speak for all organic farmers.  I can speak for myself.  And I know
that when you begin to take things out of the complex system that they're grown
in, or that they live in, and you begin to isolate aspects of it and focus on
just one aspect of it, you begin to oftentimes disregard other aspects of its
relationship in that system.  Traditional breeding is laborious, but you can
gain a lot of that information from that process.  . . . 

I don't know enough to say whether working within a gene species is right or
wrong.  . . . There are incredible complex interactions in any crop that you
grow, and it's not just weather.  It's soil microorganisms.  It's cultivation
techniques.  . . . All of those things are related in a system.  If they're
going to tweak genes, they're going to need to reinsert that into the system
and see how it reacts.  . . .

In the developing world, they're upset about anti-GM forces, because a
choice might be taken away from them.

I certainly think that developing countries should have access to any
technologies that we have here.  This horse of genetic modification is
galloping out of the barn and is far down the road here in this country.  And
they shouldn't be denied access to that technology.  The reasons for poverty
are complex.  If we continue to extract resources from the developing
countries, which are sending their best food down the road to developed
countries . . . there's certainly a problem there.  That's a complex part of
that question. 

I do know, though, that farmers in those countries also have the same situation
as farmers here.  If they're not paid fairly, they're going to be poor.  We
tend to think that technology rains down benefits from the top down.  To make a
sustainable agriculture system, it's really built from the bottom up.  Those
farmers there need to be paid fairly for what they're producing.  If they're
paid fairly, then they have the means to invest in the technologies and invest
in the things that will build their soil and make their agriculture healthier.
. . .  

Would you like to see all farming organic, or just organic as part of the
solution?

In an ideal system, I'd like to see a sustainable agriculture for all people
where people are fed, and fed good food. That may take a range of technologies.
I can't say exactly what that mix of technologies would be.  I would like to
see more organic farms, because organic farming, at this point, approaches the
issue of sustainability in a far more positive light and a far more intelligent
light than does most commercial agriculture. 

Given biotech's glamour, what would be an incentive for more organic
farming?

The marketplace may be an incentive.  I think if consumers demand that their
food is non-GMO, and if organic food is the only non-GMO food out there that
they know does not have any genetically modified organisms, then that may be
one aspect.  . . .

Is it true that more land is needed for organic farming?  Does intensive
agriculture allow more wilderness land?

I don't agree with that one at all.  I think on our small farm here we grow,
again, as much or more probably per acre than most farms do. 

. . . I think there's a mythology about organic agriculture, that if you went
to organic agriculture, a third of the population would starve.  Yields can be
as high.  Again, we're not investing in the technologies that help determine
some of these questions.   How do we harvest nitrogen from the air efficiently?
How do we create integrated systems?  How do we make soil conservation and the
other corollary issues of agriculture as important?  . . . I think organic
agriculture perhaps provides a good many insights into how to deal with those
problems.  . . .

A lot of the arguments are disingenuous.   Farmers here are producing a
tremendous amount.  Farmers are receiving low prices. They have to disregard
the ecology of the larger agricultural picture, because they don't have the
money to reinvest there.  Society deems that that's not a big issue.  You can
look at one aspect and say, "Yield is the only thing that we need to drive
toward.  We need to drive toward higher yields all the time."  But I think that
we actually need to drive toward a healthier ecology of agriculture all the
time.  . . . 

So how do I address Norman Borlaug when he says, "Organic farmers would take
more wilderness area?" I think that he's disregarding all these other issues
perhaps that are related, and saying that yield is the only thing that we need
to strive for.

Does the American consumer care more about cheap food, or about sustainable
ecology?

I'm afraid the American consumer probably cares more for cheap food at this
point.  But I think that there are people who care about the ecology.  Our
consumers buy food from us because they are willing to support a farm that is
reinvesting in the farm ecology.  There are a great deal of unknowns about
agriculture, and a great deal of mythology.  I think consumers are the farmer's
friends.  And farmers have, by and large, estranged consumers, because they've
again invested in a technology that has some toxicity to it, where there are
questions about the safety of food and the long-term effects of pesticides.  .
. .

Can you make a living out of organic farming?

We do.  We've paid for our farm in ten years, farming this farm.  That's our
mark of success.




wheat photograph h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright 2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova


 




Document Number: 5925 
Why is the Union of Concerned Scientists interested in agricultural
biotechnology?

Our point of view is that we're skeptical of many of the benefits.  We're
worried about the uncertainties  and the risks.  This leads us to believe that
for the most part these products will not be useful in a sustainable
agriculture.  Moreover, because they may present risks, they should be
carefully regulated.  That, then, leads us to do a considerable amount of work
urging the three agencies involved--the Food and Drug Administration, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency--to improve
their regulatory schemes.


A senior staff scientist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, she talks
about why bioengineered plants present a new kind of uncertainty in
crossbreeding and the lack of substantive testing to date.   also discusses
why U.S. regulatory agencies seem satisfied with this new technology and the
difference between genetic engineering for medicines vs. for food.(Interview conducted October  2000.) 
But you're not saying that GM crops are inherently more dangerous than
traditional crops?

No.  We're not opposed to genetically engineered crops across the board.  We do
see this as a powerful new technology.  This is where we part company with a
lot of agricultural scientists, who see this as nothing more than an extension
of traditional breeding.  . . .

With traditional crossbreeding, you also introduce genes and have
uncertainties as to how those genes will act.

You have a different sort of uncertainty with genetically engineered crops--at
least that's what I'm told by ecological genetics folks.  With traditional
breeding, you may be moving segments of chromosomes, large pieces of DNA, but
it's essentially within the same genome makeup, the same chromosomal makeup.
What  happen with the genetic engineering is that these genes are
inserted randomly, haphazardly.  Contrary to what the industry says, it's not a
precise thing. 

In genetically modified organisms, are genes inserted more haphazardly than
in crossbreeding?

Yes, because with crossbreeding, there is a particular chromosome that gets
exchanged.  Occasionally there may be some inversions.  But what happens in
gene splicing is that these genes go in haphazardly.  The engineers can't tell
you where the genes go.  They may lodge in other genes.  That is, they may
interrupt other series of gene functions.  Now, I think it is possible that we may find out, once we've gathered a lot of
data, that in fact there may not be a lot of unexpected changes.  I don't know.
My goal is to have the data that say that these crops are as safe as
traditionally bred ones, and not operate on the  that they
are.   . . . The government and the industry have been too eager to assume that
these plants, these crops, are substantially equivalent to existing ones.  . .
. But I don't think that they have done the kind of testing that a lot of us
would want, to really establish the substantial equivalence.

I can understand why industry and government have taken this route.  For many
years, they have been successful in reversing the burden of proof.  The
industry is not forced to prove relative safety.  Rather, the burden of proof
is on people like us to show that there's some risk.  . . .  

The industry claims they went to FDA in 1992 and worked with them and asked
them to regulate them, and that they've done this voluntarily. . . .

My sense is that industry did not want to be regulated very much.  They wanted
to be regulated a little bit, so that they would have some protection.  Then
they could say, "Well, we did everything the government wanted." 

Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, there were no regulations. . .
.

But there could have been a choice.  In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration
produced a policy that it had been working on for many years.  In that policy,
it said, "We will treat them, for the most part, as substantially equivalent.
Only under certain circumstances will we add any required regulatory
mechanisms."  

Thousands of people commented and said, "This is not strong enough.  We want
labeling.  We want required food safety testing.  We want these to be treated
like chemical additives."  Well, the Food and Drug Administration ignored those
thousands of comments, and proceeded to treat these products really as ordinary
food, except under unusual circumstances.   As a result, there is only a
voluntary scheme.  The FDA has yet to require a single test of any foods on the
market.

The FDA's reasoning is that if they labeled GM, they'd have to label stuff
done by traditional crossbreeding.

I don't think so at all.  I think there's a very easy way to determine that
these products are genetically engineered.  You just label them as genetically
engineered.  It's like irradiated food.  That is labeled.  . . .  The FDA
continues to say that there are no safety issues associated with irradiation,
but they require that food be labeled as irradiated.  That's because there was
a great citizen outcry calling for labeling of irradiated food.  The FDA has
the power to require labeling if there is enough pressure to convince them to
do it.  It doesn't have to even be for safety.

Some labels are marketing standards, right?

Yes.  There are process-based labeling.  Certainly, irradiation is an example
of an FDA-imposed, process-based labeling.

The issue of labeling is separate from the research.  If you produced a new
product with traditional crossbreeding as opposed to with genetic engineering,
why would one require more regulation? If a tomato has been produced by
crossbreeding, you can call it a tomato.  But if a tomato has been produced by
adding a gene . . .

It's still a tomato, but it has a genetic additive, and it should be treated as
a tomato with a chemical additive.  . . . When I was at the Environmental
Protection Agency, we were trying to write rules that said that genetically
engineered microbes should be looked at differently under the Toxic Substances
Control Act.  The Reagan Administration and a lot of other folks were opposed
to that because they, too, bought into the idea that we should regulate the
product, not the process.  . . . 

Over the years, they lost that argument, because the process 
regulated in the United States. We do have this regulatory apparatus that is
directed at genetically engineered organisms.  And it means that the USDA
regulates the crops in a way it does not regulate traditional crops.

Our argument at the EPA was--and my argument is--that, as a general matter,
this is a new technology.  It is a technology that brings with it a significant
amount of uncertainty.  It hasn't been applied.  It hasn't been monitored much
in the environment.  . . . To the extent that one has resources to try to
ensure safety to the environment and to public health, you direct those
resources at the things that cause the most uncertainty or present the most
risk.  

That's why I don't look at traditionally bred crops.  There may be some that
are troublesome, but as a general matter, they are not.  We know very little
about the long-term impacts of genetically engineered food and they should be
subject to more scrutiny.  . . .  

We've accepted genetic engineering in other aspects of life--insulin,
medical applications.  We don't appear to have a debate anymore about
it.Yes.  Well, the difference to me is that the people who use the genetically
engineered pharmaceuticals are people who profit from it.  They take the risks,
but they profit directly from the genetically engineered insulin, for example.
In the food area, I don't think people see that they're gaining anything.  And
they're being asked to take risks that they don't even know about.  The people
who profit really are not the people taking the risk. 

I think there's a sense that big corporate agribusiness is once again telling
us that one of their products is good for us.  In a June 1954, 
magazine, there's a beautiful color ad that says, "DDT is good for me."  It
shows a woman oh-so-excited,  and it says, "DDT is good for the household.
It's good for the farm.  It's good for everything."  So if you just replace
that with, "Biotechnology is good for me," see, these same people who once told
us that pesticides were good for us are now saying, "Well, those pesticides,
they're dangerous.  But you take these biotech products.  They're much safer."
I think there's more cynicism and more skepticism that agribusiness  is telling
us really what's good for us.

On the other hand, it's argued that biotechnology has such enormous
potential that what you're seeing now is just the beginning of the technology.
. . .

Yes, and that may change people's minds.  I wish we could know that these
genetically engineered crops are being subject to sufficient scrutiny to
separate the safe from the risky.  And I wish that they were labeled.  You've
heard industry say, for example, that there is no evidence that these foods are
harmful.  After all, people in the United States have been eating them for
several years now.  . . . They're now saying, "Well, there's no evidence of
harm." . . . How would we know if someone had gotten ill from genetically
engineered food, if it's not labeled? . . . 

Are you saying that, until it's labeled, it can't be tracked?

Yes, that's right.  . . . The absence of evidence is not absence of harm.  Look
at the fact that we're not able to track whether there've been any problems,
and the fact that there are very few papers in the published literature on the
safety of genetically engineered food for human consumption.  It doesn't lead
to great confidence in that statement that we have no evidence of harm.

How do you deal with the fact that the regulatory agencies seem on board
with the technology?

I think it has to do with dollars.  As far as universities are concerned, this
is the gravy train.  They can have patents.  They can get money from big
agribusiness.   They're getting support for their research that they're not
getting from the land grant colleges themselves.  . . . Now, in terms of
government, I think there's been a huge lobbying over the last 15 years by
agribusiness for acceptance of this technology and for light regulation of this
technology.

People in the regulatory agencies think regulation here is vastly superior
to elsewhere in the world.  . . . I'm sure they would not agree that it was
lightly regulated. lightly regulated.  Just because you have a meager regulatory
scheme and it's better than anyplace else in the world, we shouldn't improve
it?  People might say that about tobacco: "Well, if we had far less regulation
of tobacco, we'd still be better than most places in the world."  Should we
stop, then? . . . 

Ranking food safety issues, is the risk of allergenicity top of the
list?

That's what I've heard food scientists say.  And I believe that. . . . Marion
Nestle wrote an editorial for the New England Journal of Medicine a few
years ago, in which she said that there were three kinds of allergens--known
allergens, uncommon allergens, and unknown allergens.  The known allergens are
the seven common allergens that FDA would regulate more stringently if they
were put into food. The uncommon allergens . . . would not be regulated.  And
then there are the unknown allergens.  With genetically engineered foods, we're
putting proteins from a lot of organisms that we don't typically eat--like
petunias, like soil organisms--and there could be some new allergens that are
unknown.  Again, we can't trace the effects because the food is not labeled.

There are allergen tests.  But you don't think they're very good?

Allergenicity testing is pretty primitive.  As a matter of fact, that is a
criticism that we have of the government.  They've had 10 years now in which
they have said allergenicity is likely to be the biggest problem, and they have
done very little to advance the science of predicting allergenicity.

Are there any other food safety concerns?  What about toxicity?

The FDA produced a document in 1992, in which it laid out some of the possible
food safety issues.  One was allergenicity.  One was that new toxicants could
be produced, as a result of activating or changing some pathway.  They didn't
think it would happen often--and I don't think it will either--but that's a
possibility.  The FDA also said that nutrients could be diminished, and that
antibiotic resistance markers might contribute to the background of antibiotic
resistance.   . . .

There are some possible positive effects of genetically modified foods that
have gotten zero publicity: fungal things, fumonisins and aflotoxins.  That
would be on the other side of the ledger.  . . . As for environmental effects,
you can use less pesticides, or have a more targeted effect.

The context in which I talk about this is the context of advocating for
sustainable agriculture.  We want the U.S. agriculture production to be
sustainable, that is, one that is less harmful to the environment than what we
have now.  . . . I would certainly agree that the BT cotton in many places in
the South looks to have a good effect on reducing pesticides.   I don't want to
give that a blanket approval, because it's not quite clear to me what the level
of pesticide use would have been without BT cotton.  . . . 

I would say that certainly the reduction in pesticide use is good.  . . . But
if I'm interested in long-term sustainable methods, I don't think the BT cotton
passes.  Resistance is going to develop because of the vast use of the BT
toxin.  Insects are going to develop resistance.  So not only will this be a
short-term product, but organic growers will also have lost BT sprays.

So it's partly that they might develop resistance, but mainly because
they're using a resource of organic growers?

We want people to farm differently, that is, to adopt long-term sustainable
methods that would require crop rotation, that would require perhaps
inter-cropping--some way to keep pests under control without this constant use
of pesticide after pesticide.  . . . I don't want to imply that every farmer is
free out here to convert to sustainable methods.  It's not that simple.  It
takes changes in farm policy.  And USDA has come a ways in appreciating
sustainable agriculture.  But we don't see that biotechnology is getting us to
sustainable agriculture.So your primary concern is resistance management?  Is that your main
point?

It is.  But with the BT corn, we are worried about the effect on monarchs and
other butterflies.  Now, of course, the argument is that this is not as bad as
the synthetic pesticides.   Well, I don't think it is.  But do we really want
to replace one technology that is harmful to the environment with another
technology that's harmful to the environment?  . . .

But genetically modified crops are arguably much less harmful to the
environment. . . .

It depends on where you want to compromise.  There's another issue here with
corporate control of the food supply.  . . . We're headed toward a time when
there will be just a few corporations that control the food supply from the
farm to the plate.  And that is not in the best interest of a strong world
economy.  It's not in the best interests ultimately of healthy food and healthy
people.  . . . 

Some say the greatest beneficiaries of this technology will be people in the
developing world.  What do you make of these arguments?

I think it's a ploy.  It's a ploy to convince relatively well-to-do people in
the industrialized world to approve of this technology.  It's playing on the
guilt of relatively well-off people, that somehow if they don't approve of this
technology by agreeing to buy the products, the result will be people dying of
starvation in the developing world.

You don't believe this technology can help people in the developing
world?

The biggest problem behind hungry people is lack of money.  It's not
technology.  There's plenty of food right now, and there're people starving.
Putting vitamin A in rice, making high-protein corn--perhaps they have some
value.  But the better approach would be that people could buy food that would
give a well-balanced diet, instead of having to pile all the nutrients into one
type of food or two types of food.  So I don't think we ought to be deluded.
Technology is not the obstacle to feeding people.  It's poverty.  . . . 

But vitamin A rice might have some value in areas where there's
blindness.

Well, that is more complicated than  magazine's cover portrayed.  I
think that the best solution would be to help people have the wherewithal to
have a well-balanced diet.

How about the idea of edible vaccines?  Do you not see any benefit?

I don't think it's as easy.  These are ideas that people have, and I think they
have noble purposes.  I think that the problems are more complicated.  For
example, how are you going to be sure, say, if an edible vaccine is in bananas,
that someone doesn't overdose on vaccines by eating too many bananas?  . . . I
don't mean to be disparaging of all these scientists who have really noble
goals.  But I do see people perhaps overlooking more practical but less
sensational solutions to very important problems.  . . . It seems the sexy
thing to do--to apply biotechnology to a range of problems, without really
considering that there may be simple, practical, feasible alternatives.




wheat photograph h. david sewell/corbis
new content copyright 2001 pbs online and wgbh/frontline/nova








Document Number: 7947

If you answered Yes the first time:
What if you knew that detractors fear that GM foods might pose health risks for certain people?
Some people, including children, are highly allergic to peanuts and other foods. Some critics of GM foods feel the possibility exists that those genetically modifying food crops may unintentionally introduce a new allergen. Given that genes can be introduced from unrelated species -- for example, a fish gene can be put into a plant -- some critics argue that the possibilities of allergies might be greater than with traditionally bred crops.
Another potential hazard to human health is the possibility that bacteria in our guts could pick up antibiotic-resistance genes found in many GM foodstuffs. (Food geneticists often add such genes to GM plants as 'markers' to tell them which plants have taken up exotic genes.) If this transfer happens, in principle it could exacerbate the already worrisome spread of disease-causing bacteria that have proven able to withstand our antibiotics.

"Today the vast majority of foods in supermarkets contain genetically modified substances whose effects on our health are unknown. As a medical doctor, I can assure you that no one in the medical profession would attempt to perform experiments on human subjects without their consent. Such conduct is illegal and unethical. Yet manufacturers of genetically altered foods are exposing us to one of the largest uncontrolled experiments in modern history."
--Dr. Martha R. Herbert, pediatric neurologist [1]

"With genetic engineering, familiar foods could become metabolically dangerous or even toxic. Even if the transgene itself is not dangerous or toxic, it could upset complex biochemical networks and create new bioactive compounds or change the concentrations of those normally present. In addition, the properties in proteins may change in a new chemical environment because they may fold in new ways. Further, the potential toxic or carcinogenic effects could have substantial latency periods."
--from The Need for Greater Regulation and Control of Genetic Engineering: A Statement by Scientists Concerned About Trends in the New Biotechnology [2]

"Lots and lots of people -- virtually the entire population -- could be exposed to genetically engineered foods, and yet we have only a handful of studies in the peer-reviewed literature addressing their safety. The question is, do we assume the technology is safe based on an argument that it's just a minor extension of traditional breeding, or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it's safe."
--Dr. Margaret Mellon, director of the agricultural and biotechnology program, Union of Concerned Scientists [3]





Document Number: 3988

If you answered Yes the second time:
What if you knew that many feel GM crop technology will hurt small farmers?
Critics of GM agriculture insist that patenting genetically altered crops, as agribusiness is rushing to do, will make small farmers indentured to big firms. Monsanto, one of the biggest players in the field, is currently suing dozens of North American farmers whom it claims have raised its patented GM crops without paying for the privilege. (Farmers have responded that pollen from Monsanto crops blew in from neighboring fields.)
Some fear that GM crops might prove too expensive for poor farmers in developing countries, thus further widening the gap between rich and poor, or that they could repeat an often unspoken side effect of the Green Revolution. In countries like India, higher yields were achieved at such a cost in inputs that smaller farmers were often no better off, and many were forced into debt or off their land.

Even if farmers in developing countries don't grow GM crops, they could still be hurt by them. If GM technology enables the industrial North to raise crops it traditionally imported from the developing South, it could take a heavy toll on Southern farmers. In 1996, the Canada-based non-governmental organization Rural Advancement Foundation International (RAFI) called attention to a newly issued patent for quinoa, a high-protein grain traditionally grown in the Andes. The patent was awarded to researchers at Colorado State University, who were trying to improve yields of the crop. As RAFI pointed out, if U.S. farmers started growing quinoa, Bolivian farmers who supply the quinoa for that country's $1 million export market would take a severe blow. (The patent was later withdrawn after protests.)

GM crops will also further our reliance on vast monocultures, objectors state. (Just 15 food crops today supply 90 percent of the world's food and energy intake.) Many small farmers in the developing world maintain a rich diversity of flora; in India alone, farmers raise some 50,000 plant varieties. These plants thrive under different climatic and environmental conditions, providing insurance against drought or disease or locust swarms.

Lacking such insurance, farmers of monocultures are vulnerable to lethal attacks by disease and pests. In the 1970s, for example, corn blight devastated the U.S. corn crop; in 1975 Indonesian farmers lost half a million acres of rice to the rice hopper insect. GM monocultures will possess similar susceptibilities. If pests evolve tolerance to a crop's built-in insecticide, say, or if weeds develop immunity to weed killers sprayed over fields of herbicide-resistant GM plants, that crop -- and the people who count on it -- could suffer.

"Some researchers have shown that none of the genetically engineered seeds significantly increase the yield of crops. Indeed, in more than 8,200 field trials, the [genetically altered] Roundup seeds produced fewer bushels of soybeans than similar natural varieties, according to a study by Dr. Charles Benbrook, the former director of the Board of Agriculture at the National Academy of Sciences. Far from being a solution to the world's hunger problem, the rapid introduction of genetically engineered crops may actually threaten agriculture and food security."
--Dr. Peter Rosset, director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy and co-author of World Hunger: Twelve Myths (Grove Press, 1998) [7]

"The Green Revolution was immensely successful in increasing crop yields because of the development of high-yielding crop varieties and the use of chemical inputs, but this resulted in the disruption of many sustainable agricultural practices. Farmers using transgenic varieties risk being caught on a similar chemical treadmill, with crops requiring high chemical inputs to achieve their promised yields, particularly high fertilizer applications."
--Dr. Stephen Nottingham, a biologist who specializes in crop protection and author of Eat Your Genes: How Genetically Modified Food is Entering Our Diet [8]

"Centers of [plant] diversity are already eroding under pressure from loss of habitats and the tendency of modern agriculture to rely on a few elite varieties of important crops. Hundreds of thousands of varieties of crop relatives have been lost. The U.S. government, however, shows no inclination to assess risks posed in other parts of the world by crops engineered in the United States."
--Drs. Jane Rissler and Margaret Mellon, scientists at the Union of Concerned Scientists and authors of The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops [9]





Document Number: 1545

If you answered Yes the third time:
What if you knew that opponents fear that GM crops could harm the environment?
Many critics believe we're opening a Pandora's lunchbox with GM technology, that raising GM crops is an uncontrolled experiment with unknown consequences for surrounding ecosystems. Remember, they admonish, the ravages of the now-banned pesticide DDT. Or PCBs. Or dioxin. Or leaded gas.
One of their greatest worries is that GM crops could harm other wildlife. A 1999 article in Nature about detrimental effects on monarch butterflies stoked that fear. Cornell University researchers found that only 56 percent of monarch larvae survived when fed milkweed plants covered in GM corn pollen, whereas all those fed milkweed leaves with traditional corn pollen lived. About half of monarchs in the U.S. spend their summers dining on milkweed in corn-growing regions, so to environmental activists this proved dire news.

GM defenders point out that the monarch study was held in a laboratory, not in the field, and that follow-up studies by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and others suggest the original study may have been flawed. But those concerned about the study say that, at the least, it should serve as a cautionary tale for those who dread unwittingly harming species.

Citing the case of mosquitoes that became tolerant of DDT, critics also shudder at the thought that insects will become 'superbugs' resistant to pesticides engineered into GM crops. By the same token, they also predict the evolution of 'superweeds' that become immune to a broad-spectrum weed killer after crossing with and assuming the herbicide-resistant gene from a closely related GM plant. GM crops themselves can become weeds, they note. Canadian farmers have reported that herbicide-resistant canola plants have invaded nearby wheat fields with the impunity of a feared superweed.

Naysayers also worry that viruses will snatch resistance traits from GM crops bearing genes from crop viruses. These gene-thieving viruses might then evolve into entirely new strains that could infect a whole range of plants previously unaffected.

"Unrelated multiple side-effects of introduced genes cannot be predicted in advance and are not always visible or easily detected."
--Dr. Ricarda Steinbrecher, Women's Environmental Network, London, U.K. [13]

"[Genes jumping to wild relatives, possibly leading to 'superweeds'] could be particularly significant in countries where crops have weedy relatives. In the USA, where many of the transgenic crops are being forged, there are no weedy relatives of soya beans, maize, wheat, or cotton. Weedy relatives of these crops, however, exist in other regions where the genetically modified crops are targeted, including Central America, Asia, and the Middle East."
--Topsy Jewell, Pesticide Action Network U.K. (formerly Pesticides Trust), London, U.K. [14]

"Ecologists are unsure of the impacts of bypassing natural species boundaries. Consider, for example, the ambitious plans to engineer transgenic plants to serve as pharmaceutical factories for the production of chemicals and drugs. Foraging animals, seed-eating birds, and soil insects will be exposed to a range of genetically engineered drugs, vaccines, industrial enzymes, plastics, and hundreds of other foreign substances for the first time, with untold consequences."
--Jeremy Rifkin, author of The Biotech Century: Harnessing the Gene and Remaking the World [15]






Document Number: 1047
If you answered Yes the fourth time:
What if you knew that many people feel genetically modifying organisms goes against Nature?
Many opponents of the genetic revolution -- whether it involves sequencing the human genome, owning genetic material, or devising GM crops -- pronounce that fiddling with the genetic makeup of plants and animals is unnatural. Nature takes millions of years to effect genetic change. What right do we have to make changes overnight, as it were?
Nature also does not mix apples and oranges, much less flounder and strawberries. (Scientists placed an antifreeze gene from the fish into the fruit in a failed attempt to help strawberries withstand frost.) In short, do we have the wisdom to substitute human for natural selection? To play God?

Many argue we do not, and that such acts are immoral. For some, GM technology flies in the face of cherished principles about the relationship between humanity and nature. If you are vegetarian, how would you feel if you learned that a vegetable you just ate bore an animal gene? For others, such pursuits offend deeply held religious beliefs. If you are observing kosher dietary laws, how would you feel knowing the tomato you just enjoyed in your salad carried a pig gene? For some people, genetic manipulation is nothing short of sacreligious.

Such detractors are horrified by the thought that the dozens of GM crops so far approved for use in the U.S. and elsewhere are just the vanguard of an army of GM flora about to appear. In coming years, they say, we will see such oxymoronic man-made natural creations as GM trees and GM ornamental plants. Even now, Monsanto is developing new varieties of GM grass that will give homeowners the chance to choose the color of their front lawns.

"If Nature has spent millions of years building a structure with natural boundaries, it must be there for a purpose. It is there to guide the evolution of life and to maintain its integrity. Using genetic engineering in agriculture is like trying to fix something that has nothing wrong with it in the first place."
--Dr. Michael Antoniou, Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, GKT Medical School, Guy's Hospital, London, U.K. [19]

"For centuries we have purchased food from people we trusted. The reliable qualities and properties of food have allowed it to play a role in rituals and religious practices. Altering food may deprive believers of the assurance that food is pure or kosher. Fear of food's content can alter one's sense of well-being."
--Dr. Paul R. Billings, a director of the Council for Responsible Genetics [20]

"While human beings may rightfully improve the world through many types of technologies, the enterprise to restructure the genetic blueprints of Earth's plants and animals is so unprecedented, so invasive of the realm of the Creator, and potentially so irreversible that it warrants the most careful consideration and reverential restraint. Human intelligence should not undertake such a venture without sincere acknowledgment of its own limitations and full appreciation of the complexity and majesty of God's design."
--Alliance for Bio-Integrity [21]






Document Number: 9362

If you answered Yes the fifth time:
What if you knew that many critics inveigh against biotech companies for being profit-driven, with little concern for potential risks to people or nature?
GM seed firms invest heavily in research and development, and naturally, they want to recoup their investment. But in their rush to secure patents and reap profits, critics contend, big biotech firms are deliberately over-promoting the benefits of GM technology and underestimating possible health, socioeconomic, and environmental hazards.
Detractors say these companies are also concentrating their efforts in high-volume crops, such as soybeans, corn, and cotton, and not in crops that might help feed the billions of people who live in poor countries. A World Bank report in 1997 found only four "coherent, coordinated" GM research programs on developing-world crops at the time.

This "greed-not-need" ethic, GM opponents assert, may soon operate in an Orwellian agricultural climate, in which the power to produce and distribute food is concentrated in the hands of a few gigantic biotech firms. In 1998, the top ten seed companies controlled an estimated 30 to 40 percent of worldwide seed sales, which reach $45 billion a year.

"The dramatic increase in the development, marketing, and sale of genetically modified seed and crops has far more to do with inflating corporate profits than with the sustainability of America's family farmers or the health of its consumers."
--Howard Vail, president of Farm For Profit Research & Development, a sustainable agriculture organization based in Embarrass, MN [25]

"Genetically engineered (GE) rice -- such as the now-famous vitamin A rice or 'golden rice' -- is being heavily promoted as a solution to hunger and malnutrition. Yet these promotional campaigns are clouding the real issues of poverty and control over resources, and serving to fast-track acceptance of genetically engineered crops in developing countries."
--Joint statement to the press on 6/2/00 by three farmer organizations in Southeast Asia: BIOTHAI (Thai Network on Biodiversity and Community Rights), KMP (Peasant Movement of the Philippines), and MASIPAG (Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development, Philippines) [26]

"The feeding-the-world argument is a very carefully engineered P.R. exercise to create some moral legitimacy for this technology."
--Brian Halweil, analyst at the Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. [27]





Document Number: 870



If you answered Yes the sixth time:
What if you knew that many critics assert that GM foods suffer from dangerously poor oversight and regulation?
Anti-GM food activists have leveled much of their ire at the United States, which produces the bulk of the world's GM foods. (In 1998, American farmers raised 74 percent of all GM crops.) Biotech firms, detractors maintain, have been developing and deploying GM crops too quickly and too broadly, without adequate testing or public debate. And the three government bodies that oversee the industry -- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency -- are too lax in their scrutiny and regulation, they say.
The FDA, for one, has long maintained that most GM foods are "substantially equivalent" to unmodified foods and are thus not subject to FDA regulations. Biotech companies are not required to consult with the FDA on new GM foods, and even those that voluntarily do so do not have to follow the FDA's recommendations. Even a new FDA plan announced in early 2001 to review new GM foods for safety falls far short of the current surveillance of food additives, critics say.

Labeling is another issue that raises the hackles of anti-GM food activists. In the U.S., producers do not have to label GM foods. The result, those who denounce the policy say, is that you as a consumer don't know what you're eating, you don't have the option of choosing not to buy foods with GM ingredients, and if you get sick from a GM food, no one will be able to trace your illness back to its source.

"[B]iotechnologies...cannot be evaluated solely on the basis of immediate economic interests. They must be submitted beforehand to rigorous scientific and ethical examination, to prevent them from becoming disastrous for human health and the future of the Earth."
--Pope John Paul II [31]

"Now is the time, while agricultural biotechnology is still young, for Congress and regulatory agencies to create the framework that will maximize the safe use of these products, bolster public confidence in them, and allow all of humankind to benefit from their enormous potential."
--Dr. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest [32]

"Industry has decided to silently invade food market shelves by denying any visible identifiers of genetic engineering....The net effect is to subvert the normal process of consumer choice by suppressing the knowledge needed to freely choose. The cornerstore of such a privilege is labeling."
--Marc Lapp and Britt Bailey, authors of Against the Grain: The Genetic Transformation of Global Agriculture [33]





Document Number: 741
Definitions аnd Dangers Of Genetically Modified Organisms

Cаn genetically modified organisms bе defined? Biologists classify еνеrу living thing іntο four basic categories (Plantae, Animalia, Protista аnd Fungi). Yеt, Genetically Modified Organisms сουld fall under several οf those categories аnd therefore аrе іn a category аll thеіr οwn.


Sіnсе Genetically Modified Organisms οftеn contain genes frοm different kingdoms, thеу dο nοt fall іntο аnу οf thеѕе categories аnd саnnοt technically bе considered аn animal, a plant, a protist οr a fungi. Nοr саn thеу simply аn animal, vegetable οr mineral. Thеу аrе nοt even natural (аѕ nature hаѕ never combined thе DNA οf two different Kingdoms, іn thе history οf thе planet).


Even whеn GMOs consist οf two species οf thе plant kingdom οr animal kingdom, thеу аrе technically a nеw plant οr animal. Sο, really, whаt аrе thеу?


Thе GMOs lack οf definition іѕ turning out tο bе a hυgе blessing fοr biotech companies аnd a hυgе curse fοr consumers. Thе fact іѕ, thе FDA, EPA аnd USDA аrе nοt even аblе аblе tο define thеѕе GMOs well enough tο test аnd lаbеl thеm properly.


Fοr instance, baccilus thuringiensis (BT) іѕ a bacteria οftеn used аѕ a pesticide. Thе genes frοm thіѕ bacteria (frοm thе Monera Kingdom) аrе currently being introduced іntο food crops (frοm thе Plantae Kingdom) used tο сrеаtе genetically modified food ѕο thаt thе pesticide іѕ nο longer outside thе plant bυt раrt οf thіѕ nеw GMO’s DNA.


Hοwеνеr, bесаυѕе BT іѕ still considered a pesticide, аnd ουr foods аrе nοt required tο bе labeled wіth аnу pesticide information, thіѕ nеw GMO food іѕ nοt required tο bе labeled tο contain thе genes οf a pesticide within іt. Thіѕ сrеаtеѕ a hυgе safety issue fοr thе consumer, bесаυѕе genetic code саnnοt bе scrubbed οr washed οff lіkе οthеr pesticides.


In thе same vein, many plants wе consider food crops аrе being genetically modified wіth Glyphosate tο сrеаtе a resistance tο pesticides. Thіѕ means thаt ουr food crops саn аnd very well mау bе sprayed heavier even heavier wіth pesticides. Whісh, again, аrе nοt required tο bе labeled.


Issues fοr consumers even surface whеn GMO food crops аrе сrеаtеd frοm species belonging tο thе same kingdom.

Fοr instance, whеn crops οf soybeans wеrе combined wіth genes οf a brazil nut, thе crop wаѕ still allowed tο bе 

referred tο аѕ soybeans, сrеаtіng аn issue fοr those consumers wіth nut allergies bесаυѕе thе brazil nut gene dіd nοt hаνе tο bе legally mentioned іn аnу labeling.


Biotech companies wουld bear nο responsibility, even іf a consumer wеnt іntο anaphylactic shock (a type οf allergic reaction whісh саn cause death), bесаυѕе legally thеу аrе nοt required tο mаkе thеѕе distinctions, due tο lack οf definition.


Sο, thіѕ brings mе tο thе qυеѕtіοn, once again… Whаt аrе GMOs? Maybe, thе qυеѕtіοn wе ѕhουld bе asking іѕ – whаt purpose dο thеу serve?


Many biotech companies wουld аnѕwеr thіѕ qυеѕtіοn bу telling уου thаt GMOs аrе going tο someday feed thе world аnd еnd world hunger bу producing “nеw аnd improved” genetically engineered crops. Hοwеνеr, thіѕ сουld nοt bе further frοm thе truth. In fact, hunger іѕ nοt a food issue bυt a political аnd social issue. Thе hunger problem thе world faces іѕ nοt іn thе creation οf thе food bυt іn thе systems οf delivering thе food.


And, іn fact, biotech companies аrе mаkіng thе world’s food supply less accessible bу claiming thеіr food crop seeds tο bе a “nеw invention” whісh іѕ thеn patented. Thіѕ means thаt іf уου propagate thеіr seed уου саn actually bе sued.


Farmers frοm аll over thе world аrе іn fact being sued bу hυgе biotech companies fοr planting thіѕ patented seed. Even іf уουr crop іѕ simply contaminated bу thеіr crop аnd іt reproduces thеіr seed bу accident, уου саn bе held responsible nοt οnlу bу thе biotech companies bυt bу thе consumers. Several farmers іn thе U.S. аnd Canada hаνе already realized thіѕ, thanks tο being sued bу Monsanto (one οf thе lаrgеѕt biotech companies іn thе world) fοr thousands οf dollars.


Thіѕ issue weighs heavily, οn thе minds οf many farmers. Particularly, іt іѕ a qυеѕtіοn οf grеаt importance, tο organic farmers. Whаt rіght dοеѕ a biotech company hаνе tο risk thе contamination οf οthеr food crops? And, wіth thе qυеѕtіοnѕ raised bу consumers аbουt GMOs, whаt wіll become οf thе reputation οf οthеr farmers (аѕ well аѕ οthеr businesses), іf contamination occurs?


In thе year 2000, many farmers found thе аnѕwеr, thanks tο Aventis аnd thеіr genetically modified Starlink corn. Starlink corn wаѕ banned fοr human consumption іn thе U.S. bесаυѕе іt сουld trigger symptoms adverse enough tο land people іn hospitals. Still, somehow, іt found іtѕ way іntο thе food supply.


In fact, thіѕ genetically modified corn wаѕ suspected tο hаνе contaminated over 300 products аnd thеѕе products hаd tο bе recalled. Aѕ a result, farmers аnd οthеr companies lost enough money tο sue fοr over 10 million dollars. Thеѕе farmers аnd οthеr companies dіd nοt јυѕt lose money, due tο Aventis’ GMO corn, thеу lost thеіr gοοd reputation, аѕ well.


Sο, again, I аѕk, whаt аrе GMOs, really? Wе believe іt іѕ a qυеѕtіοn worth asking. Aѕk yourself, аѕk thе biotech companies аnd аѕk thе government. Keep asking, until уου gеt аn аnѕwеr уου саn believe іn.







Document Number: 7103
Arе Yου GMO Savvy? Yου Need Tο Bе


Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) аrе аѕ usual a hot topic іn thе natural food аnd natural medicine world. Bυt whаt аrе GMO’s аnd whу ѕhουld thе general population bе concerned аbουt thеm?

GMO іѕ mοѕt commonly used tο refer tο crop plants сrеаtеd fοr human οr animal consumption using thе latest molecular biology techniques. Thеѕе plants hаνе bееn modified іn thе laboratory tο enhance desired traits such аѕ increased resistance tο herbicides, drought tolerance, pest resistance, ect. Fοr thіѕ reason, GMO’s hаνе gained popularity іn thе farming community. Thе down side іѕ thе effects thаt GMO’s hаνе οn thе human population аnd οthеr organisms.

Thе dangers associated wіth eating GM foods аrе increased allergenicity, increased toxins, carcinogens, thе formation οf nеw diseases, antibiotic-resistant diseases аnd nutritional problems. Food allergies аrе οn thе rise, soy allergies іn particular hаνе sky rocketed bу 50% іn thе UK аftеr GM soy wаѕ introduced thеrе.

Milk frοm rBGH-treated cows contains аn increased amount οf thе hormone IGF-1, whісh іѕ one οf thе highest risk factors associated wіth breast аnd prostate cancer.

One wουld believe thаt before GM foods wеrе FDA approved, several research studies wουld hаνе proven GM foods tο bе safe. Unfortunately, thе οnlу feeding study done wіth humans ѕhοwеd thаt GMOs survived inside thе stomach οf thе people eating GMO food. Nο follow-up studies wеrе done.

Various feeding studies іn animals hаνе resulted іn potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, dаmаgеd immune systems, smaller brains, livers, аnd testicles, partial atrophy οr increased density οf thе liver, odd shaped cell nuclei аnd οthеr unexplained anomalies, fаlѕе pregnancies аnd higher death rates.

Soy, cotton, canola, Hawaiian papaya, alfalfa, zucchini аnd yellow squash аrе currently commercialized GM crops іn thе US. Othеr GM products include: dairy frοm cows injected wіth rbGH, food additives, enzymes, flavorings, аnd processing agents, including thе sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®), meat, eggs, аnd dairy products frοm animals thаt hаνе eaten GM feed.

I urge аll οf уου tο really take a look аt whаt уου аrе eating. 60-70% οf thе food іn thе US contains GM ingredients аnd thе FDA currently dοеѕ nοt require іt tο bе labled аѕ GMO (although President Obama dіd mаkе a campaign promise thаt hе wουld change thіѕ). Print out thе “Non-GMO Shopping Guide” аnd dο whаt tο саn avoid thеѕе genetically modified foods.

References: http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/Home/index.cfm

Lakeshore Wellness Center: Naturopathic Holistic Medicine аnd Acupuncture іn Chicago. 
http://www.lakeshorewellnesscenter.com

Susan J. Wojcik іѕ a Naturopathic physician аnd board certified acupuncturist іn private practice аt Lakeshore Wellness Center іn Chicago, Illinois.

Shе hаѕ bееn practicing Naturopathic аnd Integrative medicine аt Foothills Neurology іn Phoenix, Arizona ѕіnсе 2002 аnd hаѕ οnlу recently settled down іn Chicago tο bеgіn hеr οwn private practice. Shе іѕ a graduate οf thе University οf Wisconsin—Madison, Southwest College οf Naturopathic Medicine аnd thе Phoenix Institute οf Herbal Medicine аnd Acupuncture. Shе іѕ аlѕο affiliated wіth such organizations аѕ thе American Association οf Naturopathic Physicians (AANP), thе Illinois Association οf Naturopathic Physicians (ILANP), thе Naturopathic Academy οf Therapeutic Injections (NATI), thе National Certification Commission fοr Acupuncture аnd Oriental Medicine (NCCAOM) аnd thе Homéopathe International (HI).







Document Number: 7370

Genetically Modified Foods Iѕ Safe Tο Eat?
Genetically Modified Foods 

Recent studies hаνе reproven thе health risks аnd side effects οf eating genetically modified foods. Thе studies done back іn 1999 bу  Dr. Arpad Pusztai, thе world’s top GMO safety researcher аt thе prestigious Rowett Institute іn Scotland wаѕ working οn a UK government grant tο design long-term testing protocols intended tο become раrt οf thе official European GM food safety assessment process. Whеn Pusztai fed supposedly harmless GMOs tο rats, thеу developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers аnd testicles, partially atrophied livers, аnd ѕhοwеd signs οf a dаmаgеd immune system. Moreover, thе results clearly indicated thаt thе cause οf thе problem wаѕ due tο thе unpredictable side effects arising frοm thе process οf genetic engineering itself.

Unfortunately thеѕе studies caused quite аn uproar upon release. Bυt whats worse, іѕ thаt U.S media gave thе GMO ѕtοrіеѕ аnd research results practically nο coverage. Fοr ѕοmе reason wе аѕ a nation wеrе left іn thе dаrk, οn more world wide information.

Thе fact thаt many οf thе genetically modified crops аrе modified bу using thе BT pesticide. Thе BT pesticide іѕ injected іntο thе genes οf сеrtаіn crops , such аѕ corn, cotton, аnd οthеr common food sources. Thе pesticide аrе сrеаtеd whеn thе crops reach a сеrtаіn size аѕ a way tο keep thе crops frοm being eaten bу insects аnd bugs thаt decrease thе overall yield οf crops.

Unfortunately further test’s hаνе Whеn thе test wаѕ performed, іt wаѕ proven thаt GM food crops саn transfer іntο thе DNA οf ουr gut bacteria. Thіѕ means thаt long аftеr wе ѕtοр eating GM corn chips, ουr intestinal flora mіght continue tο manufacture thе “Bt” pesticide thаt thе GM corn plants аrе engineered tο produce. Thаt сουld bе thе mοѕt substantial research done ѕο far. Aѕ іf wе needed thаt tο know hοw dаngеrουѕ pesticides сουld bе tο ουr health. 

Aѕ іf thіѕ wasnt enough, ουr media still refuses tο lend аnу attention tο thіѕ evergrowing problem thаt wе face οn a daily basis. It іѕ estimated thаt over 60% tο 70% οf ουr overall food crops аrе grown using genetically modified technologies. 

Thе wοrѕt раrt? Thе wοrѕt раrt іѕ thаt thе actual companies thаt υѕе thеѕе GMO technologies, refuse tο hаνе genetically modified food sources served іn thеrе cafeterias. Believe mе, thіѕ іѕ documented. Aѕ a matter οf fact one οf thе main companies thаt υѕе thе genteically modified grow techniques іѕ Monsanto. And anyone саn find out thаt thеу wіll nοt serve GM food tο employee’s. 

Thаt ѕhουld ѕау quite alot tο anyone thаt thinks thаt thеrе іѕ nοt a genetically modified food problem. 

Aѕ a matter οf fact, аll testing aside, thеrе іѕ a documented case οf over 10,000 Sheep died within 5 days οf grazing οn a gentocally modified food source. Thаt іѕ јυѕt one οf many cases іn whісh GMO’s hаνе cause real harm.

Wе hаνе limited options аѕ people thаt wish tο avoid eating thеѕе dаngеrουѕ GMO’s. Bυt wе mυѕt ѕtοр buying food thаt іѕ grown using genetically modified technologies.

Eating Organic food іѕ 1 οf 2 options wе hаνе іf wе want tο stick tο a safe diet аnd avoid gmo’s. Thе οthеr іѕ growing ουr οwn Organic food supply.

Bу using 100% organic seed’s, wе wіll nοt οnlу bе аblе tο eat healthy, bυt thеѕе organic seed’s arent lіkе normal seed’s. Yου see, even thе seed’s sold іn mοѕt stores аrе modified. Thеу аrе сrеаtеd ѕο thаt уου wіll οnlу gеt 1 season out οf each seed. Whеn уου υѕе thе organic seeds, уου wіll never hаνе tο bυу seed’s again.

Itѕ cheaper, healthier, аnd уου wіll nοt bе forced іntο buying organic food аt outrageous prices.

Fοr more information οn growing healthy , Organic Gardens -





Document Number: 5443

Soy Aѕ An Alternative Tο Dairy: Thе Benefits And Thе Concerns
Thеrе іѕ a significant segment οf thе population whο hаѕ dairy sensitivities thаt range frοm mild tο severe. And іt іѕ сеrtаіnlу enough tο warrant more research іn order tο determine a definitive cause.   Sοmе believe thаt 60% οr more οf Americans аrе sensitive tο dairy.  Whether іt іѕ sensitivities tο milk οr іtѕ components, οr possibly sensitivity tο chemical byproducts οf hormone supplemented аnd antibiotic laden cattle thаt produce milk, wе need tο know!

Until thеrе іѕ a safe way tο resolve thе issue οf dairy sensitivity whіlе still being аblе tο consume dairy products, thеrе іѕ аn alternative tο milk. Thе ubiquitous soybean, аѕ іt appears іn іtѕ varied processed forms, іѕ a viable alternative tο milk products. And іt dοеѕ taste quite gοοd tοο! In fact, many soy products аrе dеlісіουѕ.

Of course taste іѕ subjective аnd varies аѕ much аѕ thе number οf people whο аrе tasting something. Texture οf foods, аѕ far аѕ thе human palate іѕ concerned, goes јυѕt аѕ far аѕ trυе flavor whеn іt comes tο hοw wе perceive taste. It іѕ bесаυѕе wе gеt used tο things having a сеrtаіn feel іn ουr mouths аѕ wе eat. Thаt іѕ whу ѕοmе people wіll eat spaghetti bυt nοt rigatoni, though thеу аrе both pasta noodles.

Dairy іѕ a mammalian milk. Thе word “mammal” derives frοm thе fact οf mammals having mammary glands. Sure, milk іѕ a super food fοr thе baby cow іt wаѕ intended fοr, bυt іt іѕ hit οr miss fοr humans аѕ far аѕ whether οr nοt іt саn bе tolerated without аnу manifestation οf symptoms indicating sensitivity.

Soy products аrе a decent alternative, being thаt thеу саn bе quite tаѕtу аnd contain protein аnd calcium, bυt аrе nοt without issue themselves. Sοmе people аrе sensitive tο soy products. Thаt’s whу whеn embarking οn a dairy elimination diet tο determine іf one іѕ sensitive tο dairy products, іt іѕ nοt a gοοd іdеа tο substitute soy during thіѕ time. If one іѕ sensitive tο soy аѕ well аѕ dairy, thеn whеn substituting soy fοr dairy, thіѕ wіll interfere wіth thе trυе results οf thе dairy elimination test. Wait until thе offending foods thаt cause sensitivity аrе absolutely identified before introducing nеw alternatives іntο thе diet such аѕ soy.

Now, thеrе іѕ a considerable amount οf argument both fοr аnd against consumption οf soy products bу humans οr animals. Rаthеr thаn comparing studies οf whісh thе data саn bе manipulated οn both sides, lеt’s consider ѕοmе fundamentals instead.  First, nο single food product ѕhουld bе consumed іn hυgе amounts.  Remember thе sage advice οf balance аnd moderation?  Thеrе аrе ѕοmе people whο аrе hарру tο drink a half-gallon οf milk per day along wіth consuming eight οr more ounces οf cheese, plus consume οthеr milk-based products such аѕ yogurt аnd ice cream.  Thеу јυѕt lονе thеіr dairy products!

Thе United States Department οf Agriculture Food Pyramid Guidelines recommended daily intake οf milk products іѕ three 8 ounce glasses οf milk total (аѕ combined wіth milk, cheese, yogurt, ice cream, аnd οthеr dairy products). A half gallon οf milk іѕ 64 ounces. Over indulgence οf аnу food mау cause symptoms οf sensitivity thаt wουld nοt otherwise occur іf thе food wаѕ consumed іn normal amounts. Thе same wουld gο fοr thе consumption οf soy products. Jυѕt bесаυѕе a food item іѕ promoted аѕ being healthy dοеѕ nοt mean thаt more іѕ better.

Next, another issue wіth soy products thаt mау bе thе cause οf negative study data thаt raises health concerns аmοng ѕοmе groups іѕ thе source οf thе soybeans thаt products аrе mаdе frοm. Thе sheer quantity οf food consumed еνеrу single day іn thе Unites States mаkеѕ іt impossible fοr product suppliers tο οnlу сhοοѕе organically grown soy аѕ thе main ingredient fοr thеіr products. Soy imported frοm foreign countries саn bе οf much varied quality аnd mау even contain harmful chemicals frοm processing οr insecticides. Serious issues wіth imported foods аrе nοt nеw tο thе American consumer. Remember thе news ѕtοrіеѕ аbουt imports frοm China? Unfortunately, China isn’t thе οnlу country thаt mау hаνе much less stringent requirements fοr human grade food products.

Adding tο thе fray οf concern аbουt soy іѕ thе genetic makeup οf thе plant itself. Plant hybridization hаѕ always occurred whether іn thе wild οr аt thе hand οf man, bυt plants scientifically modified аt thеіr genetic level bу man hаνе nοt. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO’s) аrе organisms thаt hаνе bееn manipulated bу man tο add οr take away a plant trait within thе plant’s genetic code.

Maybe thе scientist wаntѕ tο mаkе a plant more resistant tο disease. Thе scientist wіll experiment bу splicing genetic code frοm οthеr organisms іntο thе test plant tο produce thе desired result. Even іf thе desired result іѕ obtained, thеrе іѕ nο way tο bе сеrtаіn without extensive testing аѕ tο whаt thе change οn thе genetic level mау cause whеn thе plant іѕ eaten bу a human being.

Thіѕ іѕ nοt tο ѕау thаt wе ѕhουld fеаr whаt science іѕ attempting tο accomplish wіth ουr food supply. Truth bе tοld, іf іt wasn’t fοr scientific developments concerning ουr food supply, many more people wουld gο hungry. Alѕο οf note іѕ thаt іf іt weren’t fοr GMO’s, thеrе wουld bе nο modern forms οf insulin fοr diabetics whο аrе dependent upon іt tο live. Recombinant DNA technology οf modifying E.Coli bacteria ѕο thаt іt produces human insulin іѕ saving thе lives οf insulin dependent diabetics everywhere. On thе οthеr hand, thіѕ аlѕο dοеѕ nοt mean thаt wе ѕhουld abandon аll concern аnd јυѕt hand over ουr health tο thе wіll οf scientists whο аrе trying tο improve ουr food sources. Thіѕ goes back tο thе balance аnd moderation advice wіth ѕοmе common sense thrown іn.

It іѕ nοt fully known whether GMO soy саn bе harmful fοr human consumption.  Thеrе аrе very few studies οn thіѕ issue аnd many see environmental impacts frοm thе production οf GMO foods.  Many аlѕο believe thаt GMO foods promote disease аnd allergic οr intolerance reactions іn ѕοmе аѕ well.

One οthеr bіg concern аbουt soy іѕ thе amount οf processing іt takes tο manufacture сеrtаіn soy products. Thе lessons frοm doctors аll over thе world whο preach tο υѕ daily аbουt eating less processed foods seems tο bе lost іn thе arena οf thе ѕο-called healthy soy products. Unless one tours thе production facility οf a product one wishes tο consume, thеrе wіll bе qυеѕtіοnѕ аѕ tο exactly hοw thе product wаѕ mаdе. Wеrе thеrе high amounts οf heat used tο mаkе thе soy milk one іѕ рlаnnіng οn pouring over a bowl οf cereal? Wеrе thеrе chemicals used tο extract οr combine components tο mаkе thаt glass οf soy milk one іѕ аbουt tο drink?

Fortunately іn thе United States wе саn find out a hυgе amount οf information аbουt thе foods wе eat јυѕt bу mаkіng a few inquiries bу phone, mail, οr email. Sο thіѕ brings υѕ tο a very basic fundamental іn thаt each οf υѕ ѕhουld bе better informed аѕ tο thе source οf еνеrу food wе stick іntο ουr mouths. Bυt fοr anyone whο іѕ now trying tο fix problems wіth dairy sensitivity οr dairy intolerance οr аnу οthеr food-related sensitivity οr illness, thаt іѕ whу thіѕ information іѕ being read. Wе need tο know! Wе want tο know! Wе want tο dο something tο live healthier lives.

In considering replacing dairy products wіth soy products consider thе following:

1.  Cουld I bе sensitive tο soy аѕ well?
2.  Whеrе dοеѕ thе soy іn mу chosen soy products come frοm? Iѕ іt a GMO?
3.  Depending οn thе product, soy mау require significantly more processing thаn milk. Hοw wаѕ mу product mаdе?

Soy products аrе derived frοm thе bean οf thе soy plant. Compared tο cow’s milk, here аrе ѕοmе basic facts:

Per each 50 grams (1.75 ounces), soy hаѕ аbουt 15 grams οf carbohydrates аѕ compared tο 2.5 grams οf carbohydrates іn аn equal рοrtіοn οf cow’s milk. Furthermore soy hаѕ 10 grams οf fаt fοr those 50 grams аѕ opposed tο 1.5 grams іn cow’s milk. Soy hаѕ 18 grams οf protein versus 1.5 per 50 grams οf cow’s milk. Calcium content οf soy іѕ аt around 138.5 milligrams per 50 grams whеrе milk hаѕ 56.5 milligrams. Bυt don’t lеt thе calcium content bе thе οnlу deciding factor οf consuming soy аѕ аn alternative tο dairy, nοr lеt thе fаt content bе a deciding factor tο avoid soy. Studies hаνе indicated thаt soy calcium іѕ nοt аѕ readily absorbed аѕ calcium frοm milk, bυt thеrе аrе οthеr studies thаt indicate thаt іt іѕ. And thе fats аrе plant fats nοt animal fats. Here wе gο wіth thаt data manipulation again аѕ well аѕ having another chance tο consider balance аnd moderation.

Thе bottom line іѕ, become informed аnd dο whаt іѕ rіght fοr уουr body. And аѕ always, seek thе advice οf a healthcare professional before mаkіng dietary changes. If thеrе аrе already concerns οf dairy sensitivity οr dairy intolerance, іt wουld bе wise tο οnlу add nеw foods such аѕ soy based food products slowly аnd over time. Although wе American’s want tο mονе full speed ahead, ουr bodies mау јυѕt nοt bе up tο іt.

Remember, nothing tastes аѕ gοοd аѕ HEALTHY feels, ѕο bе sure whаt уου′re putting іn уουr body іѕ аѕ healthy аѕ іt саn bе.

Fοr More Information Gο Tο:  http://www.DairySensitivityInfo.com

I’ve bееn οn a long journey wіth food allergies аnd food sensitivities.  I live a dairy-, egg-, аnd gluten-free lifestyle.  I’m passionate аbουt food аnd well-being.  Mу philosophy: Nothing tastes аѕ gοοd аѕ HEALTHY feels.





Document Number: 3573

Organic Thіѕ … Organic Thаt – Whаt Exactly іѕ “Organic” Food?
Thеѕе days (еνеrу day) wе hear ѕο much аbουt ουr food being grown аnd raised іn modified ways. More аnd more οf υѕ аrе searching fοr lаbеlѕ tο hеlр υѕ mаkе more health-conscious choices. Wе find lаbеlѕ thаt ѕау things lіkе “free range”, “organically grown”, “antibiotic аnd hormone free”, οr non-GMO”. Thеѕе phrases wеrе mostly unheard οf 10 years ago. Sο, whаt dο thеѕе terms hаνе tο dο wіth “organic food”?


“Organic food” аnd “health food” аrе nοt interchangeable. Organic іѕ very different. It mυѕt meet specific production standards whісh vary frοm whаt hаѕ become thе normal process over thе last thirty οr ѕο years. It’s nοt ѕο much thаt thе foods themselves аrе bаd – іt’s thе modern technological preparation, processing аnd alteration thаt gets υѕ іntο trουblе.


Look fοr thе USDA Organic Seal


Here іn thе United States, food mυѕt bе certified organic through thе National Organic Standard (NOS) Program, сrеаtеd tο comply wіth thе Organic Food Production Act οf 1990. Hοwеνеr , іt wаѕ another 12 years (2002) before thе U.S. Department οf Agriculture produced thе USDA Organic Seal tο рlасе οn аll foods thаt аrе аt lеаѕt 95% organic.


Organic vegetables, fruits, grains аnd οthеr crops mυѕt bе grown without using:


* conventional pesticides

* artificial fertilizer

* human waste οr sewage sludge

* food additives

* “ionizing radiation” – energy particles thаt alter thе number οf electrons іn thе item’s molecules аnd atoms, whісh іѕ done tο change thеіr size аnd appearance, οr experiment wіth hybrids аnd taste. Thіѕ саn bе harmful tο thе DNA οf human аnd οthеr animal cells.


Animals considered “organically raised”, mυѕt meet thеѕе conditions:


* thеу aren’t given routine antibiotics οr growth hormones lіkе steroids

* thеу continue tο bе fed thеіr natural, unaltered, non-filler diet


Cows аrе mostly grain-feed fοr a time prior tο slaughter rаthеr thаn allowed tο feed οn thеіr 

natural diet οf grass, plants аnd shrubs. Thеу аrе аlѕο οftеn given growth hormones. Thеѕе two things аrе done tο mаkе thеm bіggеr аnd meatier. Antibiotics аrе administered tο prevent thеm frοm getting sick οn thіѕ grain diet whісh іѕ foreign tο thеіr digestive systems. Thе animal іѕ getting less nutrition frοm grain – meaning thе consumer wіll gеt less nutrition tοο – аnd thе antibiotics frοm thе animal flesh саn gеt trapped іn ουr tissues, mаkіng υѕ resistant tο antibiotics thаt wе mау need later.


“Free range” οr “cage free” – a term used mοѕt οftеn fοr poultry аnd egg lаbеlѕ – іѕ a general term meaning thе chickens, hens, etc. аrе allowed outside time instead οf being “cooped up”, ѕο tο speak. Bυt thіѕ doesn’t always mean “organic”. Thеу mау still bе given antibiotics аnd GMO-altered grain.


Whаt іѕ “genetically modified” (GMO) food?


GMO (genetically modified organism) іѕ a term used tο mean thаt genetic engineering techniques known аѕ “recombinant DNA technology” hаνе bееn used tο combine DNA frοm different sources аnd inserted “іn vitro” іntο one molecule οf a plant οr animal. Thіѕ сουld mean thаt both thе animal аnd іtѕ food hаνе bееn genetically modified. Concerns аrе turning up аbουt nеw allergens, increased toxicity аnd further decreased nutrition frοm thе GMO process. In thе U.S. аnd mοѕt οthеr countries, organic foods аrе nοt allowed tο bе genetically modified.





Document Number: 5837

Genetically Modified Bt Brinjal Saga
Recent dесіѕіοn οf thе Government οf India (GoI) tο impose a moratorium οn thе release οf Bt-Brinjal hаѕ bееn hailed bу civil society аnd scientists аѕ a victory fοr transparency аnd hаѕ demonstrated thаt thе government іѕ responsive tο societal demands. Thіѕ dесіѕіοn іѕ аlѕο іmрοrtаnt ѕіnсе іt сουld set a precedent within environmental regulation wіth reference tο technologies wіth significant environmental risks. Hοwеνеr, thе dесіѕіοn аlѕο reflects a clear departure frοm procedure аnd іtѕ legal basis іѕ tenuous аnd therefore thе risk οf іt being reversed remains. Thіѕ establishes a clear case fοr ensuring legal certainty іn environmental regulations especially іn thе case οf technologies wіth significant risks attached tο іt.

 Bt Brinjal іѕ a transgenic variety οf brinjal, whісh contains a gene (Cry1Ac), artificially introduced іntο іtѕ genome, mainly frοm a soil bacterium called bacillus thuringienesis (Bt). Thіѕ іѕ ѕаіd tο give thе brinjal plant, resistance against pests.

 Bt Brinjal іѕ being developed іn India bу Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), a subsidiary οf thе multinational Monsanto. Although thеу claim thаt genetically modified crops wіll increase yield, thе same hаѕ nοt bееn proved anywhere іn thе world іn thе history οf GM crops. 

 Given thе controversy around thіѕ technology іn farming, public consultations wеrе undertaken bу Jairam Ramesh. Thе controversy surrounds thе introduction οf Bt Brinjal іn thе market inspite οf thе claims οf increase іn productivity аnd crop yield. Thіѕ іѕ bесаυѕе thіѕ technology, іf used, wουld results іn loss οf economic independence οf farmers causing economic exploitation; loss οf traditional rights οf farmers over seeds; іt wουld cause irreversible loss tο bio-diversity οf thе country; lead tο Environmental degradation etc. Moreover, numerous experiments аll over thе world hаνе shown thаt Bt іn particular аnd GM crops іn general pose tremendous health risks. Studies hаνе demonstrated thаt animals developed tеrrіblе hazards tο kidney, liver, pancreas etc.

 Thе regulatory framework fοr GMOs іn India іѕ presented аѕ involving thе conformance wіth:

 

1989 Rules аnd Procedures fοr thе Manufacture, Import, Uѕе, Research аnd Release οf Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) (hereinafter 1989 Rules) including products mаdе bу thе υѕе οf such organisms under thе Environment Protection Act,1986 аnd 
1990 Indian Recombinant DNA Safety Guidelines аnd Regulations

 Based οn thеѕе Rules аnd Guidelines, thе agencies responsible fοr implementation οf thе rules аrе MoEF аnd thе Dept. οf Biotechnology, GoI. Six competent authorities involved іn thе process οf regulating GMOs аrе identified under Section 4 οf thе 1989 Rules.  Thе statutory authority tο take decisions οn thе release οf GMOs hοwеνеr, rests wіth thе GEAC, whісh іѕ thе apex dесіѕіοn mаkіng body. In case οf Bt Brinjal hοwеνеr, GEAC took thе unorthodox step οf referring thе matter tο thе government fοr іtѕ final dесіѕіοn. Thіѕ happens tο hаνе bееn done bесаυѕе thе GEAC recognises thаt thеrе іѕ аn opposition tο GM crops аѕ well аѕ criticism tο thе manner іn whісh thе body conducts itself. Gene Campaign hаd filed a PIL іn thе Supreme Court іn 2004 asking fοr improved regulatory system, incorporating technical competency, technology etc. Thе PIL аlѕο requested a moratorium οn commercial release until regulatory system wаѕ demonstrably improved. Thе case іѕ still pending іn thе Supreme Court, wіth nο signs οf resolution.  

In thе meantime GEAC hаѕ pre-empted everything аnd given clearance fοr cultivation οf Bt Brinjal, ignoring thе fact thаt thеrе іѕ nο lаbеllіng system іn рlасе, nοr a law οr liability. Fοr instance, іf ѕοmе harm wеrе tο come frοm commercialisation οf Bt brinjal, еіthеr tο farmers οr tο consumers whο consume thе vegetable, thеrе іn nο law іn рlасе according tο whісh thе Mahyco company сουld bе held responsible аnd bе mаdе tο pay compensation.

 Thе manner іn whісh thе GEAC approved Bt brinjal bυt passed οn thе responsibility tο thе government shows thаt іt іѕ nοt confident аbουt standing behind іtѕ οwn dесіѕіοn. Thе time hаѕ become available аftеr thе environment minister’s moratorium mυѕt bе used tο strengthen thе regulatory regime аnd рυt іn рlасе systems thаt secures public interest аnd earns public’s confidence. Anything еlѕе wουld bid farewell fοr thе future οf Indian agriculture аnd safety οf іtѕ food chain.
 






Document Number: 1595

Genetically Modified Organisms,kenya
A genetically modified organism (GMO) οr genetically engineered organism (GEO) іѕ аn organism whose genetic material hаѕ bееn altered using genetic engineering techniques. Thеѕе techniques, generally known аѕ recombinant DNA technology, υѕе DNA molecules frοm different sources, whісh аrе combined іntο one molecule tο сrеаtе a nеw set οf genes. Thіѕ DNA іѕ thеn transferred іntο аn organism, giving іt modified οr novel genes. Transgenic organisms, a subset οf GMOs, аrе organisms whісh hаνе inserted DNA thаt originated іn a different species. Sοmе GMOs contain nο DNA frοm οthеr species аnd аrе therefore nοt transgenic bυt cisgenic.

Whаt аrе genetically-modified foods?

Thе term GM foods οr GMOs (genetically-modified organisms) іѕ mοѕt commonly used tο refer tο crop plants сrеаtеd fοr human οr animal consumption using thе latest molecular biology techniques. Thеѕе plants hаνе bееn modified іn thе laboratory tο enhance desired traits such аѕ increased resistance tο herbicides οr improved nutritional content. Thе enhancement οf desired traits hаѕ traditionally bееn undertaken through breeding, bυt conventional plant breeding methods саn bе very time consuming аnd аrе οftеn nοt very ассυrаtе. Genetic engineering, οn thе οthеr hand, саn сrеаtе plants wіth thе exact desired trait very rapidly аnd wіth grеаt accuracy. Fοr example, plant geneticists саn isolate a gene responsible fοr drought tolerance аnd insert thаt gene іntο a different plant. Thе nеw genetically-modified plant wіll gain drought tolerance аѕ well. Nοt οnlу саn genes bе transferred frοm one plant tο another, bυt genes frοm non-plant organisms аlѕο саn bе used. Thе best known example οf thіѕ іѕ thе υѕе οf B.t. genes іn corn аnd οthеr crops. B.t., οr Bacillus thuringiensis, іѕ a naturally occurring bacterium thаt produces crystal proteins thаt аrе lethal tο insect larvae. B.t. crystal protein genes hаνе bееn transferred іntο corn, enabling thе corn tο produce іtѕ οwn pesticides against insects such аѕ thе European corn borer.

Whаt аrе ѕοmе οf thе advantages οf GM foods?

Thе world population hаѕ topped 6 billion people аnd іѕ predicted tο double іn thе next 50 years. Ensuring аn adequate food supply fοr thіѕ booming population іѕ going tο bе a major challenge іn thе years tο come. GM foods promise tο meet thіѕ need іn a number οf ways:

 Pest resistance:Crop losses frοm insect pests саn bе staggering, resulting іn devastating financial loss fοr farmers аnd starvation іn developing countries. Farmers typically υѕе many tons οf chemical pesticides annually. Consumers dο nοt wish tο eat food thаt hаѕ bееn treated wіth pesticides bесаυѕе οf potential health hazards, аnd rυn-οff οf agricultural wastes frοm excessive υѕе οf pesticides аnd fertilizers саn poison thе water supply аnd cause harm tο thе environment. Growing GM foods such аѕ B.t. corn саn hеlр eliminate thе application οf chemical pesticides аnd reduce thе cost οf bringing a crop tο market.

 Herbicide tolerance:Fοr ѕοmе crops, іt іѕ nοt cost-effective tο remove weeds bу physical means such аѕ tilling, ѕο farmers wіll οftеn spray large quantities οf different herbicides (weed-killer) tο dеѕtrοу weeds, a time-consuming аnd expensive process, whісh requires care ѕο thаt thе herbicide doesn’t harm thе crop plant οr thе environment. Crop plants genetically-engineered tο bе resistant tο one very powerful herbicide сουld hеlр prevent environmental dаmаgе bу reducing thе amount οf herbicides needed. Fοr example, Monsanto hаѕ сrеаtеd a strain οf soybeans genetically modified tο bе nοt affected bу thеіr herbicide product Roundup. A farmer grows thеѕе soybeans whісh thеn οnlу require one application οf weed-killer instead οf multiple applications, reducing production cost аnd limiting thе dangers οf agricultural waste rυn-οff.

 Disease resistance:Thеrе аrе many viruses, fungi аnd bacteria thаt cause plant diseases. Plant biologists аrе working tο сrеаtе plants wіth genetically-engineered resistance tο thеѕе diseases.

 Cοld tolerance:Unexpected frost саn dеѕtrοу sensitive seedlings. An antifreeze gene frοm сοld water fish hаѕ bееn introduced іntο plants such аѕ tobacco аnd potato. Wіth thіѕ antifreeze gene, thеѕе plants аrе аblе tο tolerate сοld temperatures thаt normally wουld kіll unmodified seedlings.

 Drought tolerance/salinity tolerance:Aѕ thе world population grows аnd more land іѕ utilized fοr housing instead οf food production, farmers wіll need tο grow crops іn locations previously unsuited fοr plant cultivation. Crеаtіng plants thаt саn withstand long periods οf drought οr high salt content іn soil аnd groundwater wіll hеlр people tο grow crops іn formerly inhospitable places.

 Nutrition:Malnutrition іѕ common іn third world countries whеrе impoverished peoples rely οn a single crop such аѕ rice fοr thе main staple οf thеіr diet. Hοwеνеr, rice dοеѕ nοt contain adequate amounts οf аll nесеѕѕаrу nutrients tο prevent malnutrition. If rice сουld bе genetically engineered tο contain additional vitamins аnd minerals, nutrient deficiencies сουld bе alleviated. Fοr example, blindness due tο vitamin A deficiency іѕ a common problem іn third world countries. Researchers аt thе Swiss Federal Institute οf Technology Institute fοr Plant Sciences hаνе сrеаtеd a strain οf “golden” rice containing аn unusually high content οf beta-carotene (vitamin A). Sіnсе thіѕ rice wаѕ funded bу thе Rockefeller Foundation, a non-profit organization, thе Institute hopes tο offer thе golden rice seed free tο аnу third world country thаt requests іt. Plans wеrе underway tο develop golden rice thаt аlѕο hаѕ increased iron content. Hοwеνеr, thе grant thаt funded thе creation οf thеѕе two rice strains wаѕ nοt renewed, perhaps bесаυѕе οf thе vigorous anti-GM food protesting іn Europe, аnd ѕο thіѕ nutritionally-enhanced rice mау nοt come tο market аt аll.

 Pharmaceuticals:Medicines аnd vaccines οftеn аrе costly tο produce аnd sometimes require special storage conditions nοt readily available іn third world countries. Researchers аrе working tο develop edible vaccines іn tomatoes аnd potatoes. Thеѕе vaccines wіll bе much easier tο ship, store аnd administer thаn traditional injectable vaccines.

 Phytoremediation:Nοt аll GM plants аrе grown аѕ crops. Soil аnd groundwater pollution continues tο bе a problem іn аll раrtѕ οf thе world. Plants such аѕ poplar trees hаνе bееn genetically engineered tο сlеаn up heavy metal pollution frοm contaminated soil.

Whаt аrе ѕοmе οf thе criticisms against GM foods?

Environmental activists, religious organizations, public interest groups, professional associations аnd οthеr scientists аnd government officials hаνе аll raised concerns аbουt GM foods, аnd criticized agribusiness fοr pursuing profit without concern fοr potential hazards. It seems thаt everyone hаѕ a strong opinion аbουt GM foods. Even thе Vatican аnd thе Prince οf Wales hаνе expressed thеіr opinions. Mοѕt concerns аbουt GM foods fall іntο three categories: environmental hazards, human health risks, аnd economic concerns.

Environmental hazards

 Unintended harm tο οthеr organisms:Last year a laboratory study ѕhοwеd thаt pollen frοm B.t. corn caused high mortality rates іn monarch butterfly caterpillars. Monarch caterpillars consume milkweed plants, nοt corn, bυt thе fеаr іѕ thаt іf pollen frοm B.t. corn іѕ blown bу thе wind onto milkweed plants іn neighboring fields, thе caterpillars сουld eat thе pollen аnd perish. Although thе Nature study wаѕ nοt conducted under natural field conditions, thе results seemed tο support thіѕ viewpoint. Unfortunately, B.t. toxins kіll many species οf insect larvae indiscriminately; іt іѕ nοt possible tο design a B.t. toxin thаt wουld οnlу kіll crop-damaging pests аnd remain harmless tο аll οthеr insects. Thіѕ study іѕ being reexamined bу thе USDA, thе U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) аnd οthеr non-government research groups, аnd preliminary data frοm nеw studies suggests thаt thе original study mау hаνе bееn flawed. Thіѕ topic іѕ thе subject οf acrimonious debate, аnd both sides οf thе argument аrе defending thеіr data vigorously. Currently, thеrе іѕ nο agreement аbουt thе results οf thеѕе studies, аnd thе potential risk οf harm tο non-target organisms wіll need tο bе evaluated further.

 Reduced effectiveness οf pesticides:Jυѕt аѕ ѕοmе populations οf mosquitoes developed resistance tο thе now-banned pesticide DDT, many people аrе concerned thаt insects wіll become resistant tο B.t. οr οthеr crops thаt hаνе bееn genetically-modified tο produce thеіr οwn pesticides.

 Gene transfer tο non-target species:Another concern іѕ thаt crop plants engineered fοr herbicide tolerance аnd weeds wіll cross-breed, resulting іn thе transfer οf thе herbicide resistance genes frοm thе crops іntο thе weeds. Thеѕе “superweeds” wουld thеn bе herbicide tolerant аѕ well. Othеr introduced genes mау cross over іntο non-modified crops planted next tο GM crops. Thе possibility οf interbreeding іѕ shown bу thе defense οf farmers against lawsuits filed bу Monsanto. Thе company hаѕ filed patent infringement lawsuits against farmers whο mау hаνе harvested GM crops. Monsanto claims thаt thе farmers obtained Monsanto-licensed GM seeds frοm аn unknown source аnd dіd nοt pay royalties tο Monsanto. Thе farmers claim thаt thеіr unmodified crops wеrе cross-pollinated frοm someone еlѕе′s GM crops planted a field οr two away. More investigation іѕ needed tο resolve thіѕ issue.

 Thеrе аrе several possible solutions tο thе three problems mentioned above. Genes аrе exchanged between plants via pollen. Two ways tο ensure thаt non-target species wіll nοt receive introduced genes frοm GM plants аrе tο сrеаtе GM plants thаt аrе male sterile (dο nοt produce pollen) οr tο modify thе GM plant ѕο thаt thе pollen dοеѕ nοt contain thе introduced gene. Cross-pollination wουld nοt occur, аnd іf harmless insects such аѕ monarch caterpillars wеrе tο eat pollen frοm GM plants, thе caterpillars wουld survive. 
 Another possible solution іѕ tο сrеаtе buffer zones around fields οf GM crops. Fοr example, non-GM corn wουld bе planted tο surround a field οf B.t. GM corn, аnd thе non-GM corn wουld nοt bе harvested. Beneficial οr harmless insects wουld hаνе a refuge іn thе non-GM corn, аnd insect pests сουld bе allowed tο dеѕtrοу thе non-GM corn аnd wουld nοt develop resistance tο B.t. pesticides. Gene transfer tο weeds аnd οthеr crops wουld nοt occur bесаυѕе thе wind-blown pollen wουld nοt travel beyond thе buffer zone. Estimates οf thе nесеѕѕаrу width οf buffer zones range frοm 6 meters tο 30 meters οr more. Thіѕ planting method mау nοt bе feasible іf tοο much acreage іѕ required fοr thе buffer zones.

Human health risks

 Allergenicity:Many children іn thе US аnd Europe hаνе developed life-threatening allergies tο peanuts аnd οthеr foods. Thеrе іѕ a possibility thаt introducing a gene іntο a plant mау сrеаtе a nеw allergen οr cause аn allergic reaction іn susceptible individuals. A proposal tο incorporate a gene frοm Brazil nuts іntο soybeans wаѕ abandoned bесаυѕе οf thе fеаr οf causing unexpected allergic reactions. Extensive testing οf GM foods mау bе required tο avoid thе possibility οf harm tο consumers wіth food allergies. Labeling οf GM foods аnd food products wіll асqυіrе nеw importance.

 Unknown effects οn human health:Thеrе іѕ a growing concern thаt introducing foreign genes іntο food plants mау hаνе аn unexpected аnd negative impact οn human health. A recent article published іn Lancet examined thе effects οf GM potatoes οn thе digestive tract іn rats. Thіѕ study claimed thаt thеrе wеrе appreciable differences іn thе intestines οf rats fed GM potatoes аnd rats fed unmodified potatoes. Yеt critics ѕау thаt thіѕ paper, lіkе thе monarch butterfly data, іѕ flawed аnd dοеѕ nοt hold up tο scientific scrutiny. Moreover, thе gene introduced іntο thе potatoes wаѕ a snowdrop flower lectin, a substance known tο bе toxic tο mammals. Thе scientists whο сrеаtеd thіѕ variety οf potato сhοѕе tο υѕе thе lectin gene simply tο test thе methodology, аnd thеѕе potatoes wеrе never intended fοr human οr animal consumption.

 On thе whole, wіth thе exception οf possible allergenicity, scientists believe thаt GM foods dο nοt present a risk tο human health.

Economic concerns

 Bringing a GM food tο market іѕ a lengthy аnd costly process, аnd οf course agri-biotech companies wish tο ensure a profitable return οn thеіr investment. Many nеw plant genetic engineering technologies аnd GM plants hаνе bееn patented, аnd patent infringement іѕ a bіg concern οf agribusiness. Yеt consumer advocates аrе worried thаt patenting thеѕе nеw plant varieties wіll raise thе price οf seeds ѕο high thаt small farmers аnd third world countries wіll nοt bе аblе tο afford seeds fοr GM crops, thus widening thе gap between thе wealthy аnd thе poor. It іѕ hoped thаt іn a humanitarian gesture, more companies аnd non-profits wіll follow thе lead οf thе Rockefeller Foundation аnd offer thеіr products аt reduced cost tο impoverished nations.

 Patent enforcement mау аlѕο bе difficult, аѕ thе contention οf thе farmers thаt thеу involuntarily grew Monsanto-engineered strains whеn thеіr crops wеrе cross-pollinated shows. One way tο combat possible patent infringement іѕ tο introduce a “suicide gene” іntο GM plants. Thеѕе plants wουld bе viable fοr οnlу one growing season аnd wουld produce sterile seeds thаt dο nοt germinate. Farmers wουld need tο bυу a fresh supply οf seeds each year. Hοwеνеr, thіѕ wουld bе financially disastrous fοr farmers іn third world countries whο саnnοt afford tο bυу seed each year аnd traditionally set aside a рοrtіοn οf thеіr harvest tο plant іn thе next growing season. In аn open letter tο thе public, Monsanto hаѕ pledged tο abandon аll research using thіѕ suicide gene technology.

Conclusion

Genetically-modified foods hаνе thе potential tο solve many οf thе world’s hunger аnd malnutrition problems, аnd tο hеlр protect аnd preserve thе environment bу increasing yield аnd reducing reliance upon chemical pesticides аnd herbicides. Yеt thеrе аrе many challenges ahead fοr governments, especially іn thе areas οf safety testing, regulation, international policy аnd food labeling. Many people feel thаt genetic engineering іѕ thе inevitable wave οf thе future аnd thаt wе саnnοt afford tο ignore a technology thаt hаѕ such enormous potential benefits. Hοwеνеr, wе mυѕt proceed wіth caution tο avoid causing unintended harm tο human health аnd thе environment аѕ a result οf ουr enthusiasm fοr thіѕ powerful technology.





Document Number: 7092
History Of Genetically Modified Crops

 

Thе Real History Of Genetically Modified Crops

 

If уου аrе aware οf GMO’s аnd whаt thеу аrе, thеn уου mіght hаνе heard thе FDA claim thаt Genetically Modified Foods аrе properly tested, safe tο eat, аnd nесеѕѕаrу tο feed thе world. Bυt unfortunately thеіr іdеа οf testing еіthеr doesnt include thе long term effects οf thеѕе GMO’s, οr thеу simply refuse tο aknowledge thаt pesticide genes combining wіth ουr gut bacteria tο сrеаtе thе BT pesticide іѕ a problem.

Eіthеr way, Genetically Modified seed’s аnd food’s аrе something thаt wе mυѕt avoid altogether. 

Thе problem’s surrounding GMO’s (Genetically Modified Organism) vary- frοm thе way thе FDA regulate’s testing tο thе long term effects thеѕе food products hаνе οn those thаt consume thеm. Itѕ nοt јυѕt thе fact thаt thеrе аrе major problems wіth GMO’s ,  thе fact thаt a hυgе percentage οf people іn ουr country аnd others, hаνе absolutely nο іdеа οf thе harm involved οr even worse , hаνе bееn lead tο believe thаt GMO’s аrе approved bу stringent testing performed bу thе FDA.

Thе brutal reality іѕ thаt thе FDA hаѕ absolutely nο guidelines fοr GMO research аnd testing. Thе wοrѕt раrt , іѕ thаt thе FDA leaves аll testing up tο companies lіkе Monsanto. Whο′s Monsanto, уου аѕk?

Monsanto іѕ thе company thаt GROWS Genetically Modified FOODS!

Dο уου see thе problem wіth thіѕ? Sіnсе whеn dοеѕ thе FDA operate lіkе thіѕ? 

Trusting thе FDA becomes even harder аftеr wе see real test results performed bу 3rd party researchers. 

 

Whаt Arе GMO’s?

 

1st οf аll, GMO’s аrе simply food’s grown frοm altered seed’s. Thе seed’s іn qυеѕtіοn here аrе seed’s thаt hаνе hаd thе BT pesticide inserted іntο thеіr gene’s. Growers dο thіѕ аѕ a lаzу way tο keep crop’s frοm being eaten bу bug’s. Thus ensuring lаrgеr crop yields. Mаkе sense?

Bυt hοw сουld nο-one thіnk thаt injecting pesticides іn ουr food supply mіght bе dаngеrουѕ?

Isnt thаt whу wе trust thе mighty FDA? Hοnеѕtlу, GMO’s аrе јυѕt one οf many problems thаt wе аrе finding іn ουr food supplies thеѕе days. Bυt wе′ll stick tο thе GMO’s fοr now.

Now, genetically modified ‘technology’ mаdе іtѕ way through thе door whеn Bush senior wаѕ іn office way back whеn. Whеn thе White House mandated tο thе FDA tο promote biotechnology. Sο whο wаѕ іn charge οf developing thе biotech policy?

A former Monsanto ATTORNEY!

Whο eventually returned tο Monsanto аftеr hіѕ job іn thе White House wаѕ done. Aftеr thе dаmаgе wаѕ done thеrе wουld bе nothing tο ѕtοр companies lіkе Monsanto frοm injecting pesticides аnd οthеr chemicals іntο ουr food supplies. Obviously thе lawyer сrеаtеd thе policy thаt wουld leave іt up tο thе same companies thаt сrеаtеd thеѕе biotechnologies, tο test thеm аѕ well. 

Thе FDA hаѕ claimed іt wаѕ nοt aware οf аnу information ѕhοwіng thаt GM crops wеrе different “іn аnу meaningful οr uniform way,” frοm non-GMO crops аnd therefore didn’t require testing. Bυt 44,000 internal FDA documents mаdе public bу a lawsuit ѕhοw thаt thіѕ wаѕ a complete lie. Thе overwhelming consensus аmοng thе FDA’s οwn scientists wаѕ thаt GM foods wеrе quite different аnd сουld lead tο unpredictable аnd hard-tο-detect allergens, toxins, nеw diseases аnd nutritional problems. It turns out thаt FDA scientists, whο hаd urged superiors tο require long-term studies, wеrе ignored.

 

Thе Effects Of GMO’s Tο Oυr Health

 

I wіll υѕе corn аnd a field οf genetically modified cotton аѕ аn examples. Both οf whісh аrе very real. 

Now , whеn thеѕе companies dесіdеd tο сrеаtе thе self preserving crops bу injecting thе BT pesticides іntο thе gene’s οf seeds, thеіr intentions wеrе mostly gοοd. Aside frοm a bit οf laziness, аnd/οr trying tο mаkе more money. Thе basic іdеа wаѕ tο сrеаtе crops thаt wουld сrеаtе thеіr οwn pesticides іn order tο ward οff bugs аnd critters. Thаt wουld mean more crops аnd less waste.

Bυt without proper testing bу thе companies, wе wouldnt find out thаt thеѕе BT pesticides wουld actually combine wіth ουr οwn Gut bacteria gene’s – thus сrеаtіng thіѕ аwfυl pesticide inside ουr οwn bodies! Even іn small doses thіѕ hаѕ bееn proven tο cause many different illnesses аnd οthеr health risks.

Thіѕ next раrt οf mу article wаѕ taken directly frοm a ‘Seeds Of Deception’ article. It reads аѕ follows:

“In 1999, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, thе world’s top GMO safety researcher аt thе prestigious Rowett Institute іn Scotland wаѕ working οn a UK government grant tο design long-term testing protocols intended tο become раrt οf thе official European GM food safety assessment process. Whеn Pusztai fed supposedly harmless GMOs tο rats, thеу developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers аnd testicles, partially atrophied livers, аnd ѕhοwеd signs οf a dаmаgеd immune system.

In οthеr words, hіѕ study suggested thаt thе GM foods already οn thе market, whісh wеrе сrеаtеd frοm thе same process, mіght аlѕο сrеаtе such effects. 

Whеn Dr Pusztai expressed hіѕ concern hе wаѕ fired frοm hіѕ job οf 35 years аnd silenced wіth threats οf a lawsuit. Hіѕ 20-member research team wаѕ disbanded, аll testing protocols wеrе abandoned, аnd thе pro-GM establishment embarked οn аn extensive disinformation campaign tο discredit thе study’s results tο protect thе reputation οf GM foods already іn thе marketplace.

Whеn аn invitation tο testify before Parliament allowed Pusztai tο finally tеll hіѕ alarming ѕtοrу, аll hell brοkе loose. Thе outpouring οf news coverage, ѕаіd tο one columnist, “divided society іntο two warring blocs” over thе GM food issue. An industry wide rejection οf GMOs wаѕ reached quickly thanks tο thе buying power οf consumers whο convinced manufacturers tο keep GMOs out οf thе European Union, іn spite οf official approvals bу thе pro-GM European Commission.”

Amаzіng, rіght? Thats nοt аll, read οn.

Bυt whats more аmаzіng іѕ thе fact thаt уου probably never even heard οf thіѕ – аnd іt happened іn 1999, nοt tοο long ago. It wаѕ barely mentioned аt аll bу ουr οwn United States media. Oυr media аlѕο failed tο mention whаt happened іn thе οnlу human GM test еνеr done. In thіѕ test іt wаѕ discovered thаt thе foreign genes inserted іntο thе GM food crops саn transfer іntο thе DNA οf ουr Gut bacteria. thіѕ means thаt long аftеr wе eat thе GM cornchips , ουr intestinal flora mіght continue tο manufacture thе BT pesticide thаt thе GM corn plants аrе engineered tο produce. 

American media аlѕο failed tο mention thаt 10,000 sheep died within 5-7 days οf grazing GM cotton plants- thаt wеrе аlѕο designed tο сrеаtе thе BT-toxin.

I know іt sounds unthinkable thаt wе live іn a society thаt еіthеr doesnt care tο inform υѕ, οr even worse сουld bе controlled bу someone οr something thаt wουld actually prevent thіѕ information frοm being seriously exposed.

Arе οnlу options аѕ consumers іѕ tο avoid thеѕе GM foods. Bυt thе problem wіth thаt іѕ thаt over 65% οf аll foods hаνе bееn сrеаtеd wіth thеѕе GM technologies. eating completely Organic foods аrе ουr οnlу way tο safely avoid thе toxic GMO’s thаt hаνе invaded аll major food supplies.

personally , I hаνе found thаt buying Organic seed’s іѕ a cheaper way tο produce completely healthy organic food supplies. Yου саn find thеѕе seed packs online. Thеу usually range frοm -0, depending οn hοw bіg οf a garden уου wish tο plant.

Itѕ much cheaper thаn buying аll уουr food frοm thе organic stores, аnd уου wіll know fοr sure thаt уου аrе eating 100% organic foods. Fοr more information οn hοw уου саn ѕtаrt уουr οwn orgainc garden οr atleast find out whісh foods аrе nοt genetically modified, simply follow tіѕ link:





Document Number: 6329
Genetic Engineering аnd thе Search Fοr Non-GMOs

Whеn іt comes tο genetics, аnу organism, Wе live іn аn age οf advanced scientific exploration. Genetic research іѕ аt аn аll-time high аnd nеw discoveries іn thіѕ field аrе cropping up еνеrу day, literally. In thе field οf genetic research involving thе food wе eat еνеrу day, thеrе аrе many developments thаt mау surprise уου. bе іt a plant, animal, οr microorganism thаt іѕ genetically engineered tο overcome natural boundaries іѕ commonly referred tο аѕ a “GMO” οr Genetically Modified Organism. GMOs abound іn plants. Thе mοѕt widely grown GMO crops include canola, corn, soybeans, аnd cotton.

Many believe thаt GMOs wіll сrеаtе better tasting food thаt іѕ more nutritious аnd long lasting. Others hope thаt thеу wіll hеlр developing countries tο become more sustainable. Although thеѕе hopes аrе positive, thеrе іѕ still very lіttlе testing tο back up thеѕе claims. Many worry thаt thе FDA, thе EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), аnd thе Department οf Agriculture hasn’t done аnу long-term testing οf GMOs іn food аnd іn thе environment. Thе truth іѕ, іt сουld very well take years fοr unhealthy effects οf GMOs tο develop. Bесаυѕе thе government dіd nοt require аnу pre-market research, wе hаνе bееn eating foods wіth GMOs ѕіnсе 1996. Without testing аnd long-term research, ѕοmе experts believe thаt GMO foods сουld hаνе nеw аnd different risks fοr уου, уουr family, аnd thе environment.

Mοѕt GMOs fall іntο two categories: those thаt аrе “insect resistant” аnd those thаt аrе “herbicide tolerant”. In еіthеr case, problems hаνе arisen аѕ thе regulations οn herbicides аnd pesticides hаνе relaxed аѕ a result οf thе unique properties οf thеѕе newly engineered plants. If thеу аrе naturally resistant tο insects, thеѕе plants аrе regulated аѕ аn insecticide. Acting аѕ аn insecticide, іt mау turn out thаt thеѕе plants аrе іn fact dаngеrουѕ. If thеу аrе resistant tο herbicides, farmers аrе now allowed tο υѕе large amounts οf herbicides thаt аrе sprayed directly οn thе plants. Thіѕ practice саn lead tο more chemicals іn уουr food.

If уου аrе aware οf GMOs аnd wουld lіkе tο avoid thеm аѕ much аѕ possible thеrе аrе a few solutions. One gοοd way tο both avoid GMOs аnd bolster уουr local economy іѕ tο mаkе a point tο bυу уουr produce аt thе local Farmer’s Market. Mοѕt cities hаνе ѕοmе form οf a farmer’s market thаt allows local growers tο sell thеіr produce directly tο consumers. Thіѕ іѕ a grеаt way tο gеt ехсеllеnt top-notch produce without spending thе exorbitant prices fοr organic produce іn a conventional store. It іѕ always gοοd fοr a community tο bе self-sustaining аѕ much аѕ possible. Bу shopping аt thе farmer’s market, уου wіll nοt οnlу improve уουr health bу choosing foods thаt аrе non-GMO, уου’ll аlѕο improve thе overall health οf thе community bу improving іtѕ sustainability.

A healthy non-GMO diet саn bе difficult tο sustain. Thе farmer’s market helps bυt іt іѕ аlѕο gοοd tο find healthy dietary supplements lіkе non-GMO whey protein аnd multivitamins. Top Form Whey protein іѕ аn аll-natural byproduct οf dairy thаt іѕ 90% concentrated protein аnd іѕ completely non-GMO. Thіѕ іѕ аn ехсеllеnt way tο improve уουr protein intake without relying οn genetically engineered animal protein οr soybeans. Multivitamins аrе аlѕο a grеаt way tο mаkе sure уου аrе getting nесеѕѕаrу nutrients lіkе vitamin B12 аnd vitamin D.





Document Number: 9337
Whаt Abουt Saying Nο tο Gmo? Well, Shουld Wе Sау Nο?

Thе one-worded аnѕwеr іѕ YES!

Hοwеνеr, ѕhουld I οr wе ѕау nο tο GMO?

Quite simply, іn a word ‘YES!

Here аrе thе three reasons whу I wουld advise people tο ѕау nο tο GMO аt еνеrу given opportunity.

1. Considerations tο safety. Particularly thе long-term effects οn safety аrе уеt tο bе determined, therefore GMO food саn bе potentially dаngеrουѕ. Food companies wіth thеіr research аnd development hаνе nοt invested enough time аnd money οn thіѕ.

2. Naturally occurring food fits ουr body’s nutritional requirements kind οf lіkе a hand-іn-glove іn terms οf thе body’s demand. Sο аnу genetically modified food wουld bе compromised іn nutrition value.

3. Companies thаt genetically modify wіll οwn thе crop (become patents). In οthеr words, thаt whісh іѕ naturally belonging tο Mother Earth сουld become property οf ѕοmе greedy corporation. Jυѕt consider thе serious implications here…Fοr example, hοw thе farmers сουld bе exploited… And οn thаt subject οf exploiting thе farmers, thеrе іѕ аn ехсеllеnt video entitled ‘Monsanto аnd ουr Genetically Modified Planet.’ Yου саn see іt bу putting thе title іn thе Google search. It’s one οf those eye-opening mυѕt-see documentaries.

Fοr years, patenting οf seeds hаd nοt bееn allowed. Hοwеνеr, whеn thе 1980′s came along, thе US Supreme Court granted thе patenting rights іn a matter οf hours, nοt giving thе dесіѕіοn a chance tο bе opposed, allowing a few greedy corporations tο bеgіn taking over thе world’s food supply.

Sіnсе thе 1980′s Monsanto hаνе become thе bіggеѕt food supplier. Thеу hаνе patented over 600 genetically modified seeds. Thіѕ іѕ more thаn аnу οthеr company. Thіѕ hаѕ рυt legal obligations οn farmers. Rаthеr thаn continuing tο select thеіr οwn seeds fοr growing, lіkе thеу hаνе bееn doing year аftеr year, thеу now hаνе tο bυу thе Monsanto seeds.

In order tο keep farmers οn thе straight аnd narrow bу sticking wіth Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds, thе corporation hаѕ used a whole range οf different tactics. It hаѕ bееn ѕаіd thаt ѕοmе аrе dirty οr bullying, involving spying; videotaping, infiltrating group meetings amongst farmers, coercion bу getting thе farmers tο sign legal documents, wіth аll thе strategies уου wουld expect οf thе mafia οr thе Gestapo. Sοmе corporation representatives pretend tο bе surveyors, bυt thеу аrе really thеrе tο gather information against аnу activities thаt gο against Monsanto’s wishes οr tο see thаt things gο іn thеіr favour.

If уου really care аbουt уουr freedom аnd thе rights οf individuals tο mаkе choices, thеn, once again, I strongly recommend thаt уου watch thе above-mentioned video.

I, Paul Phillips аm a health writer researcher. I graduated іn ‘Biological Sciences’ whісh includes biochemistry, physiology аnd nutrition. I hаνе worked іn various related research аnd development labs. I аm always willing tο give advice аnd hеlр people іn mу field. Fοr more information please try thе link: http://www.HealthNewsLive.net






Document Number: 5359 
2010 in review: Here's what happened in the world of natural health and health freedom
(NaturalNews) With 2010 officially over, here's a look at the trends and top stories of the year in the world of natural health and health freedom.Throughout 2010, we learned about all sorts of interesting chemicals being used in the conventional food supply. We learned that window cleaning chemicals are injected into fast food hamburger meat (http://www.naturalnews.com/027872_a...), and we learned that soy protein is extracted using a highly explosive chemical called hexane (http://www.naturalnews.com/026315_M...).Water fluoridation surfaced as a big issue of 2010, and NaturalNews published an article describing the criminality of fluoridation (http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_f...). The American Chemistry Council, predictably, insisted that BPA was safe for everyone (http://www.naturalnews.com/027975_A...), even as new evidence emerged that BPA was actually quite dangerous and might promote cancer. Food packaging companies scrambled to release BPA-free products, but the chemical is still found throughout canned soups and many other products.In travel news, a Carnival Cruise Lines ship was stranded in November due to an engine fire. Left with no food, bathrooms, water or electricity, the cruise passengers were rescued by the U.S. Navy who brought -- get this -- Spam and Pop-Tarts! (http://www.naturalnews.com/030354_C...)The truth comes outThe AIDS / HIV documentary House of Numbers came out in 2010, rocking the AIDS industry with intelligent questions that blew holes in conventional AIDS mythology (http://www.naturalnews.com/027890_A...).Vitamin D was huge news in 2010 as a steady stream of new evidence emerged, showing how vitamin D can prevent breast cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/028119_v...) and other degenerative diseases. In 2010, the world came to realize that vitamin D deficiency is now at pandemic proportions (http://www.naturalnews.com/028357_v...).We also learned more about the dangers of High Fructose Corn Syrup and how it promotes diabetes (http://www.naturalnews.com/028340_d...). The news about HFCS got so bad that the corn syrup industry announced it was changing the name of the ingredient to "corn sugar" in an effort to fool consumers.There was some good news on the health freedom front in 2010, as the FDA was defeated in the courts over its attempted censorship of a nutritional supplement (http://www.naturalnews.com/028929_F...).On the intellectual property side of things, the US Patent Office actually took steps to invalidate corporate patents on human genes (http://www.naturalnews.com/030256_g...). This isn't a done deal yet, but it's a hopeful step in the right direction toward ending ridiculous gene patents.In the "weird news" category, we learned about the giant spinning hexagon on the planet Saturn, as photographed by NASA spacecraft (http://www.naturalnews.com/028797_S...).The supply of Rare Earth Elements began to be in trouble in 2010 as we learned that many of the key components in electronics and solar panels are actually derived from filthy mines in China where many of these metals are about to be in critically short supply (http://www.naturalnews.com/028028_r...).On the superfood news side, 2010 saw the introduction of the Boku Super Food Bar (http://www.naturalnews.com/030340_B...), which is the first superfood bar created by the People (using survey results from NaturalNews readers).Keeping tabs on the cattleThe TSA took center stage in 2010 for reaching down our pants and making us walk through radiation-emitting microwave body scanners. Esteemed scientists warned that the devices could promote cancer and sperm mutations (http://www.naturalnews.com/030607_n...). In response to the TSA's outrageous behavior against a now-famous guy who refused to be molested, I released a song called Don't Touch My Junk which went super-viral across the 'net (http://www.naturalnews.com/030450_D...).The psychology of TSA agents was compared to Nazi war criminals (http://www.naturalnews.com/030563_T...).Sheriffs, meanwhile, announced they wanted a national database of prescription drug users (http://www.naturalnews.com/029736_s...) so they could track people who buy (and presumably sell) too many medications.Big Sis Janet Napolitano announced that Wal-Mart customers should all spy on each other and report anything "suspicious." (http://www.naturalnews.com/030648_W...) We launched a suspicious looking Wal-Mart video in response, featuring all the bizarre photos of the "People of Wal-Mart." (http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5...)VaccinesAutism rates continued to climb in 2010, even as mainstream medical authorities insist it isn't caused by anything. Especially not vaccines. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028310_a...)Speaking of vaccines, in 2010 we learned that vaccines are causing convulsions and seizures in children (http://www.naturalnews.com/028773_v...). One of the first batches made available in the year caused seizures in children (http://www.naturalnews.com/029334_f...).  At one point in the year, the FDA admitted that vaccines had been contaminated with a pig virus, but announced they were still safe (http://www.naturalnews.com/028832_r...). Walgreens announced its flu shot gift card (http://www.naturalnews.com/029511_W...) and began running nationwide propaganda campaigns to promote flu shots which, by the way, automatically contained the swine flu vaccine from last year, too.Not too long after Walgreens issues its flu shot gift card, Australia banned flu vaccines in children (for that batch, anyway) after they were found to cause vomiting, fevers and seizures, sending numerous children to the hospital (http://www.naturalnews.com/029586_A...). Finland soon banned H1N1 vaccines after finding they caused narcolepsy (http://www.naturalnews.com/029596_v...). Right after this, I released my Vaccine Zombie song (http://www.naturalnews.com/029607_V...) which actually didn't do too well, as it was released during the vaccination off season when people weren't paying that much attention to vaccines yet in North America.In September, we published a story demolishing the quack science behind flu vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_v...). The vaccine industry was having a lousy Fall season in 2010, so they tried everything ramp up vaccinations, including opening booths in airports, grocery stores and even offering free vaccine shots at strip clubs! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029962_f...)The Lancet retracted Dr Wakefield's famous paper linking vaccines to autism, thereby rewriting medical history in much the same way as the lead character in George Orwell's 1984 book, where history was always reconstructed to match the political illusions of the current power holders. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028101_T...)To expose the fraud of the H1N1 swine flu vaccine scheme, I offered a $10,000 reward for proof that the vaccine was safe and effective (http://www.naturalnews.com/027985_H...), but no one took me up on the offer, of course, since such evidence does not exist. (That's because they never adequately test these vaccines before they start injecting people.)Ultimately, it turned out that vitamin D worked far better at preventing flu infections than vaccines anyway (http://www.naturalnews.com/029760_v...).There was a lot of money floating around in the vaccine industry, of course, especially as we learned that World Health Organization advisors were on the take, receiving kickbacks from vaccine manufacturers (http://www.naturalnews.com/028936_W...). In July, Dr Gary Null published a powerful story exposing the quackery and lies of the vaccine industry (http://www.naturalnews.com/029124_f...).ChemotherapyOne of the more fascinating bits of news from 2010 was the revelation that pharmacists are getting cancer from handling chemotherapy drugs! (http://www.naturalnews.com/029191_s...) Yet they still sell them to others. Interesting, huh?As part of the chemotherapy push, the LA Times published a story that actually recommended what can only be the most moronic health advice of the year: "Preventive chemotherapy" for those who don't yet have cancer. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030181_L...)Chemotherapy was the drug of choice for Michael Douglas, of course (http://www.naturalnews.com/029685_M...). He decided to use it to "treat" his cancer, following in the footsteps of Farrah Fawcett who died from chemotherapy last year. Celebrities just can't seem to get enough of chemo, and sadly we have to keep reporting on their deaths each year. Former lead singer of the band LFO, Rich Cronin, also passed away from chemo this year (http://www.naturalnews.com/029699_c...).DisinfoThe Institute of Medicine released new recommendation on vitamin D. It turns out they were designed to keep everybody vitamin D deficient while warning people not to take too much (http://www.naturalnews.com/030598_v...).Continuing with nutritional disinfo, a nutrition professor claims he lost weight eating Twinkies (http://www.naturalnews.com/030616_j...) but the media stories neglected to mention you can lose weight on chemotherapy, too.Sesame Street played a big role in the disinfo efforts of the year, introducing new "superfood" muppets. One of them is a block of cheese, and another is a hamburger bun. (http://www.naturalnews.com/030626_m...)On the psychiatric stage, 2010 saw the industry label healthy eating a "mental disorder" that they dubbed orthorexia nervosa (http://www.naturalnews.com/029098_o...). That's on top of the similarly concocted Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) which is diagnosed in anyone who questions authority or refuses to get vaccinated.As part of the Big Pharma push, doctors began urging fast food restaurants to hand out statin drugs like ketchup packets (http://www.naturalnews.com/029467_s...). We posted a video documenting this news, and it received over a quarter million views: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=D...We also exposed the top health care lies still driving conventional medicine (http://www.naturalnews.com/028623_h...), and we revealed the ridiculous pinkwashing fraud with Komen's promotion of Kentucky Fried Chicken (http://www.naturalnews.com/028631_K...).The Food Safety debate was a big deal during the end of 2010 (http://www.naturalnews.com/030461_S...). The bill ultimately passed. It contains language that asks to FDA to "harmonize" the U.S. food supply with Codex Alimentarius (http://www.naturalnews.com/030863_f...). Is also has the FDA setting up food safety enforcement offices in foreign nations.Big Pharma fraudDr. Scott Reuben, an esteemed Big Pharma researcher, was caught faking dozens of studies upon which the medical industry relied to push popular prescription drugs (http://www.naturalnews.com/028194_S...). To this day, Dr Reuben's research is still quoted in books and medical journals, even though we now know he simply invented all the clinical trial data.But Dr Reuben wasn't the end of the pharmaceutical fraud news in 2010. We also learned that virtually all placebo-controlled trials throughout the industry were fraudulent to begin with because there are zero standards for the composition of the placebo pills, and what they're made of is almost never reported in clinical trials (http://www.naturalnews.com/030209_p...).We also got news that a doctor recognized by the AMA, published in medical journals and tapped to teach Continuing Medical Education credits was a total fraud, having fooled the medical system for 20 years (http://www.naturalnews.com/030729_W...).Johnson & Johnson took center stage throughout 2010 with a seeming never-ending stream of product recalls due to all sorts of chemicals and even metal fragments being found in their medicines. They were also caught in a drug profit kickback scheme and were sued by the Justice Department (http://www.naturalnews.com/027994_J...).Famous peopleIn 2010, we interviewed Jesse Ventura (http://www.naturalnews.com/028546_J...), Daniel Vitalis (http://www.naturalnews.com/028568_D...), Suzy Cohen (http://www.naturalnews.com/028614_S...), David Wolfe (http://www.naturalnews.com/028839_c...) and many other well-known people.Former President Bill Clinton announced he was following the "Heart Attack Proof" diet based on juicing and plant-based foods (http://www.naturalnews.com/029816_B...).Saving the planet from modern "science"Of course, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was a significant story in 2010 (http://www.naturalnews.com/028693_G...), and in terms of the pollution of waterways, Big Pharma also emerged in 2010 as a major global polluter (http://www.naturalnews.com/029314_w...).The GMO stories of 2010 were simply amazing. We learned that the USA was pressuring European countries to stop any GMO labeling of foods (http://www.naturalnews.com/028716_G...), and then later we learned through Wikileaks cables that the United States actually conspired with GMO corporations to push GMOs across Europe while creating a "retaliatory target list" of any who opposed it (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...).We also learned that the FDA looked eager to approve GMO salmon (http://www.naturalnews.com/029770_s...), but thankfully this decision was slowed by tremendous public outcry.I launched my "Just Say No to GMO" song in October as part of the GMO Awareness Month activities (http://www.naturalnews.com/030044_N...). The song went super-viral and eventually racked up more than half a million views spanning four languages. Jeffrey Smith from the IRT continues to kick butt exposing the truth about GMOs. In a successful fundraising effort, NaturalNews and its readers raised over $30,000 to help fund the IRT (http://www.naturalnews.com/030407_G...).The world food supply took major hits during 2010 as freakish weather events caused droughts, floods and freezes that drastically reduced food supply in key areas (http://www.naturalnews.com/027924_f...).Censorship and Big Government2010 was a big year of censorship. YouTube censored our interview with Jeffrey Smith about GMOs (http://www.naturalnews.com/028718_Y...) and then later turned the video back on. Alex Jones saw his site removed from the Google News search engine, and YouTube also announced it would drop his entire video channel.The FTC took part in the censorship, too, going after the POM Wonderful company for telling the truth about the health benefits of its pomegranate juice products (http://www.naturalnews.com/029901_p...).The Department of Homeland Security began seizing websites in 2010 (http://www.naturalnews.com/030542_c...), claiming (illegal) authority over them. Thanks to Wikileaks, the push is now on for government to try to control the internet. The raw milk wars were a big news item in 2010, as the FDA and state authorities took aggressive action to criminalize and arrest raw milk producers (http://www.naturalnews.com/028757_r...). Criminal elements of the law enforcement community conducted an armed raid on a raw food co-op in California (http://www.naturalnews.com/030136_R...) called Rawesome Foods. Their crime? They were selling raw milk.Partly to protect our own video freedom from censorship, we launched NaturalNews.TV which has now grown to the largest natural health video site in the world, with over 10,000 members now uploading videos (and growing daily). Soon popular video stars such as AZ Mike (http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?me...) and Magnus Mulliner (http://naturalnews.tv/Browse.asp?me...) emerged on the site.Evil experimentsWe saw Bill Gates emerge as a global population control zealot, even funding new technology to destroy sperm (http://www.naturalnews.com/028853_u...) and another project to vaccinate people without their knowledge, using covert technology (http://www.naturalnews.com/028887_v...). Later in the year, Gates was actually caught on video calling for a reduction in world population through the use of vaccines (http://www.naturalnews.com/029911_v...).Meanwhile, the United States was caught red-handed in conducting medical experiments on Guatemalan prisoners (http://www.naturalnews.com/029924_m...). Obama actually had to pick up the phone and apologize for this embarrassing bit of history that shows how governments always use innocents as guinea pigs to test their drugs.What a year, huh?In addition to everything mentioned above, 2010 also saw the release of a huge number of studies supporting the healing use of herbs and natural remedies.Still, 2010 was mostly a year of expanded censorship, attacks on health freedom and expansions of government tyranny.Fortunately for us all, 2011 - 2012 look to be far more positive in terms of people waking up and contributing to global changes in consciousness that will ultimately end this era of censorship and ignorance (see my upcoming article on 2011 predictions for details).




Document Number: 4904 
Public outcry is working to stop GMOs
(NaturalNews) The fight against genetic modification (GM) seems like a never-ending, uphill battle. But Lord Melchett, former director of Greenpeace and current policy director at the Soil Association, says that, despite what the biotechnology giants would have you believe, most nations of the world are rejecting GMs and thus preventing their takeover of the planet."[M]any people in Europe may be unaware of the extent of the resistance to GM in places like India and China, because they swallow the GM industry line that it is supported all across the world," he was cited as saying in The Independent. "I have to say that where we are now with GM leaves me feeling very optimistic."A quick visit to the website of GM-giant Monsanto, for instance, indicates that what Melchett says is true. Fancy, deceptive marketing and design tactics would have you believe that the world is lovingly embracing the alleged wonders of GM crops, but this is hardly the case. In fact, the only reason GMs even have any foothold at all is because, in some countries, they have been deceitfully approved beneath the radar of the general public.But as the general public has begun to learn more about GMs -- and the fact that they are dishonestly hidden and unlabeled in the U.S. food supply -- things are beginning to change. In recent years, several new GM crops have been defeated due to public opposition."America is where we're told GM is a huge success...but it's simply not true," said Melchett at the recent Sustainable Planet forum in Lyon, France. "If anybody tells you this, ask them, where is GM wheat? Monsanto had it ready to go but it was stopped by American farmers. Ask them, where is the GM version of alfalfa, the fourth most commonly grown crop in the world? American farmers went to court to stop it being commercialized."Continued efforts are needed to stop GM crops from gaining any further ground, and with enough dedication, the outspoken public may even help reverse the tide.Sources for this story include:http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...




Document Number: 9150 
Codex Continues to Assume GMO Labeling Would Confuse Ignorant Consumers
(NaturalNews) At the latest Codex Commission on Food Labeling (CCFL) meeting held in Calgary, Canada in May, the US and its allies continued to push for the case that food created through the use of genetic modification (GM) needs no labeling. Despite the fact that 90 percent of Americans, Africans and Europeans want genetically modified organisms (GMOs) labeled, the large multinational food corporations realize that profits come before health and believe that "GM/GE foods are in no way different from other foods simply due to their method of production". The representatives from the 49th Parallel International NonGovernmental Organizations (INGOs) countered that argument by stating, "If, as the United States has claimed, there is no difference between GM foods and non-GM food, then why do companies rush to the Patent Office to patent their special GM food?"This contentious issue has been hotly debated for the past 19 years at Codex with no chance for agreement as the entire EU, Brazil, all African countries and Saint Lucia demanded that GMOs be labeled so consumers are able to make an informed choice. The US amazingly submitted a document detailing how labeling GMOs would in fact be in violation of Codex regulations which states, "food shall not be described or presented in a manner that is false, misleading or deceptive, or is likely to create an erroneous impression regarding its character in any respect". The National Health Federation (NHF) challenged the US and stated that consumers want GMOs to be labeled and the only way GMOs would ever be sold is if consumers remain ignorant of what they are consuming. The multinational representatives of Codex simply believe that consumers would be too confused if GMOs were properly labeled. After some cantankerous infighting amongst representatives regarding the wording of the Draft Recommendation of GM-food labeling a stalemate emerged.After an acrimonious debate, Chairman Paul Mayers intervened and declared that this issue will not be solved at this meeting and proposed a three-year reprieve from GM-food labeling. The intense pressure from the delegations of Kenya, Denmark and the EU caused the chairman to drop the idea of scrapping the GMO labeling issue for the next three sessions. The session once again ended with the chairman stating the importance of this issue and asked that the progress be continued at next years CCFL meeting to be held in Quebec City, Canada.The labeling issue remains a contentious one and seems to revolve around the fact that countries who put profits ahead of health do not want any liability when the health effects (e.g., Morgellons Disease, increased allergies, cell death, liver, kidney and fertility problems) begin to be inextricably and causally linked to the long term consumption of toxic GMOs. Codex representatives are not elected by the people and therefore in no way do they represent the views of the majority; they are appointed bureaucrats by the large multinational industries of the western world as a means of securing future profits at the expense of the health of future generations. If you want to help oppose Codex please take a few minutes to sign a petition asking for Congressional oversight on the Trilateral Cooperation Charter (TCC) which has linked the Health Products and Food Branch, in Canada; the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in the United States; and the Federal Commission for the Protection from Sanitary Risks, Secretaria de Salud, in Mexico. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/5/co...The TCC is attempting to force the US into a North American Union thereby ushering in Codex Alimentarius guidelines. You can also send a message to your congressperson about TCC using the link below.http://www.usalone.com/cgi-bin/peti...ReferencesNational Health Federation Press Release, May 6, 2009. Codex Committee Continues Work on GM Labeling. Online: http://www.thenhf.com/press_release...Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme Codex Alimentarius Commission. Report of the Thirty-Seventh Session Codex Committee on Food Labelling. Calgary, Canada, 4-8 May 2009. Online: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Alinorm09/al32_22e.pdfAbout the authorDr. Gregory Damato enjoys a raw vegan lifestyle and is the editor of www.wellnessuncovered.com which publishes the latest health and wellness news and information. The site attempts to facilitate in the expansion of human consciousness through unlocking our innate wisdom. 




Document Number: 1170 
How to Fight Back Against Genetically Modified Foods
(NaturalNews) With genetically modified (GM) foods dominating the United States' corn and soybean crop today, Monsanto - the company most responsible for GM foods - has also dominated most of South Africa`s seed crops as well. As reported by Barbara Minton here at Natural News in April, a huge crop failure there is directly attributed to this lack of seed diversity. So how do Americans, and people world wide, fight back against this takeover of food sources by GM foods? To answer that, the GMOs themselves as well as the way the company who makes them operates should be understood. That will show how real, grassroots, actions that everyone can participate in will work to stop this monopolization of the world's food.How GM Foods and GMO WorksThe most common modification that Monsanto makes to seeds is to create HT-ready crops ("herbicide tolerant" crops). These are crops that are able to withstand Monsanto`s other product, RoundUp, to a strong degree. This increases crop yield by allowing the farmer to spray liberally with the RoundUp herbicide to kill weeds and some parasites.The problem? Well, obviously, all that spraying can`t be good for anybody. It also is severely destroying seed diversity in the agricultural markets - over 90% of American soybean crops are now genetically modified organisms (GMO). About 70% of our corn crops are also GMOs.1Now that Monsanto has a virtual monopoly on those seeds, they`ve announced that they`re raising seed prices by up to 42%, as reported in Bloomberg on August 13.2Further, as Ethan Huff pointed out in his article here at Natural News, there is plenty of reason to question the health problems associated with GM crops.Currently, Monsanto is working to corner the market on GMO wheat crops in the U.S. If their progress there is anything like it`s been with corn and soy, they could hold 70% or more of the seed market within fifteen years.Most of the reasons for not liking GMO crops have been outlined already, but for more information, you can check the Natural News archives on GMOs here.Monsanto`s gangster tactics can be seen in the documentary movie The World According to Monsanto by Twilight Earth.3 This is how they`ve gained their monopoly.Fighting Back Against Monsanto and GM CropsFirst and foremost, stop financially supporting Monsanto as much as possible. This means scouting out and avoiding GMO foods on the grocery store shelf, not buying Monsanto`s products, and more. As Shelly Roche of Bytestyle.tv says, "Vote With Your Fork!"Shelly has a Roundup Challenge in which we the people can fight back by not purchasing Monsanto`s number one consumer product, RoundUp. You can find out more about that here. She also has a short list of ways to identify GMO foods in the grocery store so you can avoid purchasing them.The Institute for Responsible Technology has a No GMO Challenge you can participate in right now as well as a convenient 9-page guide you can download or order in print for helping identify GMO foods and food sources in products.Finally, both of the current "Food Safety Act" bills in Congress are extremely GM-friendly and should be opposed for that and many other reasons. They`ve been covered well by Ethan Huff here at Natural News: Food Safety Health - Food Safety FreedomThese are the easiest ways you can participate in fighting back against GMOs. Spread the information about GMOs to as many people as you can and participate in local food markets and other sources of non-corporate food production.Working together, everyone in the world, not just Americans, can fight to keep food and nutritional choices in our own hands and not at the mercy of bureaucrats and Big Agra.Footnotes and Resources:1 - Huffington Post: Racings Towards a Roundup-Ready Food Future: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nancy...2 - Bloomberg: Monsanto to Charge as Much as 42% More for New Seeds: http://www.naturalnews.com/GMOs.html3 - Twilight Earth: The World According to Monsanto: http://www.twilightearth.com/2009/0...4 - Video: Are you eating Genetically Modified foods (GMOs) Without Knowing It? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oriq...About the authorAaron Turpen is a professional writer living in Wyoming in the USA.  His blogs cover organic/sustainable living and environmental considerations (AaronsEnvironMental.com) and the science debunking mainstream medical and proving alternatives (HiddenHealthScience.com).




Document Number: 3333 
GE salmon? Are you out of your minds?
(NaturalNews) Has the FDA gone completely mad? Why are they trying to open the flood gates to genetically engineered (GE) salmon -- a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government? What&rsquo;s it going to take for them to actually start protecting public health? The FDA is reviewing data submitted by AquaBounty, the company that spliced a growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon, forcing it to grow up to five times faster and reach market size in about 18 months instead of 3 years. But according to the evidence, their buff salmon might have higher levels of a cancer promoting hormone IGF-1 (http://www.consumersunion.org/pdf/C...), more antibiotics, and more of a potentially life-threatening allergen(s).The FDA failed to learn their lesson with their idiotic approval of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. It also has higher levels of IGF-1 and more antibiotics. Now it&rsquo;s condemned by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, banned in most other countries, and has been banished by most US dairies. Even Wal-Mart won&rsquo;t allow the stuff into their milk.The GE soy and corn on the market, which the FDA continues to pretend is just the same as the natural stuff, also has higher levels of allergens, and has been linked to numerous disorders. Now the American Academy of Environmental Medicine condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and urged all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets. &ldquo;GMO-Free&rdquo; is one of the fastest growing health claims among US brands for the past two years, and a tipping point of consumer rejection of all GE ingredients appears to be just over the horizon.Then there is the threat of Frankenfish escaping into the wild. Here too, the FDA ignores the lessons from GE crops which, in spite of early assurances to the contrary, have been contaminating non-GE crops and wild relatives all over the world for more than a decade. Their self-propagating genetic pollution is irreversible; it can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. But somehow escaped GE salmon carry an even greater hazard.Frankenfish can wipe out natural salmonAccording to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 Frankenfish (not salmon) into a population of 60,000, there was a shocking complete extinction in just 40 fish generations. Apparently their bigger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination.Canadian scientists engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish. When there was sufficient food, all was fine. When food stocks decreased, the Frankenfish freaked. They became cannibals, attacking and killing other fish -- whether GE or natural. Their unexpected behavior resulted in population crashes or complete extinctions in the fish tanks. The study also suggested that if released, these ravenous aggressive salmon would pursue and consume other types of fish.I&rsquo;m not sure which scenario is worse: The complete extinction of salmon, or gangs of voracious mutant freaks scouring the ocean, attacking anything that can feed their rapidly-expanding, always-hungry bodies. (Heck, let&rsquo;s just give the fish automatic weapons.)Never mind that the GE AquAdvantage salmon are supposed to be grown in inland tanks and are supposed to be sterile. In reality, they won&rsquo;t all be sterile; and there are numerous ways that these salmon, whose eggs will regularly be shipped from Prince Edward Island, Canada to growing tanks in Panama, can escape into the ocean. It only takes one!Corporate interests and politics run the FDA showUS consumers have been clear for years that we don&rsquo;t want Frankenfish (http://documents.foodandwaterwatch....), Frankenpigs, Frankenmosquitoes, Frankenanything that walks, flies, slithers, or swims. And most Americans are now uneasy about the Frankencrops already growing in our fields. So who is clamoring for GE salmon? Who&rsquo;s getting the FDA to push open the doors to GE animals against public opinion?Thank you Union of Concerned Scientists for the answer. Your September 12th survey of 1710 FDA employees (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_in...) explains who is really driving the bus at the agency. One staff member said, &ldquo;Food safety has succumbed to the higher priority of global corporate profits.&rdquo; In fact, 38 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that &ldquo;public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests.&rdquo;Another employee points to political interference: &ldquo;I have been here for 26 years and it still amazes me . . . how politics filter down to the lowest levels of government.&rdquo;So its corporate profits and politics. Anyone surprised? About 1 in 4 surveyed admit that they had personally experienced, either frequently or occasionally, &ldquo;situations where corporate interests [or members of Congress, or special interests] have forced the withdrawal or significant modification of [an agency] policy or action designed to protect consumers or public health.&rdquo;If there is one face that best captures the FDA&rsquo;s conflict-of-humanity&rsquo;s-interest, it would be Michael Taylor. Taylor is the US Food Safety Czar. You&rsquo;d think that if there were significant safety concerns about the GE salmon, our Czar would step in to preserve and protect. Don&rsquo;t count on it.Back when the first Bush White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, the agency created a special position for Taylor to be in charge. He had been the outside attorney for biotech giant Monsanto, where he had dreamed up a regulatory facade that would allow GMOs to be brought to market with maximum speed and minimum oversight. Then he took a position with the FDA where he could apparently implement it himself.His GMO policy falsely claimed that the agency was unaware of information showing GM foods to be different. On that basis, no testing or labeling was required. Years later, 44,000 documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that the consensus among FDA&rsquo;s own scientists was that GM foods were unsafe, and should be carefully tested for allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems.Soon after leaving the FDA, Michael Taylor went to work as Monsanto&rsquo;s vice president.So the person who lied about GMO safety to push them on the market now sits above the folks that are looking at GE Salmon. Not a comforting thought.Stacking the deck for approving salmonHow else does corporate influence play out in the current FDA debacle?Consider Alison L. Van Eenennaam. She too used to work for Monsanto (http://www.grist.org/article/2010-0...), and now has been added as a temporary voting member on the committee that advises the FDA about the salmon. She also advises the USDA and promotes GE animals on Youtube.Kevin G. Wells was also added as a temporary voting member for salmon. He works at Revivicor, a company that genetically engineers pigs. Do you suppose there is any conflict of interest for him establishing an easy ride for GE animal approvals? Perhaps.Gregory Jaffe was also imported into the committee as their supposed consumer advocate. In reality, he is with the pro-GMO Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization that consistently ignores the mounting evidence of adverse health impacts from GE crops. Jaffe even filed a complaint (http://www.cspinet.org/biotech/enfo...) to the FDA in 2001 complaining of companies that label their products as non-GMO. What further qualified Jaffe for his committee position was his published article Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals (http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/miam...), where he touts the environmental benefits of AquAdvantage salmon.The engineered bias of the FDA advisory committee is made even more clear by who is absent. There are no experts on allergies or hormones who can address the possible health damaging effects of the fish, and no fish ecologists who can figure out whether our grandchildren will live in a world without wild salmon. Institutionalized stupidityBut even before the committee was picked, the deck was stacked in favor of approvals. In 2008, the Bush administration rolled out a policy in which GE animals would be approved as if they were animal drugs. This latest square peg is part of a continuing effort to regulate GMOs without asking Congress to pass any new laws. So, since 1992, the government has been jerry-rigging inadequate pre-existing laws to handle the unique and complex safety and environmental considerations of genetically engineered organisms.Even if GE animals weren&rsquo;t infinitely more complex than some drug compound, using the FDA drug approval process shouldn&rsquo;t give us great confidence. Between 1976 and 1985, for example, more than half of their drug approvals turned out to have lethal or serious side effects, forcing withdrawal or added label warnings. Try conducting a recall of GE salmon from the ocean.Failing grades all aroundEven with stacked committee membership, an antiquated approval policy, and an agency that is officially mandated to promote biotechnology, the Frankenfish did not swim past the advisory committee on September 19 and 20. That&rsquo;s because the committee agreed with safety experts like Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union (they publish Consumer Reports) that the evidence presented by AquaBounty was abysmal and insufficient. Using a sample size of only 6 fish, employing insensitive detection methods that could easily miss cancer-promoting hormones or allergens, and testing fish that were raised in a completely different climate than what is planned, were among the sloppy science that the FDA had accepted. (See addendum below for examples.)In fact the only person on the committee who had any experience with fish, Gary Thorgaard, completely disagreed with the FDA&rsquo;s conclusion that the Frankenfish didn&rsquo;t threaten the environment. He called for a full Environmental Impact Statement.Hansen says, &ldquo;The data and analysis of food safety risks from the AquAdvantage Salmon are so sloppy and inadequate that, if this were an undergraduate paper, it would get a failing grade. No self-respecting scientist could conclude that these data demonstrate that AquAdvantage salmon are safe to eat.&rdquo; [Emphasis added.]Thus, in spite of the fact that the company had been submitting data to the FDA for more than ten years, the advisory committee concluded that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that GE salmon was safe for the environment and for human health. They told AquaBounty to go back and to do more testing.I propose a different recommendation. This little exercise made it perfectly clear that AquaBounty is either completely incompetent to evaluate the safety of their own creation, or they&rsquo;re intentionally hiding evidence. In either case, let&rsquo;s not send the same folks back to do more research, hoping they&rsquo;ll get it right. Instead, tell these jokers that they have proved to the world that they are never to be trusted with the future of salmon or the safety of the human food supply.And what about the FDA -- the brain cell behind the Don&rsquo;t-ask-don&rsquo;t-tell food safety assessments? They have again demonstrated that they too are not competent to protect the public from the unique unpredictable dangers of genetically engineered foods.If you want to GE salmon stopped for good, now is the time to raise your voice. Since the FDA has been ignoring US citizens in favor of business interests and politics, please join me in inviting the food industry (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o...) and Congress (http://org2.democracyinaction.org/o...) to stop in and stop this madness. Go to our action alert pages (http://www.responsibletechnology.or...) to sign the petitions today.Addendum: How Not to Do A Food Safety AssessmentThe FDA&rsquo;s evaluation of GE salmon is the first of its kind. Because it will set a precedent for all future GE animal approvals, the bar should be set very high. According to Dr. Michael Hansen, who testified at the FDA advisory committee meeting on behalf of Consumers Union, the FDA set the bar a foot off the ground.When AquaBounty looked for potentially dangerous growth hormones in the salmon, for example, they used a detection method so insensitive, it couldn&rsquo;t find any hormones in any fish. The FDA therefore concluded that there was no relevant difference in hormone levels in GE salmon. Dr. Hansen told the committee, &ldquo;This would be like the police using a radar gun that cannot detect speeds below 120 mph and concluding that there is no &lsquo;relevant difference&rsquo; in the speed of cars versus bicycles.&rdquo;Because the company also used an insensitive test to measure cancer-promoting insulin-like growth hormone factor one (IGF-1), levels were detected in only a few fish. Of these, the GE salmon was 40% higher. Again, insufficient data combined with faulty reasoning allowed the FDA to conclude that IGF-1 from GE salmon is not a problem.Even then, these test results were not from the type of GE salmon that the company plans to market. Instead, the tests were conducted on the GE salmon variety that will produce the fish eggs in Canada. The DNA of these &ldquo;egg-layers&rdquo; have the normal two sets of chromosomes (diploid). The GE salmon to be grown from their eggs in Panama, however, end up with three sets of chromosomes (triploid) -- so that most will be sterile. It&rsquo;s the Panama-grown triploid variety that will go onto our dinner table if the FDA has their way. So what was the response by the FDA and AquaBounty when asked for the IGF-1 levels of the actual fish (raised in the actual conditions) that people would actually eat? &ldquo;Well&hellip;er&hellip;.uhm&hellip;we&rsquo;ll get back to you.&rdquo;Genetically modified allergiesThe situation with allergies is worse. According to Hansen, the tests conducted by AquaBounty confirmed that &ldquo;the act of genetic engineering did lead to an increase in allergenic potency.&rdquo; In fact, when the flesh from egg-laying (diploid) fish was exposed to the blood (sera) of people who are allergic to salmon, there was a whopping 52% increase in reaction levels.Furthermore, the specific allergen that had increased in the Frankenfish was not supposed to be affected. It did not come from the inserted gene. Rather, the increase in this potentially life-threatening allergen was just one of the unpredictable side-effects that can result from the process of genetic engineering itself.The FDA decided this time to ignore this troublesome finding, since it was from the egg-laying diploids. The company did test the allergic reaction to the triploids (the ones we&rsquo;ll eat), but used fish that were raised in Canada, not Panama. This should have disqualified the fish study, according to Hansen, since the composition of GE salmon can obviously be affected by water temperature, and growing conditions. Still, the Canadian raised Frankenfish elicited an allergic response level that was 20% higher than normal salmon. But the FDA dismissed this figure since it was not statistically significant and concluded that the GE salmon was safe to eat. But of course it wasn&rsquo;t statistically significant. They used just six fish in the sample size! The easiest way to prevent statistical significance is by using a pathetically small number of subjects in your experiment. Hansen said:&ldquo;To base a conclusion of no additional risk on exactly six engineered fish, when those data themselves suggest a possible problem, is not responsible science or responsible risk assessment. FDA owes it to the thousands of Americans who are allergic to finfish to demand more data on the allergenicity of these engineered salmon from AquaBounty.&rdquo;Thank you Dr. Hansen for helping to protect us from the bungling Frankenfish promoters. Let&rsquo;s hope they will listen.About the author:Jeffrey M. Smith is the leading consumer advocate promoting healthier non-GMO choices. His book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies about the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods, is the world&rsquo;s #1 and bestselling book on the subject. His Genetic Roulette book documents the health risks of the GM foods already on our plates, and how industry and government assessments are not competent to protect the public. Mr. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology; their Campaign for Healthier Eating is designed to create a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs -- to force them out of the market. See www.ResponsibleTechology.org and www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com[Editor's note: Here's a petition against GE salmon that's getting a lot of traction. You may wish to consider signing it.]http://www.change.org/petitions/vie...




Document Number: 5125 
General Mills cuts sugar content in children's cereals but still uses GMOs
(NaturalNews) Breakfast cereal giant General Mills recently announced plans to slightly cut the sugar content in its children's cereals in accordance with overall pressures on major food producers to fight childhood obesity and its related diseases by making healthier products. However the company continues to use genetically-modified (GM) ingredients in its cereal products, as well as corn syrup, artificial flavors, and artificial colorings -- all of which wreak havoc on health.Jeff Harmening, president of General Mills' Big G cereal division, told Reuters Health in an interview that as of December 31, 2010, all General Mills cereals marketed to children under 12 will contain ten grams of sugar or less per serving, a one-gram drop from the 11 grams per serving they currently contain. And although the company hopes to keep lowering the overall sugar content over time, it says the reductions must take place incrementally in order to keep customers from noticing the changes and switching to other brands.Now, this may sound like a worthy effort on behalf of General Mills, but upon closer look, it becomes obvious that the company's cereals are still loaded with so much other garbage that buying even the reduced-sugar varieties will still threaten your health and the health of your children.General Mills uses highly-refined sugars and GMOsThe types of sugars used in General Mills cereals are highly processed and represent a significant health threat, even at reduced levels. These sugars include refined white sugar, corn syrup, dextrose, and maltodextrin, all of which likely come from GM sources. Most refined white sugar now used in U.S. food products comes from sugar beets, 95 percent of which are now GM. And corn syrup, dextrose, and maltodextrin, all come from corn, for which the vast majority is also GM.Does General Mills have any plans to remove these GMOs from its food products? Hardly. Back in 2000, General Mills shareholders nearly unanimously rejected a proposal petitioning the company to avoid using GMOs in its products until they were proven safe. Not only did the company reject the proposal and decide to use GMOs anyway, but it even rejected GMO labeling proposals that would have given consumers the information they need to make informed food-buying decisions for their children (http://www.foodnavigator.com/Financ...).Research into the effects of GMOs has linked their consumption to sterility, organ damage, birth defects, disruption of healthy intestinal flora, allergies, cancer, and even genetic changes in human DNA (http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html). And these are just the tip of the iceberg, as nobody truly knows the long-term consequences of consuming these "Frankenfoods".General Mills uses artificial food colorings and additives linked to neurological disorders, ADHD, and cancerMany General Mills cereals are loaded with artificial colors like yellow #5, red #40, and blue #1. These petroleum-based coloring chemicals have been linked to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), nervous system disorders, and even cancer (http://www.naturalnews.com/022870_a...).The cereals also contain various artificial flavors and food preservatives like butylhydroxytoluene (BHT), a synthetic chemical preservative linked to allergies, developmental and reproductive toxicity, and cancer (http://www.cosmeticsdatabase.com/in...).General Mills cereals generally contain very little nutritional valueTo be fair, General Mills was one of the first companies to adopt whole grains, switching its entire cereal line to whole grain ingredients back in 2005 (http://www.naturalnews.com/007572_w...). But other than that, practically every other ingredient is some sort of processed or GMO additive that does nothing to provide the body with the nutrients it needs to maintain strength and health. Even the added vitamins and minerals are largely synthetic, so the body gets very little benefit from them.This is not to say that the other mainstream cereal brands are any better. Most of them use the same ingredients. But the point is, most mainstream breakfast cereals -- especially those marketed to children -- contain very unhealthy ingredients, are very highly processed, and provide very little nutritional benefits. In conclusion, General Mills' efforts to make small changes in sugar content are really more of a marketing ploy than an actual concern over improving the nutritional value of its cereals.If General Mills was really concerned about curbing obesity and improving childhood nutrition, it would immediately remove all GMO ingredients from its cereals. It would also cut out the artificial colors, flavors, additives, and preservatives. It would replace the refined sugar with unprocessed sugar from organic sources, and in significantly lower amounts than those currently used. And it might even integrate some truly healthful superfood ingredients as well.So before you run out and buy some General Mills cereal for its reduced sugar content thinking that it will be healthier for your children, you might want to think twice about the myriad of other poisons lurking in every box.Sources for this story include:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...




Document Number: 6695 
Genetically Engineered Crops have Led to Massive Increases in Pesticide Use
(NaturalNews) According to a recent report compiled from U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data, the growing of genetically engineered crops has led to a 383 million pound increase in U.S. pesticide use during the time period spanning from 1996 to 2008. The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) jointly released the report that illustrates the environmental hazards posed by the farming of GMO crops.Since their initial unveiling, GMOs have been touted by the agricultural biotechnology industry as the discovery that will end world hunger and improve the environment. Nothing could be further from the truth. Among their many other negative consequences, "herbicide-tolerant" (HT) GMO crops have resulted in new herbicide-resistant weeds that are sprouting up in farmers' fields. When farmers respond by increasing pesticide use, ever-stronger "superweeds" continue to appear.GMO seeds are significantly more expensive than natural seeds and have been continuing to climb in price over the years. Big AgriBio defends the higher costs by suggesting the farmer benefit from not having to use as much pesticide on GMO crops. The reality is that farmers are using much more pesticide in order to fight superweeds.Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's RoundUp herbicide, is no longer effective at treating the weeds that result from the planting of "RoundUp-ready" crops. Thus millions of acres of farmland are now plagued by superweeds that are destroying the environment, ruining crops, and ultimately ruining farmers' businesses.All industry promises of increased yields, decreased pesticide use, and cures for world hunger have proven to be entirely bogus. Not one claim made by the biotechnology industry concerning the benefits of GMOs has proven true. Independent scientific reports continue to show that industry assertions in favor of GMOs are patently false.Pesticide residue in foods that contain GMO ingredients is also significant. Such pesticides are linked to reproductive abnormalities, neurological disorders, birth defects, and other bodily harm. GMOs themselves are also implicated in a host of bodily disorders including digestive problems and the perpetuation of GMO fragments in the body. No long-term studies have ever verified the safety of GMOs and most independent research proves them to be dangerous in a number of different ways.Americans must step up and demand mandatory labeling of products that contain GMO ingredients. If more people realized the extent to which GMOs have contaminated the food supply, the demand for GMO-free foods would greatly increase. Growers, producers, and retailers would surely take notice and the market would correct the problem by providing wholesome, organic options that are free of toxic GMO contaminants. Transparency in labeling would do much to curb the use of GMOs.Sources:Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Thirteen Years - The Cornucopia InstituteFailure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops - Union of Concerned ScientistsPesticide Resistant Weeds Could Be Problem - The Epoch TimesAbout the authorEthan Huff is a freelance writer and health enthusiast who loves exploring the vast world of natural foods and health, digging deep to get to the truth. He runs an online health publication of his own at http://wholesomeherald.blogspot.com.




Document Number: 5150 
Judge Rules GMOs Violate Environmental Law
(NaturalNews) For those of us wondering how bad the untested genetically modified food experiment is going to get before it gets any better, a ray of hope was just offered. A San Francisco judge, the very honorable, Judge Jeffrey White just ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture`s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service violated environmental law because of inadequate environmental testing of genetically modified sugar beets. He ruled that the agency failed to see if the genetically altered beets would eventually share their funky pesticide proof genes with other crops. Judge White noted that pollen from sugar beets can be blown long distances and pollinate other crops, including table beets and chard.White wrote, "The potential elimination of farmers` choice to grow nongenetically engineered crops, or consumers` choice to eat nongenetically engineered food ... has a significant effect on the human environment."The judge ordered the federal agency to produce an environmental impact statement after taking a hard look at the issue. A lesser look by the agency found that the sharing of genetically altered pollen was no cause for concern.This is the second blow for Monsanto and according the Associated Press, a "similar ruling in 2007 forced a ban on planting Roundup Ready alfalfa until a re-examination was done." That environmental impact statement has yet to be completed, so it effectively halted the growth and sale of GMO alfalfa.About half of the sugar beets used in the United States are currently Monsanto`s genetically modified variety and the judge didn`t rule about the harvest of the current crop.If you haven`t been already, it`s wise to avoid sugar for a while to make sure you`re not consuming genetically modified sugar beets.Genetically modified foods have been linked to smaller, less developed brains, livers and testicles. GMOs have been found to enlarge other tissues, including the pancreas and intestines. They`ve been known to atrophy the liver, while causing structural changes in the stomach and intestines. GMOs have additionally been linked to infertility and allergies. Here`s more: http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdf.All of the health problems associated with consuming genetically modified foods made the news in Europe years ago, when genetically modified crops were new. The citizens of Europe rebelled, which is why genetically altered foods are currently banned, or mostly labeled, in Europe.In the U.S., the news wasn`t covered by mainstream outlets. As a consequence genetically modified foods are not labeled and consumers remain largely unaware. Genetically modified ingredients are available in the large majority of processed foods, and in the U.S. it`s actually illegal for manufacturers to label GMO products, as GMO products.U.S. officials have been cited as saying that such labeling would "confuse consumers," and it`s widely known that the large majority of consumers don`t want to eat genetically modified foods. Their logic has been: if consumers knew which foods were genetically modified, they would avoid them and thereby make the wrong choice. The official said to have explained the government's logic at an international Codex meeting later denied doing so.Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups brought the lawsuit. According to Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff, on Oct. 30 they will ask the judge for an injunction to ban new plantings until the environmental impact statement is complete.An American Sugar Beet Growers Association spokesman said the association is going to fight for the right to grow genetically modified sugar beets. It wasn`t disclosed if, or how much, funding the association receives from Monsanto.Genetically modified sugar beets are currently grown in eleven states and on 1.1 million acres.More:Seeds of Deception, Jeffery M. Smithhttp://finance.yahoo.com/news/Judge...http://www.saynotogmos.org/paper.pdfhttp://www.saynotogmos.org/ud2007/u...http://www.naturalnews.com/026622_C...About the authorKim Evans is an author, photographer, and natural health writer. Her book, Cleaning Up! The Ultimate Body Cleanse, outlines deep and powerful at-home detoxification methods to address the root cause of most health problems. While its becoming common knowledge that most people carry an extreme toxic burden and that these toxins can cause any disease imaginable, most people dont know that there is a direct connection between our spiritual reality and the state of our bodies. Actually, these are all of the clean/unclean references in the Bible that no one really knows what they are referring to.Its funny, but it turns out that Cleaning Up! may be a Biblical and Nostradamus prophecy too. In Nostradamus Lost Book, he gave us seven images pointing to the time leading to 2012 and if one looks closely at the images, one will see that all hes doing is drawing the Revelation prophecy &ndash; which is of a book (or scroll) that is delivered that leads humankind to the light. The truly entertaining part is that in Nostradamus image &ndash; he drew someone who looks just like Kim writing the book, and then, albeit cryptically, stuck her first and middle name in the image too. You can see Kims profile and this image here: http://www.cleaningupcleanse.com/no...Cleaning Up! has recently been updated &ndash; and the author believes that the seven seals in the Revelation prophecy are methods in her book. Since the Bible states that all humans will be judged by in the book in the prophecy, maybe you want to get your copy today? Cleaning Up! also explains Nostradamus seven end of time images &ndash; and on December 21, 2012, the entire Revelation prophecy will be publically revealed. Learn more at www.cleaningupcleanse.com. 




Document Number: 7885 
GMO lies: Deliberate misuse of the term "genetically modified" designed to mislead people
(NaturalNews) It's one of the most common false arguments of GMO pushers: There's nothing to be worried about with genetically modified foods, they argue, because almost everything is genetically modified, they claim. What they're referring to is the genetic selection used in the long, slow development of many crops such as wheat, which originally began as a grass but was shaped generation after generation through the selection of larger seeds, ultimately leading to modern-day wheat.This stands in stark contrast to genetic engineering, which is the artificial inserting of genetic code (often from animal species, by the way) into the DNA of a plant. This is a completely artificial, interventionist "engineering" of the DNA of a plant that wildly differs from mere genetic "selection."GMO poison pushers attempt to confuse people with these terms by claiming that "lots of foods are genetically modified," thereby blurring the distinction between genetic selection versus genetic engineering. I've even heard top-level scientists attempt to use this false argument, hoping that no one will notice.The simple truth is that genetic selection works in harmony with natural processes of gene variation within a species. If you grow corn, and you save the seeds from your best-tasting corn to plant the next generation of corn, you are engaged in genetic selection. This is natural.But the GMO industry doesn't even want you to be able to save your seeds from one generation to the next. They use "terminator" technology in the seeds to ensure that the second generation of seeds is non-viable. That alone is a crime against humanity because it forces a seed monopoly upon farmers and consumers in developing nations and first-world nations. This is why any individual or organization that is in favor of seed-termination technology in GMOs is supporting a crime against nature.As usual, the powerful corporations pushing GMOs are attempting to blatantly confuse consumers (and journalists) over the difference between genetic selection versus genetic engineering. None of the biotech GMOs are created through selection processes along. They all are based on artificial genetic engineering.10 facts you need to know about GMOs:&bull; GMOs are created through artificial genetic engineering of plant DNA, usually through inserting animal genes into plants.&bull; Genetic "selection," in contrast, is a natural process whereby people plant seeds, generation after generation, from their crops that demonstrate desirable characteristics. This is how wheat, corn and other crops were developed over centuries of seed selection.&bull; The GMO industry uses seed terminator technology to forbid seed saving and planting, thereby forcing farmers to buy seeds year after year (creating a seed monopoly and a single point of control for food).&bull; People who promote GMOs are engaged in crimes against humanity and crimes against nature. They promote dangerous technologies that threaten the future of life on earth by causing genetic pollution and a sharp loss of seed diversity.&bull; GMOs have been linked to at least 200,000 suicides in India over the past decade due to failed crops (http://www.naturalnews.com/030913_M...).&bull; The GMO industry has financially taken over much of the mainstream media, politicians and science journals (http://www.naturalnews.com/031093_u...). They will not stop until they achieve complete control over the world food supply, enslaving humanity in a food monopoly.&bull; GMOs cause "genetic pollution" that damage other crops and ultimately threaten the reproductive viability of crops in the long term. The future of food is jeopardized by GMOs.&bull; The GMO industry is now attempting to brand all opponents of GMOs as "unscientific" by claiming that GMO = science, and therefore anyone who opposes GMOs is automatically an opponent of science (http://www.naturalnews.com/031093_u...).&bull; The GMO push into Europe is a confirmed conspiracy involving U.S. officials and GMO corporations, as revealed in a Wikileaks cable that the mainstream media has still refused to report (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...).&bull; The next great food famine (and mass starvation) will undoubtedly be caused by GMOs. And yet the industry claims that GMOs will save the planet from starvation! Only in a crooked, corrupt world could an industry claim to be saving the world while actually enslaving the world.Watch NaturalNews editor Mike Adams rap about GMOs in the hit song, "Just Say No to GMOs"http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B459F...Visit www.NaturalNews.com/NoGMO to learn more.Stay informed about GMOswww.ResponsibleTechnology.orgwww.GMwatch.orgwww.NonGMOproject.orgShare this story to spread the word about GMOs. Many people have been fooled by Biotech propaganda and they remain unaware of the true health and environmental hazards of genetically engineered foods.




Document Number: 6749 
The future of food: Why GM crops threaten the sustainability of the human race (opinion)
(NaturalNews) Corporations like Monsanto are playing God with the food supply. Did you ever wonder what happens when all the genetically modified, pesticide-compatible, gene-terminated, laboratory-concocted Frankenfoods end up genetically contaminating the natural crops we depend on for a sustainable food future? In a new CounterThink cartoon published today, I explore this important concept by showing the plight of a farmer fretting over an empty bag of seedless watermelon seeds.




Document Number: 9771 
Germany bans cultivation of GM corn
(NaturalNews) The German government has banned the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) corn, calling it "a danger to the environment."The cultivation of all other GM crops is already banned in Germany. The variety in question, known as MON 810, produces a pesticide inside its tissues to repel insects such as larvae of the corn borer moth. Such corn is also known as Bt corn, after the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium that the toxin-producing genes come from.MON 810 was approved for cultivation by the European Union in 1998, but E.U. law allows individual countries to impose their own bans. Such bans have since been implemented by Austria, France, Greece, Hungary and Luxemburg. According to German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner, Germany will now join their ranks.The move was welcomed by environmental groups Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth Germany. Greenpeace spokesperson Stephanie Towe said that the decision is based on solid scientific evidence of environmental harm and should have been made long ago.Critics say that GM crops can damage wildlife, spread their genetic material to wild relatives, and produce health problems in humans."As an example, it is now being discovered that pollen from genetically modified corn  can kill monarch butterflies," writes Ron Garner in his book Conscious Health."There is long-term concern that pollen from bio-engineered crops will spread and kill beneficial insects as well as create strains of superweeds that are totally-resistant to pesticides," he writes. "Genetic engineering is changing the composition of foods, and most North American consumers are uninformed on the issue."Biotechnology giant Monsanto, manufacturer of MON 810, condemned the new ban and said it is investigating the possibility of a lawsuit. Analysts warned that the environment ministry may have trouble proving to a court's satisfaction that the crop is harmful, potentially subjecting the government to millions of dollars in fines.Sources for this story include: http://www.spiegel.de/international....




Document Number: 3356 
Fight Back against the GMO Assault on Our Immune Systems (Opinion)
(NaturalNews) With Michael Taylor ensconced in the White House as the Food Safety Czar, we have the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. Monsanto Mike was a lead attorney, VP, and chief lobbyist for Monsanto. In the 1990s, he manipulated the FDA and the legal system to make sure genetically modified bovine growth hormones (rbGH) made it to market while financially destroying small dairy farmers who dared label their milk rbGH free.Japan, Canada and some European countries have banned a few of Monsanto's products, while the USA remains an open market for GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). This is due largely to Monsanto Mike's efforts, which includes successfully lobbying against labeling requirements for GMOs.An Uphill BattleSo the playing field for ensuring real food safety is to eliminate the scourge of GMOs as crop, animal, and human genetic contaminants are tilted in the biotechnology industry's favor. The threat of GMO crops contaminating non-GMO crops is very real. It's going to take a lot to level the playing field and tilt it the other way.Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, advocates consumer education and boycotting. He claims there have been positive results from this strategy with bovine growth hormone laced milks disappearing from major market shelves. Too bad most of the harassed small dairy farmers aren't getting some payback from Monsanto.Then there is the Organic Consumers Association, which has created a "Millions Against Monsanto" page on their site. When it comes to education, there are two excellent free documentaries available on line through the sources section below.So activists have taken up the fight and become insurgents against the food chain tyranny big business and big government (aka fascism) have foisted over everyone. The food chain is being endangered permanently and decisively. And with that - the future of most living creatures!Non-GMO Activism Needs YouIt's going to take education and mass boycotting to put a halt to this hijacking of the food chain. Writing mostly corrupt congress persons isn't going to do it. Neither will petitions to the White House, which Monsanto Mike Taylor inhabits with the person who selected him, Barack Obama.Just in case you haven't taken the GMO issue seriously enough to want to do something about it, here's some information from independent scientific studies (sources below) that is merely the tip of GMOs' health harm iceberg. The basic premise of food genetic engineering was proven to be false by the Human Genome Project. But never mind the facts, the funding was there and the "research" continued.Biotechnology scientists isolated a virus that demonstrated a tremendous capacity for promoting transgenics between species. This was the cauliflower mosaic virus, or CaMV 35S. It was selected as an agent to promote gene swapping for virtually all agricultural genetic engineering. The biotechnology scientists assumed that this virus would be denatured in the digestive system. Wrong!It turns out this CaMV 35S transgenic promoting agent keeps on promoting in the digestive system. So what gets genetically manipulated in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract? The friendly bacteria that comprises anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of our immune system! This invasion is a direct assault on our immune systems.From West Ontario Professor Emeritus Dr. Joseph Cummins: "It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus [CaMV 35S] is a potentially dangerous gene."Get involved before it's too late. Educate yourself, pass the word, buy organic and boycott GMOs.Sources for more information:Access to Responsible Technology Non-GMO Food Listhttp://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...Jeffrey Smith's Non-GMO Activist sitehttp://www.responsibletechnology.or...Article on Michael Taylor's appointment as Food Czar with his backgroundhttp://blogs.healthfreedomalliance....Organic Consumers Association (interview of a whistle blowing scientist)http://www.organicconsumers.org/art...UK Scientific Journal report on GMOshttp://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSE...The Corporation (video documentary)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8...The World According to Monsanto (video documentary) A must viewhttp://www.youtube.com/resultssearc...About the authorPaul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com




Document Number: 3774 
It's already too late to shut the door on GM foods
(NaturalNews) A report from the British Royal Society has been released that urges support for genetically-modified foods by the British public in order to address what it deems the world's growing demand for food. The report also reveals the disturbing reality about just how far genetically-modified (GM) foods have already penetrated the food supply in England, despite widespread public rejection of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) roughly a decade ago.Over the years, Brits have been led to believe that their diets are GMO-free. Truth be told, nearly two-thirds of the roughly 2.6 million tons of soy that is imported into the United Kingdom each and every year is GM and most people there are entirely unaware of it.Though used primarily for animal feed, GM soy has been making its way into the British food supply for years due to the fact that manufacturers and retailers are not properly tracking the source of their soy, allowing GM soy to make its way into the human food chain. GM soybean oil, for example, is now being heavily used by catering companies in preparing food.GM foods found in "GMO-free" productsFurther disturbing is the fact that although British products that contain GM ingredients must be labeled as such, GM ingredients are being found in all kinds of products labeled "GMO-free". Many varieties of GM soy are being found in food as well, despite the government's approval of only Monsanto's RoundUp Ready soy.GMOs of any kind have been shown to be harmful and, whenever presented to the public as a viable alternative to the "food crisis", they are uniformly rejected. Nevertheless, many officials and regulators continue to wage support for artificial food that is verifiably dangerous to human health, claiming it is going to make its way into food anyway and that there is no way to control contamination.The goal of the Royal Society report is to garner support for a practice that is already taking place against the will of the people, an effort that is designed to indoctrinate the public into wholehearted endorsement for GMOs in the food supply in order to solve the problems of world hunger.Officials, representatives, and groups opposed to GMOs continue to lobby against such a hypothesis, claiming that GMOs serve no legitimate purpose in alleviating world hunger. They aim to convey the powerful truth that global hunger is actually caused by the likes of GMO companies like Monsanto who continue to gain increasing power over the world's food supply.Data reveals that roughly 82 percent of the global seed market has intellectual property rights attached to it, meaning the seeds have been patented and are owned by one of a handful of AgroScience companies. Additionally, six companies &ndash; Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Bayer, BASF, and Dow &ndash; control about 75 percent of the global agrochemical market.John Fagan, chief scientist of food certification company Cert-ID, believes that government hype over a perceived inability to control GM contamination is contrived. Noting his company's status as the leading certifier of non-GMO soy imported from Brazil, he emphasizes that managing ingredient supply chains is perfectly attainable. To claim otherwise, he says, is "nonsense".Opposition against efforts to standardize GMOs continues to mount, yet many now realize that GMOs have so severely penetrated the food chain that it may be next to impossible to identify where they are hiding.Sources for this story includehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...http://blogs.sciencemag.org/science...http://royalsociety.org/document.as...




Document Number: 3446 
Urgent: Vote NO against GMOs in this significant online survey
(NaturalNews) A poll currently underway over at The Economist is asking people whether or not they believe biotechnology -- which refers to the use of genetic engineering in agriculture -- is compatible with sustainable agriculture. To cut to the chase, NaturalNews is petitioning all readers to drum up a resounding NO to the poll statement that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are compatible with sustainable agriculture, and you can do this by going to the poll site immediately and voting against it.You will find the full statement and poll voting page here:http://preview-debates.economist.co...The statement reads, "This house believes that biotechnology and sustainable agriculture are complementary, not contradictory."If you have followed the news here concerning GMOs, you probably already know that GMOs tend to cross-contaminate nearby conventional and organic crops (http://www.naturalnews.com/029869_G...). GMOs have also brought about "superweeds" that are resistant to pesticides and herbicides (http://www.naturalnews.com/027642_g...).Studies have also shown that GMOs are harmful to health because the body does not recognize them the same way it does natural food. Earlier in the year, one study found that GMO corn causes organ damage in mammals (http://www.naturalnews.com/027931_G...). And various other studies have linked GMOs to rapid aging, infertility, immune disorders, gastrointestinal dysfunction, insulin regulation problems, and other diseases (http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_G...). And the list goes on and on.Chuck Benbrook, Chief Scientist at the Organic Center, is strongly opposed to the idea that biotechnology and sustainability are capable of co-mingling. He has provided his own statement at the poll page against the statement. And he needs your support in voting NO against the motion, which is presented and sponsored by biotechnology giant BASF, by the way.It only takes a second to click the 'NO' button over at The Economist, and you don't have to enter your name, address, or any other information. But there's only a few more hours left to get your vote in, so you must act quickly.To vote, visit: http://preview-debates.economist.co.... Once there, you will see the question, "Do you agree with the motion?" All you have to do is click the purple "Vote No" box, and that's it. Your vote will contribute to the growing body of evidence against GMOs because the media will definitely pay attention to the outcome of this survey.http://preview-debates.economist.co...




Document Number: 7365 
You too can take a big stand against GMOs
(NaturalNews) A growing number of people are understanding the incredible dangers of GMO foods and are consciously avoiding them. Many people also wish there was more they could do to put an end to this genetically manipulative and destructive food experiment. Fortunately, there is...As it turns out, many people running restaurants and delis right in your town are incredibly ill-informed about GMOs. In fact, if you go into many of these places and ask if the corn or canola oil they use is organic or GMO, more often than not, you'll be met with a blank look instead of an informed answer. Often, they'll tell you they've never been asked this question before.So, what can you do? Pick five or ten restaurants or delis in your area and go in and ask to speak to the manager. If there's a corporate office, make sure you get the number and the right person to speak to. Then, when you have the right person in front of you or on the phone, ask if the corn, canola oil, soybean oil, miso, corn chips and other common GMO items they use are organic or GMO. More often than not, they'll be conventionally grown, which means they are more than likely genetically modified.Now, you'll probably need to do some education about what genetically modified foods are. A key point is that it's been proven that some genetically modified genes can and do transfer into our healthy bacteria - and some common GM genes are designed to end reproductive ability and produce pesticides continuously. Then, nicely ask them how they would feel about being part of a largely untested experiment that likely transfers scientifically derived genes - including genes that continually produce pesticides and end reproductive ability - into their community? Let them know that, unfortunately, that's what they're doing by using GMO foods in their establishment.Be sure they understand that all of the foods they use don't need to be organic (although that would be nice), but avoiding the main GMO foods are essential. The main GMO foods are soy, corn, canola, cotton (cottonseed oil), sugar beets (which are made into sugar), Hawaiian papaya and all products derived from them, like soy sauce, tofu, and canola oil. Other GMO crops are zucchini, yellow squash, and soon likely salmon and rice from China.When they switch these common GMO ingredients over to organic, encourage them to state on their menu or ingredient lists that these foods are organic and non-GMO; this way a growing number of people who consciously avoid GMOs won't continue to avoid their establishments.If you have like-minded friends, ask them to take part too. And if you're not getting the response you want from key establishments, have your friends contact them a week or two later as well. Sometimes hearing about these things from a few customers can be far more effective than hearing about it from just one. If you're on a roll, you can obviously do more than five or ten restaurants or delis. Imagine the satisfaction you'll feel from protecting your community and taking a big stand to get GMOs out of the food supply.Jeffery Smith, the leading advocate against GMOs, tells us that if only 5 percent of consumers reject GMOs, it may be enough to get them out of our food supply - permanently. By switching over the buying habits of big consumers like restaurants and delis, it'll be much easier to achieve.If you need some materials and talking points to study or take with you, see the resources below...More:http://www.responsibletechnology.or...http://www.responsibletechnology.or...http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...http://www.responsibletechnology.or...http://www.responsibletechnology.or...http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Pub...Study - GMO soy changes our healthy bacteria:http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v...About the authorKim Evans is an author, photographer, and natural health writer. Her book, Cleaning Up! The Ultimate Body Cleanse, outlines deep and powerful at-home detoxification methods to address the root cause of most health problems. While its becoming common knowledge that most people carry an extreme toxic burden and that these toxins can cause any disease imaginable, most people dont know that there is a direct connection between our spiritual reality and the state of our bodies. Actually, these are all of the clean/unclean references in the Bible that no one really knows what they are referring to.Its funny, but it turns out that Cleaning Up! may be a Biblical and Nostradamus prophecy too. In Nostradamus Lost Book, he gave us seven images pointing to the time leading to 2012 and if one looks closely at the images, one will see that all hes doing is drawing the Revelation prophecy &ndash; which is of a book (or scroll) that is delivered that leads humankind to the light. The truly entertaining part is that in Nostradamus image &ndash; he drew someone who looks just like Kim writing the book, and then, albeit cryptically, stuck her first and middle name in the image too. You can see Kims profile and this image here: http://www.cleaningupcleanse.com/no...Cleaning Up! has recently been updated &ndash; and the author believes that the seven seals in the Revelation prophecy are methods in her book. Since the Bible states that all humans will be judged by in the book in the prophecy, maybe you want to get your copy today? Cleaning Up! also explains Nostradamus seven end of time images &ndash; and on December 21, 2012, the entire Revelation prophecy will be publically revealed. Learn more at www.cleaningupcleanse.com. 




Document Number: 6748 
US opposes honest labeling of GMO foods
(NaturalNews) The official U.S. position on genetically-modified organisms, also known as GMs or GMOs, is that there is no difference between them and natural organisms. Crafted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the position set forth to the Codex Alimentarius Committee on the issue goes even further to suggest that no country should be able to require mandatory GMO labeling on food items, even though science shows that GMOs act differently in the body than do natural organisms and are a threat to health.A group of over 80 food processors, farmers and consumer organizations has sent an official letter to Michael Taylor, deputy commission at the FDA, and Kathleen Merrigan, deputy secretary of agriculture at the USDA, protesting the official U.S. position, citing the fact that it creates "significant problems" for all U.S. food producers that wish to label their products as being GMO-free.Not only is there no mandatory labeling of products sold in the U.S. that contain GMO ingredients, but the FDA and USDA now want to prohibit the labeling of products that do not contain GMO ingredients. In other words, the FDA and USDA are trying to outlaw truth in labeling and are openly working deceive the public.Among those opposing the draft U.S. position on GMOs are members of the Consumers Union, the Organic Trade Association, the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety.The FDA and USDA actually had the audacity to include in the draft position that mandatory labeling of GMOs is "false, misleading [and] deceptive" because it implies that there is a difference between GMO ingredients and non-GMO ingredients.Fortunately, science and pure common sense, which are both lacking at the FDA and USDA, indicate that GMOs are different than non-GMOs, and that the public has a right to know the types of ingredients that are in the products they buy.Many countries already require food processors and manufacturers to label products that contain GMOs, but the FDA and USDA hope to convince the Codex Committee to outlaw this practice.Not only are GMOs structurally different than non-GMOs, but GMOs are actually toxic. Several studies have shown that they are harmful to the body. If you are not familiar with the dangers of GMOs, check out the following website for more information:http://www.seedsofdeception.comSources for this story include:http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Le...




Document Number: 762 
Genetically Modified Organisms are Unfit for Consumption
(NaturalNews) The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has issued a warning urging the public to avoid genetically modified foods and has also called for a moratorium on GMOs until long-term, independent studies can prove their safety. The group has also called for required labeling of foods that contain GMOs, a move that has been strongly opposed by the Food and Drug Administration and Big Biotech which cooperatively purport that consumers should not have the right to know whether or not the foods they buy come from traditionally bred or genetically engineered sources.While urging for more independent studies, the AAEM paper cites its own studies alleging that genetically modified foods cause serious adverse health effects, emphasizing more than a mere "causal association" as is commonly assumed. These effects include rapid aging, severe alterations to the major bodily organs, infertility, immune problems, gastrointestinal dysfunction, and disruption to proper insulin regulation, among others.Many doctors are warning their patients to avoid GMOs as well, recognizing the distinct correlation between GMOs and disease. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles believes genetically engineered foods are so dangerous that people should never eat them. Biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava, following the review of more than 600 scientific journals, has concluded that the drastic deterioration of Americans' health in recent years can be attributed to GMOs being introduced into their diets.Experimental studies of genetically engineered foods and their effects in the body are disturbing, to say the least. Biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute has stated that children are the most likely people to experience the adverse effects of GMOs, noting that apart from adequate safety studies, children become "the experimental animals". In truth, every citizen is a guinea pig when genetically altered organisms are introduced into the food supply without adequate safety studies let alone honest labeling.In the animal studies that have been conducted, some noteworthy findings have been discovered about GMOs:Female rats fed genetically modified soy saw most of their babies die within three weeks compared to the 10% death rate experienced by rats fed natural soy. The babies that survived in the genetically modified-fed control group were also born smaller and had problems getting pregnant later on.Male rats fed genetically modified soy experienced a change in testicular color from pink to dark blue, as well as altered young sperm and significant changes in their DNA.Indian buffalo that consumed genetically modified cottonseed experienced various birthing complications including infertility, abortions, premature delivery, and prolapsed uteruses. Many of the calves that survived birth died shortly thereafter.In the United States, about 24 farmers reported that their pigs became sterile after consuming genetically modified corn.Genetically modified corn and cotton, purposely engineered to create their own built-in pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis), have been indicted in several studies to provoke intense allergic and immune reactions and death. Since the levels of Bt produced in the plant represent thousands of times more a concentration of Bt than natural Bt spray, the effects are greatly amplified. Shepherds whose sheep grazed on Bt cotton after harvest witnessed thousands of their sheep die. Post mortem examinations revealed severe irritation and black patches in the intestines and liver, as well as enlarged bile ducts. All sheep fed the Bt cotton eventually died within 30 days while those that grazed on natural cotton remained healthy.Bt corn was also responsible for the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chicken in both Germany and the Philippines.Genetically modified tomatoes fed to rats were shown to cause bleeding stomachs and eventually killed many of the rats.These are just a few examples of the many catastrophic effects of using genetically modified organisms as food.Probably the worst finding in the AAEM report is the fact that GMOs can live and reproduce in the intestinal flora of the body long after being eaten. The genes present in the genetically modified organisms transfer into the DNA of intestinal bacteria, the good bacteria that digests food and maintains bodily health. This reprogramming can cause the intestinal flora to begin reproducing Bt pesticides, for example, rather than producing the living bacteria it is supposed to. The permanent, deadly implications of these alterations are mind boggling since intestinal flora is crucial for life.Despite consensus from most FDA scientists in the early '90s declaring that genetically modified foods are inherently dangerous and could lead to all sorts of serious health problems, politics won out as mandates were given from Washington to promote biotechnology and GMOs in spite of apparent and obvious dangers. This led to the promotion of Michael Taylor, former attorney for Monsanto, as head of GMO policy at the FDA, a move that led to the official denial by the agency of any knowledge or substantiated concern by any FDA scientists about the safety of GMOs.Despite findings in some 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports released in 1999 due to a lawsuit, findings that contained the warnings from then scientists about the "unintended negative side effects" of genetic engineering, official FDA GMO policy has been scrubbed clean of the truth and purports blatant lies in its defense of GMOs as safe. In fact, current policy emphatically states that no safety studies on GMOs are even required or necessary; it is instead up to Big Biotech to determine the safety of its own genetically modified organisms if it so chooses.Many people may remember the deadly epidemic in the late 1980s from the genetically engineered version of L-tryptophan, a food supplement, that was introduced into the market. An estimated 10,000 people became permanently disabled and about 100 died. Yet despite the rapidly occurring, deadly effects from this particular GMO immediately following its release, including noticeable changes in the blood, it took over four years to identify the existence of this epidemic.Many concerned doctors hypothesize that the disease-causing symptoms of GMOs being consumed today will take years to show up, further besetting the efforts of those who are trying to expose the dangers of GMOs. Current data is showing that since 1996 when genetically modified crops were first introduced, the incidences of people with three or more chronic diseases has jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.In addition to all the existing evidence, AAEM is urging its members, the scientific community, and those in medicine to continue gathering case studies and initiate epidemiological research to help determine, once and for all, the effects of GMOs on human beings in addition to their effects on animals.It is wise to avoid foods that contain GMOs and ingredients that are genetically engineered. These include non-organic corn and soy derivatives, canola and cottonseed oils, and sugar from sugar beets. Ingredients such as corn starch, corn meal, and soy lecithin are great examples of common ingredients that are suspect. Unless labeled as non-GMO or explicitly organic, these common ingredients are most likely genetically modified and should be avoided at all costs.Lastly, the mindful citizen should contact grocers, food manufacturers, and restaurants to inquire about genetically modified ingredients and oppose their usage. As increasing numbers of people begin to seek out this information across the food supply-chain and purposefully avoid products that contain GMOs, producers and retailers will phase them out in order to meet demand. This can be seen in the gradual elimination of toxins such as high fructose corn syrup from food as consumers learn about its effects and avoid products that contain it.Call Congress and urge support for mandatory GMO labeling, perhaps even the elimination of GMOs entirely. Get creative. Tell friends and family about the dangers of GMOs, organize local campaigns, and pass out literature. The sooner people become aware of GMOs and the havoc they are causing, and demand their removal from food, the sooner GMOs will exist only in history books as one of the most detrimental scientific experiments ever perpetrated on mankind.Sources:Opposing Views, "Genetically Modified Foods Pose Huge Health Risk"News With Views, "Obama's team includes dangerous biotech 'Yes Men'"The Times of India - GM food? It's poisonInstitute for Responsible TechnologyAbout the authorEthan Huff is a freelance writer and health enthusiast who loves exploring the vast world of natural foods and health, digging deep to get to the truth. He runs an online health publication of his own at http://wholesomeherald.blogspot.com.




Document Number: 7432 
Top Five Ways to Avoid GMOs in Your Food
(NaturalNews) Recent polls across the world have consistently shown that, if they had a choice, 90% of people would actively seek to avoid GMOs (genetically modified organisms) in their food. The large multinational corporations of the world have gone through extensive measures to ensure the citizens of most nations have no possible way of knowing whether the food they and their children are eating contain contaminants of GMOs. The labelling of GMOs on the packaging of any foods in the US for example, is illegal. For example, if a company like Kellogs decided to include a full disclosure label on their cereal box that stated, "contains genetically modified corn" they could be sued by the manufacturer and then face possible prison time.This is a very important issue because the democratic process of many nations has been surreptitiously supplanted by the corporatocracy of the seed company juggernauts. America has one of the highest levels of GMOs in their food chain in the western world with up to 85% of its pre-packaged and processed foods coming from genetic engineering. The people have never asked for GMOs- but got them anyway. The people then asked that they be properly labeled so they could avoid them- they were ignored. Therefore, seeing how our health freedom and well-being is consistently under attack from large multi-national corporations only seeking to increase profits at the expense of our health, what are we to do?What we can do is simply try to avoid the GMO contaminants altogether and be extremely vigilant of how we spend our money and which companies we are choosing to support. Here are five simple and effective ways to decrease your contact with untested, toxic and dangerous GMOs.1.) Buy Locally Produced FoodFor now, GMOs are only used by large multinational corporations who buy direct from large farms. Produce from local mom and pop farmers have yet to become genetically modified. Purchasing locally grown food supports your local farmers and your health. Not to worry about GMO tomatoes and potatoes as they have all been pulled from the market.2.) Buy Organically Grown FoodFor now, the organic certification process is a relatively safe bet to ensure your food is free of GMOs, although this may not be the case in the future. Help support global sustainability by purchasing certified organically grown food.3.) Avoid the Top Four GMO Crops of Soy, Corn, Canola and CottonseedThis is a bit tricky as most blended oils in North America contain canola and cottonseed. Whenever you go out to dinner and receive anything fried, you are most likely consuming GMOs from the oil, not to mention transfat. A way around this would be to purchase 100% extra virgin olive oil, but be sure to avoid the term olive oil as most of it is blended with some GMO cottonseed or canola. Unless it specifically states "Non-GMO" or some derivation on the label, it most likely contains GMOs.Likewise, any time you go you consume corn chips, tacos or soy milk, you are eating GMOs, again unless it specifically states Non-GMO or is organic.4.) Avoid Artificial Additives and SweetenersMost of use are aware of the dangers behind the artificial sweetener and excitotoxin, aspartame (known as preservative E951), but may not be aware that it is created using genetic modification. Even the majority of vitamin C (asorbic Acid) and many B vitamins have been created via genetic modification. A Japanese company was forced to pull GMO L-Tryptophan off the market in 1989 after thousands of people became severely ill with many developing an extremely rare blood disorder called, Esinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS), although the FDA never publicly mentioned that GMO contamination was the true cause of the recall.5.) Look For the Non-GMO LabelThis includes all animals used for food because most are typically fed GMO feed. If it does not state Non-GMO on the label, then email the manufacturer and ask if they use GMO feed. It is best to attempt to contact all of the manufacturers of the foods you generally eat on a daily or even weekly basis and determine whether GMOs ingredients are utilized in the food. You have a fundamental right to know whether the foods you are consuming have been contaminated with GMOs. When in doubt always look for the Non-GMO label, and unfortunately assume that it has been genetically modified unless the opposite have been explicitly stated.About the authorDr. Gregory Damato enjoys a raw vegan lifestyle and is the editor of www.wellnessuncovered.com which publishes the latest health and wellness news and information. The site attempts to facilitate in the expansion of human consciousness through unlocking our innate wisdom. 




Document Number: 7069 
NaturalNews readers raise $30,000 to fight GMOs through Institute for Responsible Technology
(NaturalNews) It's official: NaturalNews readers have raised over $20,000 for the Institute for Responsible Technology. With our matching donation of $10,000, we have combined to raise over $30,000 for the support of the IRT and its important work opposing GMOs. (That's $10,000 over our original goal of $20k.)Jeffrey Smith, the executive director of the IRT, wanted me to share this special thank-you message with NaturalNews readers:A thank you from Jeffrey SmithI want to give a special thank you to Mike Adams and to all the subscribers of NaturalNews for your generous and heartfelt contributions towards our work to end the genetic engineering of the food supply. Your support will help us with our BIG PLANS for 2011.We're now setting up the infrastructure to support community Non-GMO Working Groups around the nation, as well as national Working Groups-each focused on outreach to a specific demographic such as healthcare practitioners, parents, youth, schools, chefs, health-conscious shoppers, etc.Our target is to convince about 5% of US shoppers to avoid GM brands, which should be enough purchasing clout to force major companies to eliminate GM ingredients altogether.We're looking for volunteer advocates to spark this non-GMO revolution, and the conscious people who read NaturalNews are a terrific source. You can help simply by posting and forwarding information via email or Facebook, or by joining or leading a community or national working group. Sign up for our free twice-monthly newsletter (comes out about twice a month) and we'll send you the notice when we are ready to enlist your participation.I also want to shout out to Mike-Your rap song is marvelous, your dedication to spreading the word about GMOs is keeping a lot of people healthier and happier, and your contribution is already bearing non-GMO fruit. Way to go!- Jeffrey Smith, executive director, Institute for Responsible Technologywww.ResponsibleTechnology.orgOther actions you can takeThe no-GMO revolution has just begun! This grassroots movement is gaining strength each day as more and more people become aware of the dangers of genetically modified foods. People are outraged at the fact that in America today, there is no requirement that GMO foods even been labeled!People deserve to know what they're eating. It's a basic human right. And they deserve to have the freedom to choose to avoid GMOs at the grocery store.That's what Jeffrey Smith and NaturalNews are fighting for: Your right to be informed and to make a free choice about what you want to eat. For those people who wish to poison themselves with genetically modified food, that's their own choice. But for the rest of us who wish to avoid GMOs, we have a right to know which foods contain GMOs.Your support of the IRT is already making a difference in this important fight. And your ongoing support of NaturalNews is what has allowed us to donate $10,000 alongside your contributions, too. Thank you for helping us experience the kind of online success necessary to make important donations like this.Oh, and if you haven't yet heard the "Just Say No to GMO" song, which Ronnie Cummins from the Organic Consumers Association calls "the Battle Hymn for our new Organic Republic," you can download the song (for free) at http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO.htmlOr watch the music video at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B459F...Thank you again for your support. We did it!NaturalNews will continue to work alongside the IRT to publicize their announcements, documentary film clips and other important news items on this issue of GMOs.




Document Number: 7977 
Why You Should Say No to GMOs (Opinion)
(NaturalNews) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the latest travesty thrust upon an unsuspecting public by the greedy, control minded corporations that see the Almighty Sign ($$) as the ultimate in achieving the highest "bottom line" possible. If you control the food supply you control the people. If you control the people, then ultimately they will work for you and their money is yours.Did you know...if seeds from a GMO field blow over to a non-GMO field the non-GMO farmer can be sued for theft?Did you know...normally, a farmer holds seeds to be used for the next season? But Monsanto, who must be hurting for money, makes GMO farmers buy new seeds every year?Did you know... if you ever wondered why GMO foods are not labeled as such it is because Monsanto paid off whoever to make sure that GMO foods do NOT get labeled as such? Do you think they did that because they knew that no one would buy them if they were labeled?Did you know... research was done that showed when GMO and non-GMO foods are put in the wild the animals will not eat the GMO food? One would think we would learn from that.Did you know...one would ask why GMO foods are so readily accepted by the Fraud and Drug Administration? Wonder if Monsanto`s former top executives having key positions in the FDA have anything to do with that?Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified ingredients in most processed foods?Did you know... GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, canola (what`s a canola?) and now sugar beets have had foreign genes forced into their DNA and the inserted genes come from bacteria and viruses that have never been in the human food supply?Did you know... GMOs have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals?In 1992, the Fraud and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But, internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs.FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. Why? Because the Fraud and Drug Administration does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs.Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding the toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto`s former attorney and later vice-president.Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs. In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for lifetimes. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a gene gun into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant`s DNA.Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression. In addition, the inserted gene is often rearranged, may transfer from the food into our body`s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us, and the GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide and pesticide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton and now, sugar beets, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides.Basically, Monsanto created GMOs to withstand enormous amounts of their cash crop, Roundup *(see end of article for some interesting bits about Roundup). The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into cotton and corn DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide, pesticide tolerant.Also, small amounts of zucchini, and yellow crookneck squash as well as Hawaiian papaya are engineered to resist plant viruses. In fact, virtually all Hawaiian papaya is genetically modified.Now, let`s take a look at some of the evidence of harm from GMOs: Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced. A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy. The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy. GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.The biotech industry claims that the Bt-toxin found in corn and cotton is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses and damaged intestines. Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated. Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions just from handling Bt cotton and their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol, the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail these tests because they have properties of known allergens. If proteins digest slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice, it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.Mice not only reacted to Bt-toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds. Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers. The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier. GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult. The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy. More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks and male rats and mice fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells. The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy and the stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties. About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs and cows. On the human side, Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins continuously inside us. This means that if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases resistant to antibiotics and if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories - especially since animal studies have shown that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into fetuses.In the 1980`s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000 to 10,000 people. The source of the contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. The bottom line is that these heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our world for profit.One last note:Scientists generally believe that they can do things better than God can and that God is limited in what he can do for mankind, especially since our population is growing in leaps and bounds and our resources are dwindling just as fast. Maybe if we all lived simply and we all saw ourselves as caretakers, we would be more respectful of the world and its inhabitants and could put into a much clearer perspective whose property we were taking care of. After all, it was here before we got here and it will be here after we are gone. If we could all see this, there would certainly be no more wars because we would all be sharing and trading with each other the resources abundant in our part of the world. It is only due to envy that we wage war. When someone else has what we want and we have the bigger and better weapons or the greater force, we go and try to take it. If God is the Owner and we are the caretakers and if we, His children, are all brothers and sisters, what would be the need for force?*Used in yards, farms and parks throughout thee world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now, according to an article in Environmental Health News, written by Crystal Gammon, researchers have found that one of Roundup`s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. Pesticide researchers and activists from the U.S. to Argentina, Japan and Croatia have been calling for public access to, and warnings about inerts (almost 4,000 solvents, surfactants and other chemicals included in pesticides, approved by the U.S. EPA, yet not specified on warning labels because they are not the active ingredient aimed at pest control).Glyphosate, Roundup`s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. Farms and lawns every year. Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate alone, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. In a study from Caen University, in France, first published earlier this year, scientists found that Roundup`s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells, even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns. Their focus was on POEA, a detergent in Roundup that they were astonished to discover was far more dangerous than the herbicide itself. The proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death at the residual levels found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.Despite Monsanto`s claims that the study is flawed, Giles-Eric Seralini, the molecular biologist that headed the French study, says that standard toxicological methods were used and that competitors can discover what is in formulations like Roundup with routine lab analysis. The purpose of the proprietary protection laws for inerts is solely for the purpose of keeping information from the public. And what`s worse is that when mixed together at concentrations officially considered "safe", ten of the world`s most widely used pesticides can combine to produce a chemical cocktail that is deadlier than any of the chemicals acting alone.This is why you MUST say no to GMOs!Aloha!About the authorHesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in to my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 72, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises, teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training and play in a softball league twice a week.To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.comHesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.




Document Number: 4663 
Leaked reports reveal US government pushing hard for GMOs in Africa
(NaturalNews) Information obtained from several WikiLeaks reports exposes a potential U.S. government plot to thrust genetically-modified organisms (GMO) on the continent of Africa. According to verbiage found in the leaked messages, it appears that the recent creation by the Pentagon of AFRICOM, a U.S. military command post headquartered in Africa, was at least in part done for the purpose of securing access to the continent's natural resources, as well as establishing a GMO foothold there.According to a summary of the reports written by Richard Brenneman, former associate editor of the magazine  Psychology Today and a longtime journalist, AFRICOM is the brainchild of a retired four-star Air Force general who is now a paid lobbyist for the agrofuels industry. This fact alone suggests that the efforts of the new military post will play at least some role in serving such interests, including those of the biotechnology industry that clearly benefits from the expanded use of GMOs.One report sent by Tom Cunningham, the head of operations at the U.S. State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) on April 9, 2009, explains that the agency desperately needed as much information as possible about any individuals connected with the African Great Lakes in order to formulate "Mission Strategic Plans (MSPs)." These plans includes tackling "Mineral Resources", as well as "Food Security and Agriculture (FOOD)."Specifically under "Food Security and Agriculture", the report explains that African officials must be persuaded to accept and propagate GMOs throughout Africa. It also mentions verifying the status of "structural adjustments" and "infrastructure improvements" that needed to take place in order to accommodate the introduction of GMOs.The other reports go on to explain various other political efforts that relate to GMOs and agrofuels, but the main thrust seems to indicate a clear agenda by certain government agencies to take whatever steps necessary to expand GMO use both in Africa and around the world.Sources for this story include:http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listi...




Document Number: 6505 
GMOs Alter the Genetic Make Up of Our Healthy Bacteria
(NaturalNews) Although GMOs have infiltrated our food supply, the results of human feeding trials have only been published on one single occasion. Unfortunately, that occasion offered some pretty disturbing findings. It found that the genetic code of GM soy can infiltrate the genetic code of the healthy bacteria in our guts - and change the genetic makeup of the healthy bacteria inside us. Nobody knows how these mutant bacteria will function inside us - yet given the proliferation of GM soy, most of the population probably already has them inside of them.Mutating the genetic code of our healthy bacteria is incredibly dangerous because these healthy bacteria live inside us for a reason. They are our first line of immune defense and they keep us well by crowding out many harmful bacteria, fungus, and pathogens that cause innumerable diseases. But when their genetic structure is changed, who knows if they'll be able to do this job effectively? Who knows if they'll even be beneficial anymore? More than likely they won't.Because GM soy transfers its genetic code into our healthy bacteria, it's possible that our own healthy bacteria will now produce abnormal GM proteins inside us for the rest of our lives. Mad cow disease is one example of a problem that abnormal proteins cause.Proteins are created by our DNA and if you've never seen how beautifully complex our DNA functionality is, you should watch this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PKj... Afterward, ask yourself if you trust another human being to mess around with this process.It gets worse because other GM genes may also insert themselves into our healthy bacteria and keep replicating too - and some GM genes, like those in GM corn, are responsible for creating concentrated pesticides. It's very possible that they're also transferring this genetic programming into the formerly healthy bacteria inside you - and creating a living pesticide factory in your gut. We can only imagine the destruction this will cause, but because most diseases are created over a period of years tracing the cause may be next to impossible.GMOs have been found to change the genetic structure of bacteria in the soil too, which provides more evidence that GM genes can easily insert themselves into bacterial genes. Earthworms have also been found to have incorporated GM genes into their cells - and who's to say this isn't happening in humans too? This is one place that those independent, long-term safety trials would have come in handy. Unfortunately, they never happened.Unlike any historical human being, you'd be rare not to have consumed any GMOs in your lifetime. GMOs are in most processed foods and their DNA is found in most farm animals and dairy, because many animals are fed GM crops. Unless for the last fifteen years you've been vegan, haven't eaten any processed foods, haven't eaten at restaurants that use corn or canola oil, and have avoided all corn, soy and products containing them, you've almost certainly been exposed and contaminated. If you have any kind of "normal" diet, you're probably eating GMOs several times a week - and possibly several times each day.More:Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.http://www.newswithviews.com/Richar...Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette, Jeffrey Smithhttp://www.seedsofdeception.com/uti...http://www.rense.com/general80/haz.htmConsumer's Guide To Probiotics, S.K. Dash About the authorKim Evans is an author, photographer, and natural health writer. Her book, Cleaning Up! The Ultimate Body Cleanse, outlines deep and powerful at-home detoxification methods to address the root cause of most health problems. While its becoming common knowledge that most people carry an extreme toxic burden and that these toxins can cause any disease imaginable, most people dont know that there is a direct connection between our spiritual reality and the state of our bodies. Actually, these are all of the clean/unclean references in the Bible that no one really knows what they are referring to.Its funny, but it turns out that Cleaning Up! may be a Biblical and Nostradamus prophecy too. In Nostradamus Lost Book, he gave us seven images pointing to the time leading to 2012 and if one looks closely at the images, one will see that all hes doing is drawing the Revelation prophecy &ndash; which is of a book (or scroll) that is delivered that leads humankind to the light. The truly entertaining part is that in Nostradamus image &ndash; he drew someone who looks just like Kim writing the book, and then, albeit cryptically, stuck her first and middle name in the image too. You can see Kims profile and this image here: http://www.cleaningupcleanse.com/no...Cleaning Up! has recently been updated &ndash; and the author believes that the seven seals in the Revelation prophecy are methods in her book. Since the Bible states that all humans will be judged by in the book in the prophecy, maybe you want to get your copy today? Cleaning Up! also explains Nostradamus seven end of time images &ndash; and on December 21, 2012, the entire Revelation prophecy will be publically revealed. Learn more at www.cleaningupcleanse.com. 




Document Number: 8358 
China to impose new GMO regulations, but will anything change?
(NaturalNews) The National People's Congress of China, also known as the Chinese parliament, seems poised to make some sweeping changes concerning genetically-modified organisms (GMO). China, which has typically been far more cautious about GMOs than Western countries like the U.S., may soon enact what some say are stricter management laws concerning the import, export, research, development and production of GMOs.According to Reuters, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture last year approved GM strains of rice and corn in China, which triggered backlash from groups concerned about the safety of such "Frankenfoods". The approval set the stage for the widespread cultivation and distribution of GM corn and rice in the nation within the next two or three years. And the report also states that China is now the largest producer in the world of GM cotton.Chinese governments have recently indicated, however, that they plan to tighten GMO restrictions, which will allegedly improve GMO management practices. Part of the plan will include enacting a new "grain security law" to encourage local governments to produce more grain, and to do so in accordance with regulatory guidelines.But many groups are concerned that existing regulations are not even being enforced, let alone any new ones that aim to improve GMO management. A Greenpeace investigation found that illegal sales of certain GMOs have already been taking place in various parts of the country, even though regulations similar to the ones being proposed have been on the books since 2001.Any new regulations are likely to have little impact in stemming the tide of increased GMO propagation, however. Despite China being more wary of GMOs than some other nations, current trends indicate that the nation is progressively accepting more of them.To learn more about the dangers of GMOs, visit:http://www.naturalnews.com/026426_G... Sources for this story include:http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...




Document Number: 5898 
European support for GMOs continues to plummet
(NaturalNews) Europeans are growing weary of all the pro-GMO (genetically-modified organism) propaganda being spewed by multinational biotechnology companies like Monsanto, and polls now show that strong support for GMOs has reached a low of roughly five percent. In other words, somewhere in the vicinity of 95 percent of Europeans now view GMOs with skepticism, while the majority perceive them as outright unsafe and lacking any supposed benefits.The Eurobarometer survey used to determine the current popularity of GMOs has seen a downward trend in the popularity of GMOs since at least the mid-1990s. Even in Spain, the most pro-GMO country in Europe, support for GMOs has dropped by 20 percent in the last five years.The study found that 70 percent of Europeans believe GMOs are fundamentally unnatural, while nearly 60 percent believe they are a threat to the health of themselves and their families. Fifty-eight percent believe GMOs are not safe for future generations."The survey provides EU (European Union) decision-makers with an unequivocal answer: the majority of Europeans are opposed to the development of GM food in Europe," explained Marco Contiero from Greenpeace, concerning the study. "This clearly shows that public opposition to GM food is based on knowledge and choice, not on ignorance as the biotech industry has claimed for years."In a recent U.S. poll conducted by The Economist, 62 percent of respondents indicated their belief that biotechnology, and GMOs in particular, are not compatible with sustainable agriculture (http://www.naturalnews.com/030370_G...). However in the U.S., GMO products are not transparently labeled like they are in Europe, so many Americans are still unaware of how pervasive GMOs actually are in the food supply.Sources for this story include:http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listi...http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/...




Document Number: 2383 
How to avoid eating Genetically Modified Foods
(NaturalNews) Concern about eating genetically modified foods alarms many health conscious consumers. Mike Adams has likened these genetically altered foods to the Frankenstein monster and has raised concerns about the FDA's approval of a genetically altered salmon for human consumption. He has called the GM salmon a "Frankenfish." Concern that the GM salmon will destroy fish populations, such as the Atlantic salmon already on the endangered species list, is added to concerns about the health effects from eating this fish. There are a few steps consumers can follow to help avoid GMOs in their food.Avoiding genetically modified foods is not easy because the foods are not labeled as such. Some organizations, like Whole Foods Market, the Center for Food Safety and the Non-GMO Project, are now working to support organic agriculture, to source products not containing any GMOs and to help consumers identify non-GM foods.Buy Organic Foods to Avoid GMOsFood that is labeled as organic, according to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), must be produced without the use of any chemical fertilizers or GMOS. Feed for animals that is sold as organic must contain only 100% organic feed. Foods labeled as "organic" are not allowed to contain ANY ingredients sourced from GMOs. Foods labeled "100% organic" must have only 100% organic food sources. Foods labeled as "organic" may be 95 to 100 percent organic, but the other five percent may not be from GMOs. Foods and products labeled as "made with organic ingredients" are only required to contain 70 percent organic food, but all of the ingredients, 100 percent, must be from non-GMO sources. This means that buying organic foods or foods "made from organic ingredient" will protect consumers from GMOs in their food.Avoid GM Soy, Corn and CanolaThe most commonly modified crops are soy, corn, beet sugar and canola oil. To avoid corn and soy means avoiding soy oil and corn syrup, which are added to many foods. Read labels to verify food contents of any prepared or packaged foods.Eliminate Sugar from the DietSugar from beets is commonly added to prepared foods, desserts and candies. Aside from the GMO aspect, white sugar contains no nutritional value. Instead, use sorghum, honey or molasses to sweeten foods.Avoid GM Artificial SugarsArtificial sweeteners are known to be carcinogenic. In addition, some are created from a GM derivative. These synthetic sugars are commonly added to candy, soda pop, diet coffee drinks, and even chewable vitamins and oral prescription drugs like antibiotics. Use fruit and fruit syrups to sweeten foods, or honey and molasses. Even if they don't add calories, the artificial sweeteners increase the toxic load to the body.http://www.naturalnews.com/030182_W...http://truefoodnow.wordpress.com/http://www.nongmoproject.org/http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...http://www.naturalnews.com/029770_s...About the authorMelanie Grimes is a writer, award-winning screenwriter, medical journal editor, and adjunct faculty member at Bastyr University. She also teaches homeopathy at the Seattle School of Homeopathy and the American Homeopathic Medical College. A trained homeopath, she is the editor of the homeopathic journal, Simillimum, and has edited alternative and integrative medical journals for 15 years. She has taught creative writing, founded the first Birkenstock store in the USA and authored medical textbooks.Her ebook on Natural Remedies for the Flu is available at: http://melanie-grimes.blogspot.com/...Follow her blog athttp://melanie-grimes.blogspot.com/www.melaniegrimes.com




Document Number: 5730 
GMO alert: U.S. attempting global censorship of GMO food labeling
(NaturalNews) I received an urgent alert from Jeffrey Smith today about a dangerous situation taking place right now at the international CODEX conference. The U.S. is attempting to push its agenda to censor all GMO labeling of foods everywhere around the world. This would result in a global GMO cover-up as consumers are left in the dark about whether their foods and grocery products are genetically modified or not.Your help is urgently needed to send a message to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius) to urge them to halt the USA's nefarious attempts to install a global GMO deception.Take part in this online petition, go here:http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMF...Please understand that the U.S. is attempting to outlaw non-GMO labeling of foods, thereby making it illegal for a non-GMO food product to even claim "non-GMO" on the label. If the U.S. succeeds in this global GMO cover-up, the FDA could seize any products in the USA that make "non-GMO" claims. Additionally, the USA could file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that allows non-GMO labeling or claims on its products.Why is the U.S. pursuing such a devious and sinister course of action? Because, as you well know, virtually the entire federal government caters to the financial interests of powerful corporations -- and these include the "Big Ag" giants like Monsanto that want to patent all seeds while destroying the no-GMOs movement. They want to turn non-GMO foods into violations of the law and thereby strip all such products from store shelves.They want to keep American consumers left in the dark, ignorant of the real dangers posed by GMOs. And of course, they want to dominate the entire U.S. food supply with their toxic GMO crops.These powerful, dangerous corporations are willing to do anything to achieve their global agenda, including forcing GMO censorship on the entire world.They might just get away with it, too, unless you join us in speaking up right now to oppose this devious and dangerous action.Add your voice to the online petition right here:http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMF...Health Ranger interviews Jeffrey SmithWatch my recent interview with Jeffrey Smith at the Health Freedom Expo in California.Here, Jeffrey reveals the astounding truth about how dangerous GMOs really are for your health: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBPY...Check out the Non-GMO shopping guideThe non-profit Center for Food Safety offers a fantastic free Non-GMO Shopping Guide available at http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...Check it out. There, you can learn which products are truly non-GMO, and you can learn how to avoid products that are most likely made with GMOs.It teaches you to avoid corn, soybeans, canola and cottonseed ingredients, among other things. It's sponsored by some of the most responsible natural products companies in the business: Nutiva, Nature's Path, Straus, Woodstock Farms and others.NaturalNews plans to expand its coverage of GMOs in the weeks ahead. Watch for more updates as this saga on GMOs is unveiled.




Document Number: 8389 
Take Action to Get GMOs Out of the Food Supply
(NaturalNews) According to Jeffery Smith, a leading GMO activist, when a critical number of consumers abandon GMO foods and brands, it will be enough to force them out of common products and get them out of our food supply. Want to help? Print this food guide http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/... and this article http://www.responsibletechnology.or.... Then, share them with your friends, family and coworkers. Share them with dozens of people who might not otherwise have access to this information and be sure your contacts also have easy access to both URLs. If they feel the information is important, ask them to print it and pass it along too.The second article details all of the deaths in farm animals that GMOs have caused, as well as a considerable amount of research showing the infertility, organ damage and other tragic health consequences they create. The dangers of GMOs are hard to deny - even if government officials and the GM industry keep doing so.To be part of the solution, you'll also need to avoid GMOs and brands that use them. For an even greater impact, send a quick note to the companies producing the brands you plan to drop and let them know that GMOs are the reason. Hundreds of these notes coming in each day are bound to make an impact, and probably quickly.Most mainstream grocery stores line their shelves with foods containing GMOs, so if a natural GMO-free grocery store is in your town it would be a good idea to frequent it instead. You can also drop your former grocery store a line to let them know that the GMO brands they carry are the reason you're making the switch. Pressure from all sides can help produce change and if grocery stores refuse to carry GMOs, many manufacturers will be forced to change or go out of business.It also wouldn't hurt to pick up the phone and call your government representatives. Let them know what you really think about GMOs currently being in 90 percent of all processed foods - and fed to the large majority of farm animals those meat or dairy end up on dinner tables. Then, send them the second article above and ask them how exactly they think they're protecting the public or the food supply by allowing genetically mutant DNA into the food supply. Let them know that creating disease is never considered protecting the public and that you're following their actions on this matter closely - and you should actually do that too.More:http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...http://www.nafwa.org/general-nutrit...http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Pub...About the authorKim Evans is an author, photographer, and natural health writer. Her book, Cleaning Up! The Ultimate Body Cleanse, outlines deep and powerful at-home detoxification methods to address the root cause of most health problems. While its becoming common knowledge that most people carry an extreme toxic burden and that these toxins can cause any disease imaginable, most people dont know that there is a direct connection between our spiritual reality and the state of our bodies. Actually, these are all of the clean/unclean references in the Bible that no one really knows what they are referring to.Its funny, but it turns out that Cleaning Up! may be a Biblical and Nostradamus prophecy too. In Nostradamus Lost Book, he gave us seven images pointing to the time leading to 2012 and if one looks closely at the images, one will see that all hes doing is drawing the Revelation prophecy &ndash; which is of a book (or scroll) that is delivered that leads humankind to the light. The truly entertaining part is that in Nostradamus image &ndash; he drew someone who looks just like Kim writing the book, and then, albeit cryptically, stuck her first and middle name in the image too. You can see Kims profile and this image here: http://www.cleaningupcleanse.com/no...Cleaning Up! has recently been updated &ndash; and the author believes that the seven seals in the Revelation prophecy are methods in her book. Since the Bible states that all humans will be judged by in the book in the prophecy, maybe you want to get your copy today? Cleaning Up! also explains Nostradamus seven end of time images &ndash; and on December 21, 2012, the entire Revelation prophecy will be publically revealed. Learn more at www.cleaningupcleanse.com. 




Document Number: 7184 
How to Avoid Foods Made with GMOs (Opinion)
(NaturalNews) Most Americans say they would not eat GMOs if labeled, but unlike most other industrialized countries, the U.S. does not require labeling. You can thank the Fraud and Drug Administration for that as they care more for Monsanto than they do for the people in this country. Bear in mind, the only benefit of GMOs is to be unaffected by enormous quantities of Monsanto`s pesticide, RoundUp. Now there is an easy way to avoid eating GMOs despite the efforts of Monsanto to thrust it upon you any way, any time, and any where they can.Before understanding the way to avoid, you must fully understand the severe ramifications of ingesting this laboratory created, if you will pardon the expression, "food". Genetic Engineering or Genetic Modification of food involves the laboratory process of artificially inserting genes into the DNA of food crops or animals. The result is called a genetically modified organism or GMO. GMOs can be engineered with genes from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans.Certified organic products are not allowed to contain any GMOs. Therefore, when you purchase products labeled "100% organic", "organic" or "made with organic ingredients", all ingredients in these products are not allowed to be produced from GMOs. For example, products labeled as "made with organic ingredients" only require 70% of the ingredients to be organic, but 100% must be non-GMO.Companies may voluntarily label products as "non-GMO". Some labels state "non-GMO" while others spell out "Made Without Genetically Modified Ingredients". Some products limit their claim to only one particular "At-Risk" ingredient such as soy lecithin, listing it as "non-GMO".Avoid products made with any of the crops that are GM. Most GM ingredients are products made from the "Big Four": corn, soybeans, canola, and cottonseed. These are commonly found in processed foods. Some of the most common GM Big Four ingredients in processed foods are:CORNCorn flour, meal, oil, starch, gluten, and syrup.Sweeteners such as fructose, dextrose, and glucose.Modified food starch.SOYSoy flour, lecithin, protein isolate, and isofalvone.Vegetable oil and vegetable protein (these may come from other sources but it`s better to safe than sorry).CANOLACanola oil (also called rapeseed oil).COTTONCottonseed oil.In addition, GM sugar beet sugar recently entered the food supply. Look for organic and non-GMO sweeteners, candy and chocolate products made with 100% cane sugar, evaporated cane juice or organic sugar, to avoid GM beet sugar.SUGARAvoid anything not listed as 100% cane sugar.Recently, Jeffery Smith, the world`s most staunch fighter and exposer of GMOs, has produced a "NON-GMO SHOPPING GUIDE". This shopping guide is free to download. Go to www.centerforfoodsafety.org and/or www.healthiereating.org to download it. You can also visit www.responsibletechnology.org and sign up for his free newsletter.The shopping guide lists various flesh foods, eggs, dairy, baby foods, formula, grains, beans, pasta, cereals, breakfast bars, baked goods, frozen foods, soups, sauces, canned foods, condiments, oils, dressings, spreads,snack foods, candy, chocolate products, sweeteners, soda, juices, and other beverages. It also lists processed foods that have hidden GM sources.Aloha!About the authorHesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in to my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 72, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises, teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training and play in a softball league twice a week.To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.comHesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.




Document Number: 9164 
Join the Non-GMO Uprising (Opinion)
(NaturalNews) For several years, The Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods. Now, in a December article in "Supermarket News", that prediction is supported and the non-GMO consciousness uprising is gaining momentum.Besides the Institute`s new non-GMO website and non-GMO shopping guide, which was disclosed in a previous article, another Non-GMO project is being launched. The project would offer the country`s first consensus-based guidelines to include third-party certification and a uniform seal for approved products. The organization would also require documented traceability and segregation to ensure the tested ingredients are what go into the final product.The "Supermarket News" article alerts supermarket executives to the fact that the growth of organic, local, and green product categories reflects a generation of consumers that could be less tolerant of genetic modification.In the past, health culprits like fats, refined carbs, salt and sugar were addressed, in that food companies offered options with, without, or with low levels of them. Now, the GMOs are coming to light. These executives are becoming aware that GMOs do not offer a single consumer benefit. They are finally learning that the five major GMOs, soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, and sugar beets, which are gene spliced to tolerate or produce poisonous insecticides, offer the consumer nothing. They are also learning that companies can eliminate GMOs without having to change recipes.When the major food companies notice even tiny losses in market share, their GMO clean out will be widespread. The large food companies will recognize that the same consumer trend that forced them to remove all GM ingredients in Europe and Japan is taking place in the US.Right now, about 28 million Americans regularly buy organic and about 87 million are opposed to GM foods and believe they are unsafe. And, 159 million say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. Imagine what people would say if they all learned that Monsanto paid off our elected officials to not require labeling of GMOs. You see, they knew full well that no one would buy their GMO garbage if it were labeled as such.In the past, the decade could be defined with regard to the "culprits". In the 80`s, it was fat; in the 90`s, it was carbs. Hopefully, we won`t need this whole decade to send GMOs packing. And, God willing, by this time next year, Monsanto, the largest GMO producer in the world, will not be a "happy camper".Read labels. If soy (including soy lecithin), corn, cotton, canola and sugar do not say organic, do not buy it.Aloha!About the authorHesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in to my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 72, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises, teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training and play in a softball league twice a week.To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.comHesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.




Document Number: 9700 
Codex Designates GMOs as Contaminants in Food
(NaturalNews) The latest Codex Alimentarius Commission meeting held in Geneva recently concluded with some interesting outcomes. Some long simmering acrimony has begun to surface as the U.S. continues to force the biased agendas of Big Pharma, Big Chema, Big Agra and the like forward without considering the input of many other countries. Typically if the U.S. does not want a country's input, the host country simply denies their official delegates visas to the meeting.Several countries have recently objected to this practice and stated that because of this and other reasons, decisions made by codex in their absence do not have international legitimacy. One major point of contention has been the U.S. and Codex's staunch refusal to allow labeling of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Norway, Switzerland, Russia, Japan and virtually all African countries and the 26 countries of the EU (European Union) have fought the U.S. for nearly 18 years to allow mandatory labeling of GMOs. The U.S. fallaciously considers GMOs equal to non-GMOs solely based on a 1992 Executive Order from then-president George H. W. Bush, therefore no pre-market safety testing occurs on any GMOs before they are released into the food chain in the U.S. The FDA refuses to review any safety data except for a single, preliminary review early in the organism's development.Opponents of the U.S. policy prohibiting labeling of genetically modified food conclude that the U.S. does not want GMOs labeled because of the potential legal ramifications and liability to the manufacturers and to the U.S. government if these foods could be traced. If millions of people are harmed or killed due to the instability of the inserted DNA promoter viruses and marker bacteria into GMOs when interacting with the dynamic and fluid structure of the human body, then millions of lawsuits may result. But, if they are totally untraceable, then zero corporate or government liability can be assessed. FDA scientists have repeatedly warned about releasing GMOs into the general food supply because of their dangers, but have been routinely ignored or overruled.Prior to the Geneva meeting, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling met in Canada. The meeting concluded with several pro-mandatory GMO labeling nations angry that Codex had not objectively analyzed the empirical research detailing the dangers of GMOs that South Africa prepared. This document delineated the necessity of mandatory labeling of GMOs, but was ignored and subsequently withdrawn on U.S. pressure of an independent nation (South Africa). As a result, several countries planned to scrap the requirements of Codex and adopt their own labeling system for GMOs in an effort to curtail the spread of "lethal" food. This had led to a real quandary for the WHO (World Health Organization) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization).According to Rima E. Laibow, M.D., medical director of the Natural Solutions Foundation (www.healthfreedomusa.org) , who was a public observer at the latest meeting in Geneva, the WHO and FAO have finally stepped in and decided to undertake a program designed to identify low-level contamination of GMOs in food. The definition of low-level contamination will still depend on each individual country's standards. For example, the U.S. currently allows for up to 10% (the highest of any country in the world) of GMO contamination of organic foods and amazingly still allows them to be considered USDA certified organic. Governments that actually care about the health of their people, like the EU, allow only 0.9% contamination, while other countries permit merely 0.1%.The WHO and FAO used the term contamination and simply did not describe the GMOs as being mixed in with normal food. This term is also very noteworthy as most research on the dangers of GMOs can no longer be denied. The U.S. of course, vehemently objected to such a designation, but this time to no avail. Although not going as far as to require mandatory labeling of GMOs, this recognition by WHO and FAO (the parent bodies of Codex) that GMOs can contaminate food is a huge win for health freedom. Expanding that requirement to mandatory labeling is the next logical step, but is still a work in progress. The Natural Solutions Foundations in-country work with African and other pro-health nations can be expected to markedly strengthen this trend as unease and distrust of GMOs escalates internationally.More information on this subject is available to subscribers of the Natural Solutions Foundation's free Health Freedom E-alerts, available on the foundation website, (www.healthfreedomusa.org)Dr. Rima E. Laibow, M.D., and the Natural Solutions Foundation need your donations to get to Codex in Africa. This is a very important meeting for her team and is essential to support the Africans with technical documents and advice against the big agendas of the U.S. corporations. If you are able to donate any amount please click here: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...) and make a tax-deductible donation for health freedom and the future health of every human on the planet.Sources:Laibow, R.E., Dispatch #9 - Post-Codex Video #5 from Dr. Laibow: Propeling us into the future. [cited July 12, 2008]. Available from: (http://www.healthfreedomusa.org/ind...)Personal email communication: Dr. Rima E. Laibow, July 13, 2008.About the authorDr. Gregory Damato enjoys a raw vegan lifestyle and is the editor of www.wellnessuncovered.com which publishes the latest health and wellness news and information. The site attempts to facilitate in the expansion of human consciousness through unlocking our innate wisdom. 




Document Number: 7027 
Say no to GMOs by contributing to the Institute for Responsible Technology
(NaturalNews) Today I'm pledging $10,000 in matching donations to support the non-profit Institute for Responsible Technology. This is the non-profit that's standing up to Monsanto and the GMO industry by exposing the truth about the dangers of genetically engineered foods. Jeffrey Smith, who was recently featured in my "Just Say No to GMO" song, is the executive director of the IRT (www.ResponsibleTechnology.org)If you haven't yet heard the Just Say No to GMO song or watched the music video, you can check it out here:http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO.htmlToday, I'm pledging $10,000 in matching donations, so for every dollar donated to the IRT by NaturalNews readers, I'll match it with another dollar from NaturalNews, up to $10,000. With your help, we can raise $20,000 or more to help support the IRT's crucial mission to halt the use of genetically modified foods in the food supply (or, at the very least, to require mandatory GMO labeling so that consumers can choose to avoid them).Listen to my audio message about this fundraising effort here:http://www.naturalnews.com/podcasts...Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution directly to the IRT.We can win this fight!The fight against GMOs is winnable! Virtually no one who becomes aware of the facts about GM foods thinks they should be allowed in the food supply without adequate human safety testing -- and such testing has never been done.Almost everyone supports mandatory GMO labeling so that foods made with GMOs would be required to carry an accurate description of that fact on the label.People are with us on this GMO issue, and thanks to the efforts of people like Jeffry Smith, we are very close to a tipping point where GMOs will no longer be accepted by consumers. To reach that tipping point, the IRT is planning on releasing a new documentary about GMOs, and NaturalNews (as well as other organizations) is joining in the campaign effort to publicize the video, cover the news and keep consumers informed about breaking news on the GMO front.For example, we plan to feature video clips from the upcoming documentary on our video site www.NaturalNews.TV where you can already find interviews with Jeffrey Smith and other food experts. (You can also upload your own videos there, if you want. It's free to join.)The IRT needs your help to fund the completion of this documentary and pursue other crucial projects. Our combined donations (yours and ours) can help them get this project completed and published so that potentially millions of new people will learn about the dangers of GMOs and join in the fight to ban them from the food supply.Your donation can make a crucial difference right now on the front lines in this fight for food safety. So please join me in making a tax-deductible contribution right now:Click here to make a tax-deductible contribution directly to the IRT.Whatever amount you can donate will help: $10, $25, $50 or more.Thank you for your support, and we will continue to do our best to bring you more articles, videos and other content about genetically modified foods and the dangers they pose to the world. With your support, we intend on winning this fight and eradicating GMOs from the food supply across the planet.




Document Number: 1755 
Feds forced to stop planting GMOs in all refuges in 12 Northeast states
(NaturalNews) A federal lawsuit filed by several conservation and food safety groups has led to a ban on any further plantings of genetically-modified organisms (GMO) in all U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) refuges in 12 Northeastern states. And more lawsuits are reportedly on the way to have GMO plantings cease in as many as 75 other wildlife refuges across the country as well.Filed by the Widener Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic on behalf of the Delaware Audubon Society, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS), the lawsuit brought to light the fact that the FWS has been illegally permitting private parties to plant GMOs on public land, without a proper environmental review. The FWS settled the suit, agreeing to stop further plantings unless and until an appropriate National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis confirms their safety."For Delawareans, this is a victory for the protection of vital public resources in our state," explained Mark Martell, President of the Delaware Audubon Society. "Our aim was to end illegal and destructive agriculture on the Delaware refuges but we are delighted to have this victory extended to other refuges along the Great Eastern Flyway."The same groups in 2009 tried to petition Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, an appointee of the Obama Administration, to issue a moratorium on GMO plantings in all National Wildlife Refuges. But Salazar never even responded to their letter. The groups did, however, stop GMO plantings in Delaware's Prime Hook National Wildlife Refuge that same year."GE (genetically-engineered) crops have no place in National Wildlife Refuges," said Paige Tomaselli, Staff Attorney with the CFS. "These pesticide-resistant crops pose significant risks to the very wildlife those refuges serve to protect, including massively increasing pesticide use and creating [sic] of pesticide-resistant superweeds. This Northeast region-wide ban is an important step in the right direction, but the Fish & Wildlife Service must stop planting these crops in other regions as well."Sources for this story include:http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.ph...




Document Number: 9219 
Morgellons Disease - GMOs bring a new horror (Opinion)
(NaturalNews) Before getting into the Morgellons/GMO link, first consider the symptoms of the disease: itching, burning, the sensation of ukus (Hawaiian for bugs) crawling under the skin, never healing lesions, and painful, weird fibers under the skin that stick out of the skin as well.The doctors, whose pharmaceutical funded medical school curriculum never broaches this disease, says that the people suffering from it have invented it and are generally treated with antipsychotics.However, several doctors, who have dared think out of the box, have discovered a pathogen known as agrobacterium tumefaciens. Interesting enough, AT is used in the production of some GMOs.Farmers know about AT as well. They are plagued with it. It presents itself as a tumor-like growth on a plant and affects corn, beets, nuts and fruits. What happens is that AT inserts itself into the DNA of the host plant. The GMO scientists have found a way to transfer the AT from the host plant to other genetic materials.Of the individuals exhibiting Morgellons that have been studied, AT has been found present within all of them. Healthy individuals have not presented AT infestation.A recent study at the University of Bristol in the UK stated, "that agrobacterium tumefaciens in GMOs suggests an alternate route by which GM genes could find their way into the natural environment". What's even scarier is that scientists are seeing that AT is capable of transforming human cells as well. Not just plant cells.As if this isn't bad enough, repeated chemtrail activity is being conducted over the waters of the Hawaiian Islands. These chemtrails are dropping aluminum, barium and strontium into the atmosphere, which are then blown inland by the trade winds. The result is the destruction of natural plant life, but it proves ineffective to the aluminum resistant GMO crops.Assuming there is validity to the conspiracy theory that Monsanto wants to control the world's food supply and Big Pharma wants everyone to be as sick as possible to sell more drugs, wouldn't you think that these two examples are a great start for them?Remember, in God we trust. All others pay cash!Aloha!About the authorHesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in to my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 72, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises, teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training and play in a softball league twice a week.To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.comHesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.




Document Number: 7380 
Obama's Evergreen Revolution a ploy to push GMOs
(NaturalNews) The Obama Administration is working towards a second "Green Revolution" in agriculture known as the "Evergreen Revolution". This sequel to prior agriculture industrialization efforts in India in the mid-20th century is being heralded by some as the next step in sustainable food production for the populations of the world. But a closer look reveals that one of the primary thrusts of the initiative is to push GMOs both in India and around the world.In a recent Joint Session of the Indian Parliament, President Obama briefly explained his plans in the new Evergreen Revolution, which include exporting India's "hard-earned expertise" in agriculture, much of which was wrought during the first Green Revolution. But now, the goal is to allegedly improve upon these efforts and bring them to other developing areas like Africa that seem to be on the verge of an agricultural revolution.But the main problem with the efforts is that they include exporting the same genetic modification technology that was thrust on India, but this time to the nations of Africa. In fact, a series of leaked reports from Wikileaks recently revealed that Africa is on the U.S. radar for GMO expansion efforts, which highlights the real agenda (http://www.naturalnews.com/030683_G...).A recent Scientific American report on the subject explains that a former chief scientist from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is pushing the Obama Administration to focus heavily on GMOs in its efforts with the program. Gale Buchanan is a huge supporter of GMOs and is quoted as saying that the only way the Evergreen Revolution is going to have a "real, revolutionary" impact is if it makes GMOs its top priority. And since Buchanan has already expressed support for the initiative as it is, it is likely that GMOs are already part of the plan.Sources for this story include:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...




Document Number: 980 
Just Say No to GMOs music video now available with Spanish subtitles
(NaturalNews) The super-popular "Just Say No to GMOs" music video by the Health Ranger is now available in Spanish! (En Espaol.) With over half a million views across the various video sites on the 'net, the "Just Say No to GMOs" music video is opening the eyes of citizens across the world -- on multiple continents and in multiple languages -- to the dangers of genetically modified foods.The new Spanish edition of the music video features subtitles en espaol. Watch it here:http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=1...More importantly, share this with your Spanish-speaking friends, coworkers or family members so they, too, may learn more about the dangers of genetically modified foods.Yesterday, the Health Ranger launched the Chinese edition of the same music video (http://www.naturalnews.com/030663_G...), which is available on NaturalNews.TV: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=4...Both the Spanish and Chinese editions of the music video are also available on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheHeal..."With this song subtitled en espaol, I really hope to reach out to all my Spanish-speaking friends, all around the world, who are ready to join the resistance against the food corporations that are trying to steal from us our collective future," said Mike Adams, the creator of the song. "The rich history of Latin America teaches us all that when wealthy corporations take control over the food, it can only end in treachery and the suffering of the People. With this song, I stand for the rights of the People to control their own destiny, to feed their own children, and to grow and consume natural foods without the evil intervention of greed-driven corporations such as Monsanto. Access to viable seeds is a natural right, and the genetic modification of food and seeds is a crime against humanity."Here is an auto-translation of the above quote in Spanish (please pardon the lack of finesse in this machine translation):"Con esta cancin subtitulada en espaol, realmente espero llegar a todos mis amigos que hablan espaol, todo el mundo, que estn listos para unirse a la resistencia contra las empresas de alimentos que estn tratando de robarnos nuestro futuro colectivo. La rica historia de Amrica Latina nos ensea a todos que cuando las sociedades ricas tomar el control de los alimentos, slo puede terminar en la traicin y el sufrimiento del pueblo. Con esta cancin, yo estoy por los derechos de las personas a controlar su propio destino, para alimentar a sus propios hijos, y para crecer y consumir alimentos naturales sin la intervencin del mal de las empresas impulsado por la avaricia, como Monsanto. El acceso a las semillas viables es un derecho natural, y la modificacin gentica de los alimentos y las semillas es un crimen contra la humanidad." - Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews.comPolish edition of the song also availableAlthough this will be announced separately, a Polish subtitled edition of this song is also available now, thanks to the efforts of www.stopcodex.plIt's the "Stop Codex Group" and they have posted this outstanding Polish-subtitled version of the video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2FL...Please share all these editions. In all, we now have the following available:English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnN6...Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz9s...Spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mit-...Polish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2FL...Please share! Join the fight for food freedom!




Document Number: 2406 
Votes opposing GMOs crash The Economist poll website
(NaturalNews) Last week we published a story urging our readers to vote NO on the GMO / biotech survey being hosted by The Economist (http://www.naturalnews.com/030370_G...). Within two hours after our post went live and people started sharing it on Facebook and elsewhere, the Economist's poll servers crashed hard and stayed offline for the entire weekend.Before this happened, we were winning the vote, of course. Word had spread among the natural health community, and we all began calling for people to vote. Right after we published our article, NO votes from readers all around the world started to flood in, and we saw the survey begin to shift even more strongly in our favor. Had The Economist's servers actually been able to handle the voting, I have no doubt the final vote would have been 70% against GMOs and 30% in favor.But as it stood, with their servers offline, the voting was halted at 62% no and 38% yes. Still a victory against the idea of GMOs, of course, but nowhere near the numbers that should have been recorded.The Economist explains their server problem"We had a technical problem with our site," explains Tom Standage, the Digital Editor for the magazine."During the last few days of the debate the address of the staging server was circulated on a number of environmental mailing lists, and on Twitter. This caused a sudden flood of "no" votes on the staging server, causing the underlying database to collapse because it was not load-balanced. That's why we've been unable to announce the vote in the usual way.Instead, we have taken the votes from both servers and have added them up to calculate the final tally: 38% yes, 62% no. ...Now you know what happened and why the voting tallies appeared to be behaving so oddly. We apologise for the confusion." (http://www.economist.com/blogs/news...)When the masses revolt against biotech...The interesting part about this is found in the observation of what happens when the masses take action to protest their foods and seeds being poisoned by corporations. This mass online uprising took down The Economist's servers in about two hours. (Most NaturalNews readers never even got a chance to vote.) And this was after many days of the so-called "science bloggers" trying desperately to win the vote even before we found out about it.If you think an online survey crashing from the sheer weight of opposition to GMOs is bad, just wait until there's a global crop failure caused by the unintended consequences of GMOs and the people suffer mass starvation as a result. If that scenario unfolds, you might see a mass violent uprising that could very well involve people marching on Monsanto's headquarters and quite literally burning it down out of anger and frustration.When you mess with nature and deprive people of their right to seeds, crops and food, you'd better be willing to face some rather serious consequences. When corporations like Monsanto are playing God with the food supply, they're also playing God with people's lives. And if something goes terribly wrong that leads to a collapse in one or more food crops, I have a feeling the public isn't going to be very forgiving. I wouldn't want to be a Monsanto executive in the aftermath of such a scenario, that's for sure...The EconomistDespite the glitches, it's good to know the Economist wasn't engaged in outright cheating on this survey. We've seen lots of cheating before. There were times in the past when NaturalNews readers were actually winning a survey, and the outfit running the survey would simply take it down, remove all the votes they didn't like, and put it back online with wildly different numbers. (A lot of online surveys are rigged from the start, which is why we normally don't even participate in them.)We've seen cases where the science bloggers actually tried to intentionally falsify votes in our favor in order to try to make it look like we were cheating, and then they would protest that we were cheating! Note to the desperate scientism flaks: We don't need to cheat. We already represent the majority opinion on these matters, and we reach millions of people who oppose GMOs, who oppose water fluoridation, who oppose mandatory vaccines and who value truth and knowledge over corporate-sponsored ignorance and quackery.Today's "scientism" followers (the cult worshippers who call themselves "science bloggers") don't value life, knowledge or truth. For some astonishing reason, they pick the most evil side of every issue. On the issue of GMOs, for example, they automatically side with Monsanto and DuPont, calling for more biotech Frankenseed interventions that threaten the very future of life on our planet.On the issue of Big Pharma and the mass-drugging of world citizens with patented synthetic chemicals, the science bloggers of course side with the drug companies! Big Pharma and the FDA can do no wrong in their eyes, and the solution to health is, they say, found in prescribing more chemicals to more people!If these people were living back in the 1950's, they would no doubt side with Big Tobacco, because the "science" at that time said cigarettes were actually good for you! The Journal of the American Medical Association, by the way, actually used to run full-page advertisements for cigarettes. And they were endorsed by doctors and scientists, too. (http://www.naturalnews.com/index-Ba...) Gee, no wonder they keep losing all the legitimate polls and surveys. Does anyone still believe that modern medicine is working? Does anyone really think that the answer to the problems facing human civilization is to be found in more chemicals, more genetic alterations, more playing God with nature and more corporate control over our food, medicine, genes and ideas? (The science bloggers, by the way, also support corporate ownership of human genes, 20% of which are right now patented by corporations and universities. This is an affront to natural law and a crime against humanity...)Science bloggers, by the way, do not actually represent science. They worship a cult called "scientism" that pushes a corporate agenda which seeks to concentrate power in the hands of the few while denying food, freedom and health to the people. This is the whole point about Monsanto being granted patents on seeds and even animals. It's also the whole point behind Senate Bill 510, which seeks to outlaw seed saving so that even a backyard gardener who tries to save her own seeds from a tomato plant could be arrested and imprisoned for doing so. (If you want to control the world, just control the seeds. That's what Monsanto is working towards, and the science bloggers are fully in support of this dark agenda...)With issues like these, the future of our world is at stake. Sooner or later, the People are going to rise up and defend their futures against corporate domination and the Cult of Scientism. Today's poll results with The Economist are merely a small taste of things to come.If you think overloading and (inadvertently) crashing one website survey is bad, just wait until the masses figure out how badly they've really been screwed by the corporate agenda to own and control their food, their seeds, their medicine and their futures. When the public wakes up to that, don't stand in their way.




Document Number: 4549 
GMOs Create Incredibly Toxic Colons
(NaturalNews) Probiotic expert S.K. Dash calls the healthy bacteria in our guts our first line of immune defense, as these tiny bacteria protect us from all sorts of problems. Everything from cancer to IBS to allergies and most every disease imaginable is connected to our healthy bacteria. But there's one problem. Eating one serving of GMO foods has been found to change the genetic structure of our healthy bacteria. Literally, some GMO foods might be altering our healthy bacteria so they'll now produce concentrated pesticides in our guts for the rest of our lives.GMOs may also be changing our healthy bacteria on a genetic level, so they'll continually produce abnormal proteins inside us. Because our ever-working DNA runs on proteins, throwing abnormal proteins into the mix can be the source of all sorts of serious and unpredictable problems. Yet, evidence from the only human GMO feeding trial ever published shows it's likely that GMOs have taken our once healthy bacteria that are designed to protect us - and turned them into a major toxicity source. In this manner, it's likely that GMOs have made our colons toxic beyond belief.One serving of GM soy was all it took to see the genetic mutation of our healthy bacteria -- and you'd be a rare individual not to have had thousands of servings of GMOs in your lifetime, let alone just one. In Europe, where GM foods aren't as prevalent as in other parts of the world, the animals are most likely eating GM grain - and GM genes are found in their flesh and the dairy that people consume. This intense pollution of inside the colon may be the reason that bees living near and eating GMOs crops have died in large numbers. Autopsies of the bees showed that they died from something that looked a lot like colon cancer.The depth that the problem presents is larger than can be conceived and it's unknown if it's even possible to completely reverse it. If so, it'll take some work because these tiny bacteria can double in number every 20 minutes and your body contains many trillions of them. So, if we didn't have enough reasons to do colon cleansing in a time when disease is rampant and often considered normal, GMOs offer yet another.To work to reverse the problem, you'd make good mileage by doing deep and aggressive colon cleansing using enemas or professional colonics. You'll also want to reseed your healthy bacteria with untainted bacteria from raw homemade sauerkraut, which contains more strains of bacteria than store-bought probiotics. Of course, you'll also want to get really familiar with the foods and food additives that contain GMOs and never put another in your mouth.Deep and regular colon cleansing will likely clean out stores of abnormal proteins and possibly release large amounts of pesticides that may have been created in your gut. Importantly, it'll also allow you to remove stores of now genetically mutant bacteria, while replacing them with untainted bacteria to try and correct the problem.For most, avoiding GMOs will require some new shopping and dining habits because about 90 percent of the packaged foods in a traditional U.S. grocery store contain GMOs. You'd also be hard pressed to find a restaurant that's not serving up GM corn chips that are likely mutating your healthy bacteria to produce concentrated pesticides. And it's hard to imagine that's what you thought you were ordering for lunch.More:Consumer's Guide to Probiotics, S.K. Dash, Ph.D.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffr...http://www.globalresearch.ca/index....http://www.naturalnews.com/028635_G...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_floraAbout the authorKim Evans is an author, photographer, and natural health writer. Her book, Cleaning Up! The Ultimate Body Cleanse, outlines deep and powerful at-home detoxification methods to address the root cause of most health problems. While its becoming common knowledge that most people carry an extreme toxic burden and that these toxins can cause any disease imaginable, most people dont know that there is a direct connection between our spiritual reality and the state of our bodies. Actually, these are all of the clean/unclean references in the Bible that no one really knows what they are referring to.Its funny, but it turns out that Cleaning Up! may be a Biblical and Nostradamus prophecy too. In Nostradamus Lost Book, he gave us seven images pointing to the time leading to 2012 and if one looks closely at the images, one will see that all hes doing is drawing the Revelation prophecy &ndash; which is of a book (or scroll) that is delivered that leads humankind to the light. The truly entertaining part is that in Nostradamus image &ndash; he drew someone who looks just like Kim writing the book, and then, albeit cryptically, stuck her first and middle name in the image too. You can see Kims profile and this image here: http://www.cleaningupcleanse.com/no...Cleaning Up! has recently been updated &ndash; and the author believes that the seven seals in the Revelation prophecy are methods in her book. Since the Bible states that all humans will be judged by in the book in the prophecy, maybe you want to get your copy today? Cleaning Up! also explains Nostradamus seven end of time images &ndash; and on December 21, 2012, the entire Revelation prophecy will be publically revealed. Learn more at www.cleaningupcleanse.com. 




Document Number: 9208 
Wikileaks cable reveals U.S. conspired to retaliate against European nations if they resisted GMOs
(NaturalNews) Wikileaks continues to rock the political world by shedding light on conspiracies, corruption and cover-ups. The latest batch of diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks reveals what can only be characterized as a U.S.-led conspiracy to force GMOs onto European countries by making those countries pay a steep price if they resist.The cable reveals the words of Craig Stapleton, the US ambassador to France, who was pushing the commercial interests of the biotech industry by attempting to force GMOs into France. In his own words (below), he expresses his frustration with the idea that France might pass environmental laws that would hamper the expansion of GMOs:"Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [European] Commission... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voice."Got that so far? His own words: "Retaliation" as a way to "make [it] clear" that resisting GMOs will have a price.Stapleton goes on to say something rather incredible:"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory..."As you read these words again, remember that these are the words of the U.S. ambassador to France who is suggesting the US "calibrate a target retaliation list" in order to "cause some pain across the EU" that must be "sustainable over the long term."The global GMO conspiracy is no longer a theoryNeed we say anything more? This cable proves, once and for all, that there is a global GMO conspiracy where government operatives work in secret to push Monsanto's GMO agenda while punishing opponents of GMOs and adding them to a "target retaliation list."This cable also proves that NaturalNews has been right all along about the GMO conspiracy, and that GMO opponents such as Jeffrey Smith are battling what can only be called an evil conspiracy to control the world's food supply. It also proves that when Alex Jones talks about the global conspiracy to control the world food supply, he's not just ranting. He's warning about the reality of the world in which we now live.As Jeffery Smith said today in a Democracy Now interview:"We&rsquo;ve been saying for years that the United States government is joined at the hip with Monsanto and pushing GMOs as part of Monsanto&rsquo;s agenda on the rest of the world. This lays bare the mechanics of that effort. We have Craig Stapleton, the former ambassador to France, specifically asking the U.S. government to retaliate and cause some harm throughout the European Union." (http://www.democracynow.org/seo/201...)Military termsDo you notice something about these words used by the US ambassador to France? "Calibrate a target retaliation list" sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it? It's the kind of language you might find tossed around in a military bombing war exercise.That's no coincidence: These government operatives quite literally consider themselves to be at war with the world, and they intend to conquer the world with their genetically modified poisons. They will do anything, it seems, to force-feed their deadly crops to the public.Eight important realizations from these leaksThis Wikileaks cable brings up all sorts of issues that each might deserve a separate article, but here are the highlights of what comes to my mind on this issue:Realization #1) Wikileaks is valuable for exposing the government lies in our world. Without Wikileaks, we never would have known about these cables which prove the existence of this GMO conspiracy.Realization #2) US government diplomatic officials are working for the corporations! It's just as we've described here on NaturalNews numerous times -- Big Government is really just an extension of the most evil and most powerful corporations that now dominate our planet: The drug companies, the weapons manufacturers, the agricultural giants and so on. Here's what Jeffrey Smith had to say about governments conspiring with Monsanto:"In 2009, we have a cable from the ambassador to Spain from the United States asking for intervention there, asking the government to help formulate a biotech strategy and support the government -- members of the government in Spain that want to promote GMOs, as well. And here, they specifically indicate that they sat with the director of Monsanto for the region and got briefed by him about the politics of the region and created strategies with him to promote the GMO agenda."Realization #3) The US is willing to retaliate against European countries if they try to block GMOs. This brings up the question: Why is the US so desperate to push GMOs on Europe? Clearly there is another agenda behind all this (maybe we'll learn more in future Wikileaks releases).Realization #4) No wonder the US government has declared war on Wikileaks because these dark secrets and "conspiracy notes" are never made public through any normal means. It takes a whistleblower to expose the true government corruption taking place in our world today.Realization #5) The GMO conspiracy reaches to the highest levels of global control. This US ambassador Stapleton wasn't just a nobody. He was, in fact, the co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former President George W. Bush! His wife, by the way, is George Bush's cousin. This is a conspiracy involving the highest-ranking officials across multiple countries who are pushing a GMO agenda that's poisoning people across the planet.Realization #6) Governments are literally trying to kill their own people. It is widely known in the inner circles of power that GMOs are deadly, but governments keep pushing them anyway. As Jeffrey Smith explains in his interview with Democracy Now:"...the person who was in charge of FDA policy in 1992, Monsanto&rsquo;s former attorney, Michael Taylor, he allowed GMOs on the market without any safety studies and without labeling, and the policy claimed that the agency was not aware of any information showing that GMOs were significantly different. Seven years later, because of a lawsuit, 44,000 secret internal FDA memos revealed that that policy was a lie. Not only were the scientists at the FDA aware that GMOs were different, they had warned repeatedly that they might create allergies, toxins, new diseases and nutritional problems. But they were ignored, and their warnings were even denied, and the policy went forth allowing the deployment GMOs into the food supply with virtually no safety studies."Realization #7) The GMO conspiracy is always reframed as "science". At one point in the leaked cables, Stapleton warns that in opposing GMOs, France would "roll back established science-based decision making." The GMO conspiracy, you have to remember, is always hidden behind the term "science" so that anyone who opposes GMOs can be characterized as being somehow against "scientific thinking."All this gives science a bad name, of course, but I suppose that since the history of science is filled with arrogant scientists poisoning people in the name of science (mercury, vaccines, radiation, plastics, medications, etc.), we shouldn't be all that surprised to observe this.Realization #8) Spain has been a key co-conspirator to push the U.S. GMO agenda. Much of the conspiring taking place in the EU has been spearheaded by Spain, whose officials met personally with the head of Monsanto to plot their push of GMOs into Europe.All of a sudden the Blackwater story adds upThis all reminds me of a story published a few months back by The Nation in which Jeremy Scahill exposed a link between Monsanto and the military contractor known as Blackwater. His article claimed that Monsanto had hired Blackwater spies to "infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm." (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/09/...)Monsanto vehemently denied the allegation. I looked hard at covering that story at the time but could not substantiate the accusations to my satisfaction. However, given the new information gleaned from these leaked diplomatic cables -- which blatantly state that the GMO conspirators plan to "calibrate a target retaliation list" -- all of a sudden the Blackwater story adds up.This is the verbage of a military-style retaliation campaign, and that's exactly the business of Blackwater. Remember how Stapleton said the US needed to "cause some pain?" That's Blackwater's calling card!Although these cables don't prove any connection between Monsanto and Blackwater, they do lend credence to the idea that such a link is not only possibly, but perhaps even probable. It clearly deserves additional investigation.Regardless of whether the Blackwater / Monsanto link is ever proven, what's crystal clear from all this is that the global GMO conspiracy is very real and that GMO conspirators plot retaliatory actions against any nation that refuses to allow GMOs into their country.The whole thing is then disguised as "science" so that anyone who opposes it can be branded as "non-scientific." This is the same sick way in which vaccines are pushed, too: They're called "scientific" even when they're based entirely on scientific fraud (as are GMOs).How governments really operateAbove all, what these Wikileaks cables really reveal is that government conspiracies are, of course, not only real but that they are taking place right now. Diplomats and ambassadors are, in effect, government thugs who engage in the most unethical actions, full of threats and retaliation, in order to serve the financial interests of their corporate masters.That's how the world really works, despite the Disney-like image portrayed by the mainstream media. Behind the scenes, the U.S. government is literally plotting with Monsanto to take over the world's food supply. That is not an exaggeration. It's not conjecture. It is a statement of fact based on the words of the government's own operatives (who obviously didn't know their words would ever be made public).Through Wikileaks, we have been given a glimpse into the truth behind the Great Wall of government lies. And that truth, it turns out, is a lot uglier than most people could have imagined. (It's no surprise to me, because I've seen things that most regular people have never witnessed. But to a regular Joe Blow working his J.O.B. and watching the evening news, the hard-core truth about the world is a bit too much to handle...)Personally, I can't wait to see what other dark secrets are buried in these Wikileaks cables. And it all makes me wish we had a Wikileaks for the FDA, too. Can you imagine all the dirty secrets that would come out of the FDA's offices if we could read their emails? We need an FDA leaker.The other thought that comes to mind is how much I wouldn't want to be Julian Assange right now. His head is now the world's most powerful bullet magnet... especially when government rifles are anywhere nearby. If the U.S. government would conspire to create a "retaliation target list" of nations that are merely resisting GMOs, can you imagine what they will do if they ever get their hands on Assange?Read the leaked cables right here:http://213.251.145.96/cable/2008/02...andhttp://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/05...(Note: These links may not be active for very long because the governments of the world are obviously trying to shut down all the websites that post this information. The truth, it seems, is just too dangerous to allow it to be openly published.)How to turn all this aroundDon't let all this get you down. You can take action to help turn this around!Action Item #1) Don't buy GMO foods! Look for the non-GMO "Project Verified" label on foods.Action Item #2) Urge lawmakers to oppose GMOs or require honest GMO labeling of foods.Action Item #3) Help support the Institute for Responsible Technology and other non-profits working to oppose GMOs.Action Item #4) Stay informed! Read NaturalNews and our Facebook GMO Dangers page (www.facebook.com/GMO.dangers) to stay up on this issue. The IRT (above) will keep you even more deeply informed on GMOs.Action Item #5) Share what you know! Share videos, cartoons, articles and websites with your friends and family members who also care about protecting their health from GMOs.Action Item #6) Don't trust the government! They are pushing a GMO conspiracy. They don't want you to have natural food, and the FDA is now being unleashed under the new food safety bill to destroy small farmers who tend to use non-GMO crops. Fight against government encroachment of our natural right to grow honest food. Support food freedom!Learn more about GMOsGet the truth from Jeffrey Smith at: www.ResponsibleTechnology.orgSee the GMO page on NaturalNews: www.NaturalNews.com/GMOs.htmlJoin our anti-GMO page on Facebook: www.Facebook.com/GMO.dangersWatch my Just Say No to GMO video! It's now available in four languages:English: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnN6...Chinese: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz9s...Spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mit-...Polish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2FL...Spread the word! Educate yourself and your friends about the dangers of GMOs.Upload your own non-GMO videos (FREE) to our natural health video site: www.NaturalNews.TVJust say NO to GMOs.




Document Number: 327 
Hershey's brings non-GMO confections to Europe, but not to US
(NaturalNews) The Hershey Company is expanding its confectionery market to Europe. And the company plans to reformulate its Europe-destined products to be free of genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) in order to meet demand and to comply with the non-GMO requirements of Asda, the U.K. subsidiary of Wal-Mart that will be Hershey's exclusive retailer in the U.K. However, Hershey's has no intentions of changing any of its U.S. formulas, all of which are tainted with GM ingredients, say reports.According to an email obtained by GMWatch, an independent watchdog group fighting pro-GMO propaganda, Hershey's agreed to reformulate 21 varieties of its chocolate products, including Reese's brand chocolates, to meet Asda's requirements. And a report in Confectionery News confirms this as well, noting that the reformulations are strictly for the European market and not for the U.S. market."The key ingredients which have been re-formulated from non-GM sources include changing the sugar source from beet to cane sugar and using IP (Identity Preservation) soy lecithin," explained Julian Walker-Palin, Head of Corporate Sustainability at Asda, in an email to Peter Melchett, head of the U.K. Soil Association. "In addition to this the transportation and storage have been confirmed also as GM-free or cleaned before use with these products."According to reports, Asda does not carry any products that contain GM ingredients, so Hershey's had to agree to work with the company to create appropriate new formulas. In the past, many large U.S. food producers have argued that reformulating their products to exclude GMOs is not cost effective. But why it was worthwhile for Hershey's to change its product formulas for the European market, but not for the U.S. market, so far remains a question without an answer.Sources for this story include:http://www.confectionerynews.com/Ma...http://gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1...




Document Number: 4861 
Help defeat GMOs by supporting the Institute for Responsible Technology
(NaturalNews) As you may already be aware, Monsanto and other powerful corporations are well along in their plans to dominate the world food supply through genetic engineering. Genetically engineered food ingredients like corn and soy, as well as sugar from GMO sugar beets, are now found in thousands of grocery food items.While all this is going on, the FDA is making every effort to prevent the public from knowing the truth about GMOs in their foods. They've claimed that requiring GE foods to be accurately labeled would be "confusing" to consumers. The upshot is that they have no intention to require mandatory GMO labeling of food products, and in fact the FDA seems committed to making sure consumers are left in the dark (as usual).As the editor of NaturalNews, I've been fighting hard to raise public awareness about the dangers of GMOs through articles, videos and music. But there's another person who has been doing even more -- for about 15 years  -- to protect you from the dangers of genetically modified foods.His name is Jeffrey Smith, and he's the executive director of the non-profit Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT).Today, Jeffrey works long hours, seven days a week to appear on radio and TV shows, to produce videos and documentaries and to fight for real change that would end the era of genetically engineered foods. He does this on a shoestring budget.But even that small budget barely makes ends meet. IRT urgently needs additional financial support from people like you and me in order to continue its important work that ultimately protects us all from GMOs.That's why I'm writing you today to ask for your financial support of IRT. I have personally pledged up to $10,000 to IRT in matching donations from NaturalNews.com, so for every dollar you donate, I'll match it with a dollar from us (up to 10K). Together, we can help raise $20,000 for the IRT.Click here to contribute to the IRT right now and help protect yourself from GMOs.To date, we've raised about $3500, so thank you to those who have already donated. Even small contributions really mean a lot to IRT, and every dollar you contribute goes to one of the most important causes that exists today -- the protection of our food supply from greed-driven corporations who want to monopolize the world seed supply.We are literally fighting for our long-term survival here. If we hope to maintain biodiversity among the seed supply, protect farmers and prevent consumers from being harmed by the negative side effects of GMOs, we need to defeat the GMO agenda right now. To do it, IRT is implementing a plan to create a tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, to force them out of the market.Since GM ingredients offer no consumer benefit, as little as 5% of shoppers avoiding them could be sufficient to turn the tide. Concerned citizens already kicked GMOs out of European brands, and informed consumers can do it here in America as well. IRT educates people about the health dangers, and provides them with Non-GMO Shopping Guides. IRT plans to release more documentaries, interviews and articles, and to establish local and national Non-GMO Working Groups to educate the public, parents, schools, healthcare professionals, and others to stop buying high-risk foods that use GMO ingredients. That effort takes funding, and you can probably already imagine such funding isn't being offered by many corporations.If we are to be successful in halting the scourge of GMOs, it's really up to you and me. We must be the support that keeps IRT going. Together, we can win this fight for our food freedom and help protect future generations from the travesty of GMO seeds and crops.Please join me in contributing to IRT today with your tax-deductible contribution.Click here to contribute now.And remember, every dollar you contribute is matched by NaturalNews, up to a total of $10,000. Your contributions are fully tax-deductible, so please donate what you can to this worthy cause.Thank you for joining me in this effort to save our crops -- and ourselves -- from the GMO agenda.- Mike AdamsThe Health RangerEditor, NaturalNews.com




Document Number: 1526 
Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit
(NaturalNews) At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. According to a former Monsanto vice president, "We were despised by our customers."So they redefined themselves as a "life sciences" company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. Monsanto's chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, "Everybody over here hates us." Now the rest of the world is catching on."Saving the world," and other liesMonsanto's public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.3. GMOs increase yield.4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.All five are pure myths  --  blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world and cleaning up the environment with his company's new technology. When he visited Monsanto's St. Louis headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his enthusiasm for Shapiro's vision during a meeting. When the session ended, a company vice president pulled him aside and set him straight. "Wait a second," he told Azevedo. "What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don't even understand what he is saying." Azevedo realized he was working for "just another profit-oriented company," and all the glowing words about helping the planet were just a front.A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told him that Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle. Azevedo "was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic."He asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows' milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused. Azevedo approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. "I was somewhat ostracized," he said. "Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. . . . Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside." Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto. He said, "I'm not going to be part of this disaster."Monsanto's toxic pastAzevedo got a small taste of Monsanto's character. A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."(1)The $700 million fine imposed on Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels of Monsanto's toxic PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the average. This disease-producing chemical, used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business." Welcome to the world of Monsanto.Infiltrating the minds and offices of the governmentTo get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the globe. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to pass the drug without further tests. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3) And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.Monsanto's GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay's Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, "It is possible that [Monsanto], let's say, promoted its varieties and its seeds" before they were approved. "We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let's say, unorthodox way."In the US, Monsanto's people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto's facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, "Call me. We're in the 'de-reg' business. Maybe we can help."Monsanto's influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, "there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren't marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress." Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever 'they' were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."(4)He admits, "when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit."Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOsIn the US, new food additives must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.(5) There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto's legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing." According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."The person who oversaw the development of the FDA's GMO policy was their Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto's vice president. He's now back at the FDA, as the US food safety czar.Covering up health dangersThe policy Taylor oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.(6) In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA's internal files, "References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists)."(7)FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, 'What do I have to do to avoid trouble'-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."(8)The FDA scientists' concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."(9) Contrast that with the official policy statement issued by Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."(10) On the basis of this false statement, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.Fake safety assessmentsMonsanto participates in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA that is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Monsanto submits whatever information it chooses, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of its own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, says the FDA consultation process "misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat."(11)But that is not the point of the exercise. The FDA doesn't actually approve the crops or declare them safe. That is Monsanto's job! At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter stating:"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements."(12)The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London(13) describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."(14)One obvious reason for the inflexibility of the FDA is that they are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them  --  a clear conflict. That is also why the FDA does not require mandatory labeling of GM foods. They ignore the desires of 90 percent of American citizens in order to support the economic interests of Monsanto and the four other GM food companies.Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawedThe unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential business information." The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. Their Expert Panel called for "completely transparent" submissions, "open to full review by scientific peers" They wrote, "Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science."(15)Whenever Monsanto's private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why they benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, and would never stand up to peer-review. In December 2009, for example, a team of independent researchers published a study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as significant changes in other organs.(16) Monsanto's studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto, and the corn is already in our food supply.Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers(17)Monsanto has plenty of experience cooking the books of their research and hiding the hazards. They manufactured the infamous Agent Orange, for example, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than three million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, "thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen." But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, "If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result."Here are examples of tinkering with the truth about Monsanto's GM products:&bull; When dairy farmers inject cows with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH), more bovine growth hormone ends up in the milk. To allay fears, the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone. In reality, the researchers of this drug (then owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.&bull; To demonstrate that rbGH injections didn't interfere with cows' fertility, Monsanto appears to have secretly added cows to their study that were pregnant BEFORE injection.&bull; FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs said that Monsanto researchers dropped sick cows from studies, to make the drug appear safer.&bull; Richard Burroughs ordered more tests on rbGH than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled. The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They complained of one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just become the head of an FDA department that was evaluating the research that she had recently done while an employee of Monsanto.&bull; Another former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer.&bull; When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto's GM soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection  --  one that had been prone to highly variable results.&bull; To prove that GM protein breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, Monsanto uses thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization recommends.&bull; Monsanto told government regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in soil. They claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a safe history as part of the human diet. The actual amount of the GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume, however, if all their corn were Monsanto's variety, would be "about 30 billion to four trillion times" the amount normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure, people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soil every second of every day.&bull; Monsanto's high-lysine corn also had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity, Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties that were also far outside the normal range on precisely these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there were no statistically significant differences in their GM corn content.Methods used by Monsanto to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:&bull; Use animals with varied starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related changes;&bull; Keep feeding studies short, to miss long-term impacts;&bull; Test Roundup Ready soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup  --  as they always are in real world conditions;&bull; Avoid feeding animals the GM crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein produced from GM bacteria;&bull; Use too few subjects to obtain statistical significance;&bull; Use poor or inappropriate statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical methods, or include essential data; and&bull; Employ insensitive detection techniques  --  doomed to fail.Monsanto's 1996 Journal of Nutrition study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods.&bull; Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."&bull; Organs were never weighed.&bull; The GM soy was diluted up to 12 times which, according to an expert review, "would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."&bull; The amount of protein in the feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative impacts of the soy.&bull; Samples were pooled from different locations and conditions, making it nearly impossible for compositional differences to be statistically significant. &bull; Data from the only side-by-side comparison was removed from the study and never published. When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents (e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice the amount of a lectin  --  which interferes with the body's ability to assimilate nutrients. Moreover, the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked non-GM control. Monsanto named their study, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans."A paper published in Nutrition and Health analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of 2003. It came as no surprise that Monsanto's Journal of Nutrition study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were "performed more or less in collaboration with private companies," reported no negative effects of the GM diet. "On the other hand," they wrote, "adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies." They added, "It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10 to 14 days."(18)A former Monsanto scientist recalls how colleagues were trying to rewrite a GM animal feeding study, to hide the ill-effects. But sometimes when study results are unmistakably damaging, Monsanto just plain lies. Monsanto's study on Roundup, for example, showed that 28 days after application, only 2 percent of their herbicide had broken down. They nonetheless advertised the weed killer as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects the environment." These statements were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. The company was forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage&bull; On July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because their labels stated, "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Oakhurst eventually settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics, and pus, in milk from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had been written years earlier by the FDA's deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, the one who was formerly Monsanto's outside attorney and later their vice president.&bull; Monsanto's public relations firm created a group called the Dairy Coalition, which pressured editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to limit negative coverage of rbGH.&bull; A Monsanto attorney wrote a letter to Fox TV, promising dire consequences if the station aired a four-part expos on rbGH. The show was ultimately canceled.&bull; A book critical of Monsanto's GM foods was three days away from being published. A threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney forced the small publisher to cancel publication.&bull; 14,000 copies of Ecologist magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto were shredded by the printer due to fears of a lawsuit.&bull; After a ballot initiative in California established Mendocino County as a GM-free zone  --  where planting GMOs is illegal, Monsanto and others organized to push through laws in 14 states that make it illegal for cities and counties to declare similar zones.Monsanto's promises of riches come up shortBiotech advocates have wooed politicians, claiming that their new technology is the path to riches for their city, state, or nation. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."(19) Indeed, The Wall Street Journal observed, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year."(20) The Associated Press says it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."(21)Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire sectors with losses and problems.Under the first Bush administration, for example, the White House's elite Council on Competitiveness chose to fast track GM food in hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued. US corn exports to Europe were virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn prices by 13 to 20 percent.(22) Their CEO said, "The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit US vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."(23) US soy sales also plummeted due to GM content.According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture, the closed markets and slashed prices forced the federal government to pay an additional $3 to $5 billion every year.(24) He says growers have only been kept afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.(25)Instead of withdrawing support for failed GM crops, the US government has been convinced by Monsanto and others that the key to success is to force open foreign markets to GMOs. But many nations are also reeling under the false promise of GMOs.Canola crashes on GMWhen Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in 1996, it led to a disaster. The premium-paying EU market, which took about one-third of Canada's canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in 1995, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian canola prices fall to a record low,(26) Canada even lost their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination.Australia benefited significantly from Canada's folly. By 2006, the EU was buying 38 percent of Australia's canola exports.(27) Nonetheless, Monsanto's people in Australia claimed that GM canola was the way to get more competitive. They told farmers that Roundup Ready canola would yield up to 30 percent more. But when an investigator looked at the best trial yields on Monsanto's web site, it was 17 percent below the national average canola yield. When that was publicized, the figures quickly disappeared from the Monsanto's site. Two Aussie states did allow GM canola and sure enough, they are suffering from loss of foreign markets.In Australia and elsewhere, the non-GMO farmers also suffer. Market prices drop, and farmers spend more to set up segregation systems, GMO testing, buffer zones, and separate storage and shipping channels to try to hold onto non-GMO markets. Even then, they risk contamination and lost premiums.GM farmers don't earn or produce moreMonsanto has been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits. You still hear that rhetoric at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a 2006 USDA report "could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. They said, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."(28)Similarly, the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) flatly states, "The claim that GM seeds make our farms more profitable is false."(29) Net farm incomes in Canada plummeted since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being the worst in Canada's history.In spite of numerous advertising claims that GM crops increase yield, the average GM crop from Monsanto reduces yield. This was confirmed by the most comprehensive evaluation on the subject, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009. Called Failure to Yield, the report demonstrated that in spite of years of trying, GM crops return fewer bushels than their non-GM counterparts. Even the 2006 USDA report stated that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. . . . In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars."(30)US farmers had expected higher yields with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield loss of 4 to 11percent.(31) Brazilian soybean yields are also down since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.(32) In Canada, a study showed a 7.5 percent lower yield with Roundup Ready canola.(33)The Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) observed, "Corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks. . . . It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions."(34)Herbicide use rising due to GMOsMonsanto bragged that their Roundup Ready technology would reduce herbicide, but at the same time they were building new Roundup factories to meet their anticipated increase in demand. They got it. According to USDA data, the amount of herbicide used in the US increased by 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans accounted for 92 percent of the total increase. Due to the proliferation of Roundup resistant weeds, herbicide use is accelerating rapidly. From 2007 to 2008, herbicide used on GM herbicide tolerant crops skyrocketed by 31.4 percent.(35) Furthermore, as weeds fail to respond to Roundup, farmers also rely on more toxic pesticides such as the highly poisonous 2,4-D.Contamination happensIn spite of Monsanto's assurances that it wouldn't be a problem, contamination has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even entire food sectors. The biotech industry recommends buffer zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola cross-pollination occurring as far as 26 km away.(36)But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human error. The contamination is North America is so great, it is difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.(37) Most of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola seeds tested in the US also contained GMOs.(38)Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn  --  unapproved for human consumption  --  ended up the US food supply in 2000 and resulted in an estimated price tag of $1 billion. The final cost of GM rice contamination in the US in 2006 could be even higher.Deadly deception in IndiaMonsanto ran a poster series called, "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON." One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits, but when investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster claimed yields by the pictured farmer that were four times what he actually achieved. One poster showed a farmer standing next to a tractor, suggesting that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires."In addition to posters, Monsanto's cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.Scientists published a study claiming that Monsanto's cotton increased yields in India by 70 to 80 percent. But they used only field trial data provided to them by Monsanto. Actual yields turn out to be quite different:&bull; India News(39) reported studies showing a loss of about 18 percent.&bull; An independent study in Andhra Pradesh "done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages" showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12 percent more, yielded 8.3 percent less, and the returns over three years were 60 percent less.(40)&bull; Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30 to 60 percent. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb. 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. Monsanto refused.In sharp contrast to the independent research done by agronomists, Monsanto commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.(41)In Andhra Pradesh, where 71 percent of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses, farmers attacked the seed dealer's office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.(42)In spite of great losses and unreliable yields, Monsanto has skillfully eliminated the availability of non-GM cotton seeds in many regions throughout India, forcing farmers to buy their varieties.Farmers borrow heavily and at high interest rates to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. When Bt cotton performs poorly and can't even pay back the debt, desperate farmers resort to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day. The UK Daily Mail estimates that the total number of Bt cotton-related suicides in India is a staggering 125,000.Doctors orders: no genetically modified foodA greater tragedy may be the harm from the dangerous GM foods produced by Monsanto. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets without GM foods to all patients.(43) They called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling. They stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation&hellip;"Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America.Pregnant women and babies at great riskGM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children. After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died  --  compared to 10 percent deaths among controls fed natural soy.(44) GM-fed babies were smaller, and possibly infertile.(45)Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark blue.(46) Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.(47) Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.(48)  And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.(49)In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, and infertility; many calves died. About two dozen US farmers said thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile.(50)In the US, incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.Food that produces poisonMonsanto's GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in pesticide called Bt-toxin  --  produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. When bugs bite the plant, poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so Monsanto claims that Bt-toxin must be safe.The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,(51) has properties of an allergen, and cannot be washed off the plant.Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can be harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms.(52)(53) The same symptoms are now reported by farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.(54)GMOs provoke immune reactionsGMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are "a consistent feature of all the [animal] studies."(55) From Monsanto's own research to government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune reactions.(56)(57)Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."GM soy and corn contain new proteins with allergenic properties,(58) and GM soy has up to seven times more of a known soy allergen.(59) Perhaps the US epidemic of food llergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.Animals dying in large numbersIn India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin."(60) In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On Jan. 3, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.(61) Monsanto's Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.(62)Lab studies of GM crops by other companies also show mortalities. Twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; seven of 40 rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.(63) And a farmer in Germany says his cows died after exclusively eating Syngenta's GM corn.GMOs remain inside of usThe only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.Hidden dangersBiologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute says, "If there are problems [with GMOs], we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." In the nine years after GM crops were introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.(65) But without any human clinical trials or post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a contributor.Un-recallable contaminationIn spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don't have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste.Replacing nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.(66)An Associated Press expos (67) reveals how Monsanto's onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions. One contract provision, for example, "prevented bidding wars" and "likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately.'"With that restriction in place, the seed companies couldn't even think of selling to a company other than Monsanto. According to attorney David Boies, who represents DuPont  --  owner of Pioneer Seeds: "If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things  --  destroy things they paid for  --  if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw." Boies was a prosecutor on the antitrust case against Microsoft. He is now working with DuPont in their civil antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto.Monsanto also has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated:"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."Monsanto also controls and manipulates farmers through onerous contracts. Troy Roush, for example, is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds  --  at a premium  --  each season.Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his "family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved." Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has "created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives." Monsanto has collected an estimated $200 million from farmers thus far.Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."Our food security lies in diversity  --  both biodiversity, and diversity of owners and interests. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org. To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com. About the authorInternational bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey Smith is the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of genetically modified (GM) foods. His first book, Seeds of Deception, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on the topic. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, provides overwhelming evidence that GMOs are unsafe and should never have been introduced. Mr. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, whose Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to create the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs, forcing them out of our food supply. Watch the free online video today, for the big picture.(1) Michael Grunwald, "Monsanto Held Liable for PCB Dumping," Washington Post, February 23, 2002(2) "Monsanto Bribery Charges in Indonesia by DoJ and USSEC," Third World Network, Malaysia, Jan 27, 2005, http://www.mindfully.org/GE/2005/Mo...(3) "Greenpeace exposes Government-Monsanto nexus to cheat Indian farmers: calls on GEAC to revoke BT cotton permission," Press release, March 3, 2005, http://www.greenpeace.org/india_en/...(4) Bill Lambrecht, Dinner at the New Gene Caf, St. Martin's Press, September 2001, pg 139(5) See Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)(6) See Smith, Seeds of Deception; and for copies of FDA memos, see The Alliance for Bio-Integrity, www.biointegrity.org(7) Steven M. Druker, "How the US Food and Drug Administration approved genetically engineered foods despite the deaths one had caused and the warnings of its own scientists about their unique risks," Alliance for Bio-Integrity, http://www.biointegrity.org/ext-sum...(8) Louis J. Pribyl, "Biotechnology Draft Document, 2/27/92," March 6, 1992, www.biointegrity.org http://www.biointegrity.org/FDAdocs...(9) Linda Kahl, Memo to James Maryanski about Federal Register Document "Statement of Policy: Foods from Genetically Modified Plants," Alliance for Bio-Integrity(January 8, 1992) http://www.biointegrity.org(10) "Statement of Policy: Foods Derived from New Plant Varieties," Federal Register 57, no. 104 (May 29, 1992): 22991.(11) Doug Gurian-Sherman, "Holes in the Biotech Safety Net, FDA Policy Does Not Assure the Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods," Center for Science in the Public Interest, http://www.cspinet.org/new/pdf/fda_...(12) FDA Letter, Letter from Alan M. Rulis, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, FDA to Dr. Kent Croon, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Monsanto Company, Sept 25, 1996. See Letter for BNF No. 34 at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~lrd/bioco...(13) See for example, "Good Enough To Eat?" New Scientist (February 9, 2002), 7.(14) "Health risks of genetically modified foods," editorial, Lancet, 29 May 1999.(15) "Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada; An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada" The Royal Society of Canada, January 2001.(16) de Vendmois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Sralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm(17) For citations on rigged research, see, Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, Iowa, USA, 2007 (18) Ian F. Pryme and Rolf Lembcke, "In Vivo Studies on Possible Health Consequences of Genetically Modified Food and Feed -- with Particular Regard to Ingredients Consisting of Genetically Modified Plan Materials," Nutrition and Health 17(2003): 1&ndash;8. (19) Chee Yoke Heong, Biotech investing a high-risk gamble, Asia Times, July 31, 2004, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_... (20) David P. Hamilton, "Biotech's Dismal Bottom Line: More Than $40 Billion in Losses: As Scientists Search for Cures, They Gobble Investor Cash; A Handful Hit the Jackpot - 'The Ultimate Roulette Game'", Wall Street Journal, 20 May 2004, www.mindfully.org/GE/2004/Biotech-$...(21) Leslie Parrilla, Biotechnology grant trains workers, Associated Press, August 18, 2004, http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2...(22) Hugh Warwick and Gundala Meziani, Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil Association, September 2002(23) "Corn Growers Challenge Logic of Promoting Biotechnology in Foreign Markets" Press Release American Corn Growers Association June 5, 2001 http://www.biotech-info.net/foreign... (24) Hugh Warwick and Gundala Meziani, Seeds of Doubt, UK Soil Association, September 2002(25) Charles Benbrook, "Premium Paid for Bt Corn Seed Improves Corporate Finances While Eroding Grower Profits," Benbrook Consulting Services, Sandpoint, Idaho, February 2002(26) NFU (2005a) GM Crops: Not Needed on the Island, - Recommendations of the National Farmers Union to the Prince Edward Island Legislature's Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and the Environment, www.nfu.ca/briefs/2005/PEI%20GMO%20... viewed 20/6/07.(27) Foster, M. et al (2003) Market Access Issues for GM Products: Implications for Australia, ABARE Research Report 03.13, p. 9. Available at: http://abareonlineshop.com/product.... viewed 24/6/05.(28) Fernandez-Cornejo, J. and McBride, W., May 2002. Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. ERS USDA Agricultural Economic Report, p.24. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publication... (29) NFU (2007) Submission by the National Farmers Union on The Farm Income Crisis Business Risk Management, and The "Next Generation" Agricultural Policy Framework,  April 26th, 2007 www.nfu.ca/briefs/2007/NFU_Brief_to... viewed 13/8/07.(30) Fernandez-Cornejo, J. & Caswell. April 2006. Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States. USDA/ERS Economic Information Bulletin n. 11. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publication... (31) See for example, Charles Benbrook, Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 1, July 13, 1999, and Oplinger, E.S et al., 1999. Performance of Transgenetic Soyabeans, Northern US. http://www.biotech-info.net/soybean... (32) ABIOVE, 2006a. Sustainaibility in the Legal Amazon. Presentation by Carlo Lovatelli at the Second Roundtable on Responsible Soy. Paraguay, 1 September 2006. http://www.abiove.com.br/english/pa... (33) Fulton, M and Keyowski, L. "The Producer Benefits of Herbicide Resistant Canola." AgBioForum Vol 2 No 2, 1999, as reported in Stone, S. Matysek, A. and Dolling, A. Modeling Possible Impacts of GM Crops on Australian Trade Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, October 2002 at 32.(34) NFU (2005a) GM Crops: Not Needed on the Island, - Recommendations of the National Farmers Union to the Prince Edward Island Legislature's Standing Committee on Agriculture, Forestry, and the Environment, www.nfu.ca/briefs/2005/PEI%20GMO%20... viewed 20/6/07. (35) Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years" November 2009 http://www.organic-center.org/scien... (36) Ramsay, G., Thompson, C. & Squire, G. (2004) Quantifying landscape-scale gene flow in oilseed rape, Scottish Crop Research Institute and the UK Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), October 2004, p. 4. www.defra.gov.uk/environment/gm/res... viewed 16/7/07.(37) Friesen, L., Nelson, A. & Van Acker, R. (2003) Evidence of Contamination of Pedigreed Canola (Brassica napus) Seedlots in Western Canada with Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance Traits," Agronomy Journal 95, 2003, pp. 1342-1347, cited in NFU (2005b).(38) Mellon, M & Rissler, J. (2004) Gone to Seed: Transgenic Contaminants in the Traditional Seed Supply, Union of Concerned Scientists, cited in NFU (2005b).(39) May 6, 2005, India News(40) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.(41) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.(42) Abdul Qayum & Kiran Sakkhari. Did Bt Cotton Save Farmers in Warangal? A season long impact study of Bt Cotton - Kharif 2002 in Warangal District of Andhra Pradesh . AP Coalition in Defence of Diversity & Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, 2003.(43) http://www.aaemonline.org/gmopost.html(44) Irina Ermakova, "Genetically modified soy leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality of rat pups of the first generation. Preliminary studies," Ecosinform 1 (2006): 4&ndash;9.(45) Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007(46) Irina Ermakova, "Experimental Evidence of GMO Hazards," Presentation at Scientists for a GM Free Europe, EU Parliament, Brussels, June 12, 2007(47) L. Vecchio et al, "Ultrastructural Analysis of Testes from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," European Journal of Histochemistry 48, no. 4 (Oct&ndash;Dec 2004):449&ndash;454.(48) Oliveri et al., "Temporary Depression of Transcription in Mouse Pre-implantion Embryos from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean," 48th Symposium of the Society for Histochemistry, Lake Maggiore (Italy), September 7&ndash;10, 2006.(49) Alberta Velimirov and Claudia Binter, "Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice," Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV, Band 3/2008(50) Jerry Rosman, personal communication, 2006(51) See for example, A. Dutton, H. Klein, J. Romeis, and F. Bigler, "Uptake of Bt-toxin by herbivores feeding on transgenic maize and consequences for the predator Chrysoperia carnea," Ecological Entomology 27 (2002): 441&ndash;7; and J. Romeis, A. Dutton, and F. Bigler, "Bacillus thuringiensis toxin (Cry1Ab) has no direct effect on larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae)," Journal of Insect Physiology 50, no. 2&ndash;3 (2004): 175&ndash;183.(52) Washington State Department of Health, "Report of health surveillance activities: Asian gypsy moth control program," (Olympia, WA: Washington State Dept. of Health, 1993).(53) M. Green, et al., "Public health implications of the microbial pesticide Bacillus thuringiensis: An epidemiological study, Oregon, 1985-86," Amer. J. Public Health 80, no. 7(1990): 848&ndash;852.(54) Ashish Gupta et. al., "Impact of Bt Cotton on Farmers' Health (in Barwani and Dhar District of Madhya Pradesh)," Investigation Report, Oct&ndash;Dec 2005.(55) October 24, 2005 correspondence between Arpad Pusztai and Brian John(56) John M. Burns, "13-Week Dietary Subchronic Comparison Study with MON 863 Corn in Rats Preceded by a 1-Week Baseline Food Consumption Determination with PMI Certified Rodent Diet #5002," December 17, 2002 http://www.monsanto.com/monsanto/content/sci_tech/prod_safety/fullratstudy.pdf(57) Alberto Finamore, et al, "Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice," J. Agric. Food Chem. , 2008, 56 (23), pp 11533&ndash;11539, November 14, 2008(58) See L Zolla, et al, "Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications," J Proteome Res. 2008 May;7(5):1850-61; Hye-Yung Yum, Soo-Young Lee, Kyung-Eun Lee, Myung-Hyun Sohn, Kyu-Earn Kim, "Genetically Modified and Wild Soybeans: An immunologic comparison," Allergy and Asthma Proceedings 26, no. 3 (May&ndash;June 2005): 210-216(7); and Gendel, "The use of amino acid sequence alignments to assess potential allergenicity of proteins used in genetically modified foods," Advances in Food and Nutrition Research 42 (1998), 45&ndash;62.(59) A. Pusztai and S. Bardocz, "GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks," Chapter 17, Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska (Eds.) Elsevier, October 2005(60) "Mortality in Sheep Flocks after Grazing on Bt Cotton Fields -- Warangal District, Andhra Pradesh" Report of the Preliminary Assessment, April 2006, http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp(61) Personal communication and visit, January 2009.(62) Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, Yes! Books, Fairfield, IA USA 2007(63) Arpad Pusztai, "Can Science Give Us the Tools for Recognizing Possible Health Risks for GM Food?" Nutrition and Health 16 (2002): 73&ndash;84.(64) Netherwood et al, "Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract," Nature Biotechnology 22 (2004): 2.(65) Kathryn Anne Paez, et al, "Rising Out-Of-Pocket Spending For Chronic Conditions: A Ten-Year Trend," Health Affairs, 28, no. 1 (2009): 15-25(66) http://farmertofarmercampaign.com/O...(67) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091214...




Document Number: 238 
Monsanto to fight potential lawsuit by organic farmer whose land ruined by GMOs
(NaturalNews) Australian organic farmer Steve Marsh recently had his organic certification status pulled by the National Association for Sustainable Agriculture, Australia (NASAA) because his organic wheat field was contaminated by a nearby genetically-modified (GM) canola field. And after Marsh threatened to sue the GM farmer for the incident -- which has cost Marsh his entire business, by the way -- Monsanto, the owner of the GM canola, came out and said it would legally back the GM farmer "in any way [it] could."A previous NaturalNews report on the issue explains that GM canola materials blew from a nearby GM field about a mile away and contaminated over 540 acres of Marsh's organic wheat fields (http://www.naturalnews.com/030686_G...). As a result, Marsh's fields can no longer be considered organic due to very high standards in the Australian organic industry that hold a "zero tolerance" policy concerning contamination with foreign genetic material.But rather than work towards prosecuting both the GM farmer and Monsanto for the environmental damage they caused, West Australia Minister for Agriculture and Food, Terry Redman, is instead going after the organic industry, urging it to modify its contamination standards to accommodate Monsanto. Redman has declared that perfect purity is "unrealistic" and that a maximum contamination threshold needs to be established for GM contamination of organics.But neither Marsh nor the organic industry is taking the toxic bait. Despite efforts by Redman to persuade Marsh to influence the NASAA to compromise its high standards, Marsh has indicated that he plans to sue the farmer for ruining his business, following the release a pending government investigation of the matter. And Monsanto, of course, has promised to help defend the GM farmer in the event of a lawsuit.Sources for this story include:http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...




Document Number: 8145 
Natural health movement achieving key victories over HFCS, MSG, GMOs and more
(NaturalNews) It's hard to see it sometimes, but the natural health community has achieved many important victories over the last few years in exposing the truth about dangerous chemicals and food ingredients. Here are some of the major victories we've collectively achieved:High-Fructose Corn Syrup exposedWe've been victorious in spreading the word about the dangers of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which I call "liquid sugar crack." The public has learned so much about the dangers of this refined ingredient that food manufacturers are now switching away from HFCS and using more natural refined ingredients (such as evaporated cane juice, which is far better for you than HFCS).You can even buy Hunt's Ketchup now, which declares right on the front label, "NO High Fructose Corn Syrup!"Not surprisingly, the Corn Refiners Association has spent millions of dollars trying to obfuscate this issue by claiming HFCS is perfectly good for you. They've attacked virtually every news organization that writes about HFCS, and they run television ads that try to spin the issue in their direction, but they've failed! The public still knows that HFCS is linked to diabetes and obesity, and they don't want any more of this refined liquid sugar in their diets.BPA - the plastics chemicalThe truth has also come out recently about the dangers of Bisphenol-A (BPA), also known as the "plastics chemical." This chemical, which is found in virtually all canned foods (it's in the can liner), plastic bottles and other plastic food containers, has been found to be a "hormone disruptor," meaning it interferes with the normal healthy functioning of the hormones that control your body functions.The outcry against BPA has even gone mainstream now, with mainstream news organizations covering the issue with greater frequency. Momentum is clearly building in favor of legislation that would outlaw BPA in all plastic food containers, and Canada seems poised to add BPA to its list of toxic substances.The American Chemistry Council, of course, is outraged by any hint that chemicals might be bad for your health, and they'll continue to fight any new legislation in the USA. But in the end, the ACC will lose, because BPA is dangerous for your health and they can't cover up the science forever.MSG - the excitotoxin taste enhancerWe've also been victorious in a very big way against MSG (monosodium glutamate), the chemical taste enhancer that's used in sausage, beef jerky, salad dressings, gravy mixes, and all sorts of fast food. (It's found in practically everything served at KFC, for example.)While we haven't yet succeeded in banning MSG, we have raised awareness to such an extent that even soup companies are now competing with claims of having "No MSG" on their labels. As the public learns even more about MSG, we can expect to see more food companies removing it from their products.Loophole: Many food companies are switching from MSG to yeast extract, which is a "hidden" form of MSG that's used for the same purpose. If you are avoiding foods made with MSG, be sure to avoid all foods made with yeast extract, too. I'm working on a mini-documentary, by the way, that will expose the truth about this form of hidden MSG in mainstream foods.Trans Fats - the fat that killsIn addition to the items mentioned above, the natural health community has achieved considerable success in the battle against trans fatty acids -- also known as "trans fats." These are health-harming fats created out of the process of hydrogenation of oils. When you see "partially hydrogenated vegetable oil" on a food label, you know that item contains trans fats.Trans fats are extremely dangerous for human consumption because they slowly promote deadly degenerative diseases like heart disease and cancer. They have absolutely no place in a healthy food supply. In time, they will probably be banned altogether.Vitamin D is the new "hero" nutrient!Through tireless efforts, members and leaders of the natural health movement have succeeded in raising global awareness about the amazing health benefits of vitamin D, the "miracle" nutrient that prevents cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis, diabetes, kidney disease, depression and much more.Even sunscreens are now being exposed as toxic chemical lotions that block vitamin D production and actually promote vitamin D deficiency!Plus, the African American and Latino communities are learning more and more about vitamin D deficiency and how their skin pigmentation makes them more vulnerable to such deficiencies if they aren't intentionally working to increase their sun exposure.Here's a very popular video I released that has been part of this education effort: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5A62F...More organics in retail storesIn the United States, Target stores now carry a decent selection of USDA organic fresh produce. Costco stores are increasingly carrying organic products, and conventional stores that used to shun health foods now increasingly have "natural foods" sections where people can find organic food items.As consumers are becoming more aware of the dangers of chemicals in their foods (and the benefits of organic foods), the surge in demand for organics is forcing nearly every food retailer to offer a selection of organic items.This is progress! Just a few years ago, the idea of finding organic strawberries at Target stores would have seemed ridiculous.Even Whole Foods, by the way, is improving its organics profile. For example, after tremendous pressure from the Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.org), Whole Foods declared that it would soon stop carrying "cheater" organic body care products that have the word "organics" in their name but aren't really organic at all.Upcoming victoriesI believe the natural health community will achieve yet more significant victories in several important areas of public health. Here's where you can expect to see a lot of progress in the years ahead:AspartameAlthough this chemical has remained difficult to remove from the food supply, the truth is getting out now about the real dangers of aspartame, and it's only a matter of time before this artificial chemical sweetener is fully exposed (and banned from foods and beverages).Dr. Betty Martini, of course, has played a huge hand in spreading awareness about the health dangers of aspartame. (http://www.mpwhi.com/main.htm)Water fluoridationExpect to see an end to the criminal act of dripping a toxic, pharmacologically active chemical into the water supply without the consent of those who consume it. The fluoridation of public water supplies is a public health crime and it has absolutely no scientific justification whatsoever.It is, though, a convenient way to dispose of chemical byproducts from heavy industry. That's where the chemical fluoride comes from that's dumped into the water supply, by the way. Most fluoride chemicals purchased by cities for fluoridation actually comes from China, and most of it is contaminated with heavy metals, by the way. (http://www.naturalnews.com/029477_f...)Before long, you can expect to see this ridiculous chemical poisoning ritual banned across more cities and nations around the world. We all have a right to safe water, and fluoride makes water dangerous.In case you're curious about this issue, read my article here about why the fluoridation of public water supplies is a criminal act: http://www.naturalnews.com/028913_f...And check out Citizens for Safe Water at http://www.cfsw.usMercury fillingsMercury is extremely toxic, and even the American Dental Association can't hide that fact forever. Before too much longer, we will see the ADA finally cave in on the issue of mercury and announce to its member dentists that mercury is no longer an acceptable substance to use in dental fillings.It's not just toxic to dentists and patients (and dentists suffer an unusually high rate of madness due to mercury exposure, by the way); it's also an extreme risk to the environment. Thousands of tons of mercury are released into the environment each year due solely to the use of the toxic metal in modern dentistry.And a lot of the credit for this victory, by the way, will be due to attorney Charlie Brown from Consumers for Dental Choice (www.ToxicTeeth.org), who you will hear more from as this issue unfolds.GMOsThanks in no small part to the work of Jeffrey Smith (www.SeedsOfDeception.com), there is growing awareness among health-conscious consumers about the extreme dangers of consuming genetically modified foods.The battle is still raging, and companies like Monsanto are pressuring the FDA to ban honest food labeling that would warn consumers about GMOs in the grocery store, but in the end, the "right-to-know" effort will be victorious. Consumers don't like being hoodwinked, and they don't want to eat GM foods that might unleash pesticides in their own gut.This coming October 10, 2010 is a world day of grassroots GMO awareness. Watch for more announcements on NaturalNews.com and SeedsOfDeception.com about that upcoming event.VaccinesUnder the relentless pressure of stubborn facts, the modern mythology behind seasonal flu vaccines is quickly crumbling away. People are waking up to the fact that such vaccines are not merely worthless; but that they often cause harm!As people are learning more about vitamin D and how that nutrient activates the human immune system to build its own antibodies against infectious disease, they are increasingly rejecting chemical interventions such as painful vaccine shots (which can cause convulsions, vomiting and permanent neurological damage).This is a victory for public health, too, because the more people consciously boost their levels of vitamin D and take care of their own immune systems, the less dangerous any infectious disease outbreak will turn out to be.My own recently released song, Vaccine Zombie (www.VaccineZombie.com) is also having an impact through an entertainment approach. The song takes aim at the mindless mythology behind routine vaccines and helps to de-hypnotize people from the mainstream programming of the CDC and WHO, which operates in collusion with the vaccine industry.Watch the video now at NaturalNews.TV:http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=6D051...Vaccines will probably never go away completely because there's always a profit to be had from convincing people they need to take vaccine shots, but the more we help educate the public about their own natural immune defenses against infectious disease (and how to activate their immune systems with nutrition), the less people will feel the need to turn to dangerous chemical interventions to protect their health.More victories on the way!The natural health movement has gone mainstream! More and more mainstream consumers now understand the dangers of toxic chemicals and the promise of nutrition and natural remedies. Modern medicine as we know it today is on the way out, and the age of "better living through chemistry" is thankfully coming to an end.The knowledge found in the natural health movement is winning out over the ignorance preferred by Big Pharma and the FDA. Stay tuned to NaturalNews.com for news about yet more victories in the near future.




Document Number: 9815 
Just Say No to GMO music video features Health Ranger rapping about dangers of genetically modified foods
(NaturalNews) As part of the October Non-GMO month, the Health Ranger has released a new rap music video called "Just Say No to GMO." Written and performed by Michael Adams (the Health Ranger), this new song takes aim at the biotech industry by exposing the dangers of genetically engineered foods while promoting the Non-GMO Project Verified logo that helps consumers identify which foods are free from dangerous GMOs.The music video is available now on the NaturalNews.TV video site:http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=B459F...It is also available on YouTube at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnN6...The video features rap lines from Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (www.ResponsibleTechnology.org), a non-profit educational group that teaches consumers about the many dangers of genetically engineered foods. IRT also supports mandatory labeling of GMO foods so that consumers may choose to avoid them.The "Just Say No to GMO" song can be downloaded as a free MP3 file at http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMOThat same page offers song lyrics, ringtones, videos, commentary and information resources where consumers can learn more about the dangers of GMO foods."Just Say No to GMO" is the fifth song in Mike Adams' album "Beyond All Reason," available for free at: www.NaturalNews.com/Music"I'm really excited to be able to sing about the dangers of GMOs and help alert people to what's really in their foods," Adams said. "This is an issue that touches the lives of virtually everyone. Genetically engineered foods have invaded our food supply, and people have a right to know what that means to their health."Adams is a strong supporter of the IRT as well as other anti-GMO organizations such as Non-GMO Project (www.NonGMOproject.org), the Organic Consumers Association (www.OrganicConsumers.com) and the Center for Food Safety (www.TrueFoodNow.org). Adams also supports the efforts of other natural health industry individuals and organizations who are battling against GMOs in the food supply, such as Dr Joseph Mercola (www.Mercola.com) and Food Democracy Now (www.FoodDemocracyNow.org).Reaction to the Just Say No to GMO song has been strongly positive:"Mike's Anti-GMO rap is not only great music, it's just the kind of creativeway we need to get the message out to people who may not even know they areeating dangerous genetically modified organisms every day. Great job Mike!" - Jeffrey Smith, executive director, Institute for Responsible Technology www.ResponsibleTechnology.org"Just say no to GMOs is the Battle Hymn for our new Organic Republic. Takeaction against Monsanto and their mad scientists and indentured politicians." - Ronnie Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association www.OrganicConsumers.org"Mike Adams unleashes his creative talents once again by putting together Just Say NO to GMO. It's a wildly clever and catchy way to educate you about the real dangers and authentic risks that GMO's pose to the public health." - Dr. Mercola, Founder of www.Mercola.com"Mike Adams has combined his talents of honest health reporting and surprising music composition to create a song that is a modern call to action against the dangerous and imminent genetic modification of our entire food supply." - Kevin Gianni, founder, the Renegade Health Show www.RenegadeHealth.com"If the youth of any generation are the catalyst for real change, Mike Adams just put the next generation on the map when it comes to saying no to genetically modified foodstuffs." - Robert Scott Bell, host and creator of the Robert Scott Bell radio show www.RobertScottBell.com"Mike always impresses me with his dedication to truth, passion for natural health and innovative ways of sharing the messages he cares about - and this new song is no exception! 'Just Say No to GMOs' is a powerful and meaningful call to action, which I am sure will especially appeal to young people and help educate them on food safety. I applaud Mike for sharing his inner rapper with us all...!" - Matt Monarch www.TheRawFoodWorld.comTo hear the song and learn more, visit www.NaturalNews.com/MusicHelp raise $20,000 for the Institute for Responsible TechnologyPlease join Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, in raising $20,000 to fund operations of the IRT, the non-profit group fighting to protect us all against GMOs.The Health Ranger has pledged $10,000 in matching funds for your first $10,000 in donations, meaning your donation dollars go twice as far!Click this link to read details about making a tax-deductible contribution.Just Say No to GMO lyricsLyrics by Mike AdamsI'm lookin at the food that's in the grocery storeThey say it's safe, everybody eat more.On second thought, I don't really know if it's made with those GMOsSo I'm lookin for the non-GMO label before I bring it home and put it on my tableI wanna know it's verified so I don'tHarm myself with genetically modifiedUh-OhThey don't want you to knowAll the poison they growThe corporate profits they show from those GMO OHThose Frankenseeds that they sowThey're gonna hurt us we knowIt's time we told 'em to go, say GMO NO!I don't want eat poison, I don't want gene mutations at my dinner reservationsit's a food abomination what they doin' to this fast food nationThey take artificial gene combinationsinject them in seed variationsso they can grow their Frankenfood imitationswhile the side effects cause medical patientsKeep their profits alive while theyspraying all the food with name brand herbicidesand all the while they're spreadin' their liesMonsanto destroyin' farmers livesand the FDA keeps it all goingsaying it's safe even though they all know it's justpoison stealing away your life, and that's what you eat with genetically modified.GMO safety huh that's a corporate mythif you don't believe me listen to Jeffery SmithHe's the man with plan gonna do what he canTo help us all get those GMOs bannedBut we need you to lend a handtake a stand against this food scamIt's a mission for the health condition worldwideWe don't wanna live genetically modifiedDon't eat food unless you know what's in itDon't believe the propaganda cuz the press will spin itAffects everybody, we all up in itStand up to Monsanto, tell 'em oh no you didn'tReject Frankenfoods in the storedemand honest labels so we can be informedWe have a natural right to knowWhat we buyin' Just say no to GMOBefore our farms start dyin'Just say no to GMOThose corporate crooks are lyin'Just say no to GMOThis time we're not complyin'Just say no to GMOWe're just not buyin' itJust say no to GMO Listen to the song and watch the video at: http://www.naturalnews.com/NoGMO




Document Number: 1712 
Health Ranger's predictions for 2011 - 2012; an era of self reliance and human awakening
(NaturalNews) What's ahead for 2011 - 2012? This time in human history promises to bring forth more changes than any other similar duration of time known to our civilization. I believe the changes that will occur in the next two years will rock the foundations of our economies, governments and belief systems. In the end, after considerable turmoil, I see a great expansion of human consciousness and a maturing of the human race. Here are the details...More people growing their own foodBeginning in 2011 and continuing for many years beyond, we will see an explosion in the number of people growing their own food. People see the big trends in the food supply fast approaching: GMO contamination of crops, the loss of local food production due to FDA interference, the crackdown on small farmers, and even disruptions in the global food supply.As people realize the importance of having their own home-grown source of food, we will see a surge in backyard gardens, food storage and in-home production methods such as sprouting and food dehydrating.We will see a strong "back to basics" interest surge leading up to 2012, with many people choosing to move out of high-density cities (or even high-density nations) and seek self-reliance in more rural areas.This will also reveal renewed interest in home-grown meat production with more people growing (and eating) their own chickens and cows rather than relying on processed, factory-farmed meats.Increased awareness of natural remedies and health freedomThe natural health community will achieve significant victories over the next two years in awakening people to natural remedies, medicinal herbs and the core ideas of health freedom. The monopolistic pushers of pharmaceuticals are fighting a desperate, losing battle to try to keep people ignorant, but they will lose that fight and natural medicine will ultimately emerge as the healing method of choice for an increasing number of people.Natural childbirth will continue to gain recognition around the world, and more parents will begin to question the ADHD drugging of their children. The industry of psychiatry as we know it today will continue crumbling under the burden of fraud and criminal behavior, finally collapsing well before 2020 thanks to the efforts of a few groups, notably CCHR.The global shift away from pharmaceuticals and toward disease prevention and nutrition will accelerate in 2011 - 2012, with vitamin D leading the charge. An increasing number of people will learn about top nutrients such as resveratrol, astaxanthin and omega-3s. Nutrition education will become increasingly evident in public schools, and many school lunch programs will be reworked to remove more processed dead foods and increase real nutrition.Significant victories will be achieved over water fluoridation, mercury fillings and GMOs (see below). The vaccine issue, however, will remain highly contentious. Victory over seasonal flu vaccines will take many more years...More people waking up to realityToday, most people are sleepwalking through their lives, functioning as cogs in a giant machine of which they have no knowledge and no control. Over the next two years, that will significantly change. More and more people will be awakened into a state of awareness. They will realize that living out their lives working mundane jobs, watching television, eating junk food and taking pharmaceuticals is not fulfilling their true purpose in life, and many will seek a higher purpose.An increasing number of people will come to understand that their lives are mere illusion -- that they've been following programming set out for them by others, and that if they wish to truly achieve freedom (of mind), they must break out of the patterns that have been constructed for them.As a result, we're going to see more people rebelling against the status quo while simultaneously expanding their own awareness of the bigger picture -- how things work in our world and what their role might be in uplifting our shared reality.In the short term, this might result in a tremendous amount of strife, but in the end, it will give rise to a true uplifting of consciousness among the people in our world.Specific upcoming victories in the world of natural health&bull; The People will achieve significant victories over GMOs. I believe that We the People will ultimately win this battle against GMOs in America. As information about the dangers of GMOs continues to spread, people will increasingly demand that GMO foods be labeled. With enough support (perhaps in 2012, but probably later), a law will be passed requiring that GMO foods be labeled as such, and that will spell the beginning of the end of the GMO era in America.&bull; The FDA will, one way or another, be forced to admit that mercury fillings ("silver fillings") are dangerous for human health. At the very least, the agency will warn that children and expectant mothers should not be exposed to silver fillings. If this does not happen, you can expect a popular revolt against the FDA and a loud cry for the dissolution of the entire agency.&bull; The next big public health battle will be over water fluoridation, and you can expect NaturalNews, the Fluoride Action Network and many other organizations to turn up the heat on the dangers of water fluoridation. Expect to see the fluoride pushers eventually forced to back down and admit that the fluoride dripped into the municipal water supplies is actually collected as a toxic waste byproduct of the phosphate mining industry. (We are releasing a significant mini-documentary on this topic in the next 30 days.) The reputation of the ADA -- which has backed mercury fillings for decades -- is headed into the dumpsters.&bull; On the issue of freedom and liberty, I predict a surge of interest in Libertarian political philosophy from both former Democrats and former Republicans who realize that the path to prosperity and freedom is found in individual liberty and personal responsibility. I see the Tea Party suffering from disillusionment as its own elected members betray its supporters with more taxes and Big Government spending. Expect to see Ron Paul and Rand Paul do extraordinarily well in the coming years (as long as they stay on principle), and watch for a groundswell of popular support for the once-again-new idea of sensibly limited government.&bull; Watch for a rise in the Tenth Amendment movement in America as an increasing number of Americans fight back against what they see as a dangerous expansion of the power of the federal government. With the TSA in your pants and the FDA in your greenhouse, there's no telling what part of your life Big Brother wants to control next. America was founded on the idea of limited government, and I believe we'll see a powerful, passionate movement that seeks to bring the federal government back down to its Constitutionally-mandated size (which is a fraction of its current size and scope). The Tenth Amendment, by the way, specifically reserves all rights not specifically granted to the federal government to be held by the States or the People. The Constitution, for the record, never granted the federal government the right to run a health care system, nor to give away the power to coin money to a private banking cartel, nor to inspect your backyard food production operation that you use to produce jams and jellies for the local farmers' market.Specific short-term predictions&bull; Expect a new Big Government war on internet freedom. Mostly due to the Wikileaks releases, governments around the world are going to desperately attempt to police the internet and clamp down on web-based free speech. This will likely result in an online war between the "empire" (the USA and the UN) and the "rebel alliance" (the internet hackers such as 'anonymous').&bull; By the end of 2012, I predict significant food supply disruptions in North America, brought about either by radical weather affecting crop yields or perhaps the invasion of disease indirectly caused by the over-use of pesticides or GMOs. The number of people in America struggling to feed themselves and their families will rise along with food prices (see next). This will inevitably result in a huge increase in crime (burglaries, thefts) at precisely the same time that cities are laying off local law enforcement officers due to budgetary restrictions.&bull; Expect to see food prices climb with alarming speed over the next two years. Wheat is already on the rise, and even meat prices will surge up sharply before the end of 2012. While food won't disappear, it will become significantly more expensive, causing more people to shift to subsidized foods (corn, sugar, etc.) which also happen to be some of the worst foods for your health. GMOs are cheap in the short run... until you get your hospital bill.&bull; Oil prices will also trend sharply upwards over the next two years. We will almost certainly see oil at $150 per barrel and possibly even at $200 for a brief time. This will of course impact food prices, the transportation industry and virtually the entire economy.&bull; By late 2012, the economic downfall of the United States will have accelerated, and the inevitable collapse of the U.S. dollar will by that time have become apparent to virtually everyone. The ability of the U.S. Treasury to auction its debt will drop sharply as ratings institutions either downgrade U.S. debt or publicly threaten to.Long-term predictions&bull; Over the next decade, I predict a disappearing "health middle class" and a great divide between the healthy and the sick. The healthy, you see, are consuming superfoods, getting sunshine on their skin and taking nutritional supplements on a daily basis. The unhealthy are eating processed foods, taking prescription medications and following the advice of their ignorant doctors even if it kills them. There will be fewer people of "average" health in America in the coming years. The masses will gravitate toward disease and sickness while the informed few (such as NaturalNews readers, raw food vegans, superfood fans and so on) will get healthier and more productive.&bull; By 2025, the FDA as we know it today will be ancient history, and a new era of food freedom and health freedom will have swept across the former United States of America. Marijuana will become a key crop for raising revenue for the states (or the equivalent governing entity), the pharmaceutical industry will have severely downsized, and the scientific censorship of the FDA will have been abandoned to a chapter of the dark history of America. Millions of doctors, oncologists and useless government bureaucrats will find themselves out of work or, in the most extreme cases, subjected to court trials for their crimes against humanity.&bull; By 2030, it will become obvious that all those people treated with vaccines, chemotherapy, pharmaceuticals and conventional medical procedures are largely infertile and dying from degenerative disease. Also by this time, those individuals who ate diets largely made of GMOs, processed foods and artificial chemical additives will discover they, too, are infertile and diseased. The dying, diseased people of the western world will look back upon the "age of medical science" with hatred and disbelief, and the vaccines, chemotherapy, mercury fillings, water fluoridation and other poisons that are common in our world today will, by 2030, be written up in the history books as examples of humanity's incredible capacity for self-deception and faulty thinking, even in the realm of so-called "science."Health Ranger predictions are already coming trueMany of the predictions I made a year ago have already come true, by the way. These include:&bull; China unleashes armies of corporate espionage hackers onto western nations (now verified as true through Wikileaks cables)&bull; A worldwide shortage of rare earth metals (already under way)&bull; Food supply disruptions (disruptions have been widely reported throughout 2010)&bull; Honeybee population collapse spreads to other species (bats are now threatened, too)&bull; Weather patterns become increasingly radicalized (also widely reported in 2010)&bull; Medical imaging scandal unfolds as older patients begin to show serious health damage from radiation via mammograms, CT scans and more (widely reported in medical journals in 2010)&bull; War on health freedom ramps up, targeting raw milk, homeopathy, herbs and supplements (major raids have been conducted this year on food co-ops and raw milk producers)&bull; New attempts are made to destroy internet freedom (the UN is now planning to roll out internet police, and the U.S. customs department has been seizing websites for the last several months)These are just some of the many predictions I made one year ago. Many more will yet come true in the years ahead. Overall, by the way, I remain optimistic about our future, if only because it is evident that by living through suffering, oppression and slavery, enough members of the human race will finally see the importance of health freedom and take the necessary action to regain it and defend it for generations to come.In the grand experiment of nations and civilizations now playing out across our tiny planet, those nations which forget the importance of health and freedom are doomed to eventually destroy themselves. Only those nations which recognize freedom and invest in the health of their citizens have any sustainable future. And one day, such a nation of truly free people will undoubtedly rise from the ashes of whatever is left after the current global miscalculations run their course.




Document Number: 4142 
The downfall of science and the rise of intellectual tyranny
(NaturalNews) The very reputation of so-called "science" has been irreparably damaged by the invocation of the term "science" by GMO lackeys, pesticide pushers, mercury advocates and fluoride poisoners who all claim to have science on their side. It seems that every toxin, contamination and chemical disaster that now infects our planet has been evangelized in the name of "science."Where "science" used to be highly regarded in the 1950's, today the term is largely exploited by pharmaceutical companies, biotech giants and chemical companies to push their own for-profit agendas. Actual science has little to do with the schemes now being pushed under the veil of science.To make matters even worse for the sciences, many so-called "science bloggers" have been revealed to have financial ties to the very same companies whose profits are shored up by their activities (http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/...).Rather than defending any sort of scientific truth, science bloggers have become the internet whores of Big Pharma, Monsanto, pesticide manufacturers, chemical companies and toxic mercury factories. There's hardly a dangerous chemical in widespread use today that the science bloggers haven't venomously defended as safe and effective. Many are just blatantly paid off by corporate entities to run around the internet pushing GMOs, chemicals and vaccines.This realization has caused the science bloggers to be widely ridiculed by intelligent people who see right through their thinly-veiled (but well-funded) disinformation campaigns. Where science bloggers once had credibility, they now are seen as intellectual prostitutes for dangerous corporate agendas that benefit powerful companies at the expense of environmental health and human health.If they weren't doing all this in the name of science, it wouldn't be so bad, actually. If they called themselves "corporate whore bloggers" instead of "science bloggers," their actions wouldn't be so harmful to the reputation of science itself. But, to the great detriment of actual science, they insist on calling themselves "science bloggers."Now the reputation of "science" itself is sufferingBecause the for-profit GMO sellouts, poison pushers, vaccine zealots and corporate front groups continue to conduct their activities under the false name of "science," the term is losing its meaning. This should be cause for alarm among those who practice legitimate science. (Where are the astrobiologists when you need them?)As we've seen all too frequently, "science" can be easily distorted or exploited to achieve a desired political or profiteering goal. But the ruse is rather apparent -- the public is awakening to the science fraud and learning that the term "science" doesn't really mean what it used to. It's suffering a loss of reputation to such a degree that the term "science" no longer means a system whereby intellectually honest people search for the underlying truths of how nature operates. Today, "science" is used not to search for truth, but to distort the truth.Replace "science" with "fraud" to understand the spinInstead of seeking knowledge and understanding, for example, "science" is used as an intellectual bludgeon to halt rational skepticism and discussion on topics such as GMOs, vaccines, mercury fillings, fluoride in the water, the mysterious deaths of animals, the collapse of honeybee populations and so on. It's a kind of intellectual tyranny that has been invoked against those who oppose any kind of corporate agenda that can be dressed up to look like actual science.In several contexts, the term "science" has become synonymous with "fraud." As in the following headlines (replace "science" with "fraud" as you read them):"It has now been revealed that the researchers who made up the fictitious study results were engaged in SCIENCE."Or:"When asked how he came up with the fabricated clinical trial data upon which the FDA approved the drug, discredited researcher Humphrey Brokendata explained he was only engaged in SCIENCE."In fact, the vast majority of the popular news reports you might read about so-called "scientific" findings make a whole lot more sense if you replace the word "science" with "fraud." For example, imagine the words being exchanged in these headlines:&bull; GMOs backed by solid SCIENCE&bull; FDA insists its drug approvals are based on SCIENCE&bull; Monsanto claims the SCIENCE behind its seed technology is better than ever&bull; Vaccines stand their ground this flu season thanks to SCIENCEYou see how suddenly everything makes more sense on these particular topics when you replace "science" with "fraud?"This isn't a stretch, either. The "scientific" agenda behind GMOs, for example, has absolutely nothing to do with real science. It is a corporate for-profit agenda that seeks control over the world's food supply while forcing farmers to buy seeds year after year from one centralized corporate entity. That's not science. It's just a monopolistic crime against humanity to assault the basic rights of people to be able to grow their own foods and harvest their own seeds without worrying about those seeds being contaminated with genetic pollution from genetically engineered crops.The real science on GMOs indicates that reasonable people have every right to be concerned about the DNA pollution of the foods that feed our world. But through the blasphemous invocation of the term "unscientific," the GMO pushers attempt to characterize rational, reasonable people who hold concerns about GMOs as "unscientific." As if they didn't believe in the Law of Gravity or Newtonian physics for macro-sized objects.The scientific community loses credibility by the dayThis endless assault on common sense by those who use the term "science" as a cover for dangerous global experiments in plant and human biology will only further discredit the scientific community. When you see "scientific" doctors and dentists putting their reputations behind things like water fluoridation -- which is the blatant mass pollution of the water supply with a toxic hazardous waste chemical -- it's no surprise why the street cred of so-called "scientific thinkers" continues to erode.This is all very sad to see, of course. I consider myself a proponent of scientific thinking, and I strongly value the Scientific Method as one approach to gaining knowledge. I'm educated in microbiology, genetics, physics and have acquired a considerable amount of scientific knowledge in many other areas. I'm currently studying M-theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory) and the intersection of quantum physics with consciousness. (There's a taboo topic in conventional scientific circles for ya -- don't talk about consciousness, for God's sake! To quote Einstein, God may not play dice with the universe... but consciousness does!)As a proponent of scientific discovery, even I have to admit that science has lost its credibility due in large part to the corporate takeover of science. Whereas science was once a popular and highly respected field of study for young thinkers, very few people in America enter the sciences these days. More and more people are waking up to the reality that many of the great evils that have been unleashed upon our world have been conducted in the name of science: GMOs, seasonal flu vaccines, plastic food containers, pesticides, mercury poisoning, fluoride in the water supply, psychiatric pharmaceuticals and so on.Science, it turns out, hasn't saved us: It has quite possibly doomed us. The destruction that has already been unleashed upon our world in the name of science may not be reversible in the era of humankind. We may be setting ourselves up for a global food supply catastrophe due to GMOs and pesticides, for example, and literally billions of human beings may ultimately die from it. "Science" was the invocation behind GMOs and pesticides, even though in truth the whole scheme was pulled off through what can only be called "junk science" or "selected science."Real science is a valid tool when used with integrityAgain, it saddens me to see science misappropriated in this way, because true science is a valid and valuable method by which human beings can seek to gain understanding about the universe in which we live. It is not the only pathway to knowledge, of course (a frequent mistaken assumption by those who are steeped in it), but it is a valuable one nonetheless. Yet thanks to today's corporate-led "scientific" schemes involving GMOs, vaccines, pesticides and other chemicals, the value of science itself is being rapidly lost to the intellectual tyranny demonstrated by those who destroy our world in the name of science.Where real scientists once used to welcome debate and discussion, today's "science" advocate operate with the intellectual finesse and flexibility of a two-ton block of granite. You either agree with them or you are branded an idiot. There is no discussion, no debate, no thought and no real science involved. On so many of the big issues that matter today -- vaccines, GMOs, mercury, fluoride, pesticides and so on -- the "science" position is that of a self-proclaimed dictator (or tyrant) who believes he causes things to be true and factual through the mere act of stating them. That isn't science. It's just an advanced form of arrogant bullying framed in the language of science and carried aloft by a never-ending stream of corporate dollars.It is, in essence, intellectual tyranny.Science may yet destroy usIt was Oppenheimer who, after playing a key role in the invention of the atomic bomb, quoted these words from the ancient Hindu text known as the Bhagavad Gita: "Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."Today, a very large segment of the scientific community is engaged in much the same behavior: Destroying our world through the incessant and utterly unscientific advocacy of dangerous, destructive interventions that threaten our food, our waterways and the very future of life on Earth.So-called "science," it seems, may ultimately be the destroyer of life as we know it on our planet. And yet "science" is worshipped by its followers as the savior of life on Earth. There is a dangerous disconnect in that situation. Perhaps one of Biblical proportion.I suspect that one day a future alien civilization will study the history of humankind and attempt to determine how we destroyed ourselves. After sorting through the decomposed rubbish of the long-extinct human civilization, one alien will turn to the other alien and nod its head to say, "It seems their civilization was based on SCIENCE FRAUD."P.S. For the record, I am not opposed to actual science, nor the use of the Scientific Method as one avenue through which wisdom may be gained. There are other methods of gaining wisdom, however, such as spirituality, meditation, the study of consciousness and even quantum connections between sentient beings. All of these non-science methods are utterly disregarded by the "scientific" community which believes so strongly in its own dogma that the brains of its top scientists have no room left for any ideas other than their own. That is, by the way, the very definition of a closed mind. It also happens to be the reason why conventional science only advances at the speed at which its dogmatic intellectual tyrants retire or perish.Suggested Reading:Some of my favorite books that have influenced my deeper understanding of real science:In Search of the Multiverse: Parallel Worlds, Hidden Dimensions, and the Ultimate Quest for the Frontiers of Reality by John Gribbonhttp://www.amazon.com/Search-Multiv...The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhnhttp://www.amazon.com/Structure-Sci...Quantum Enigma: Physics Encounters Consciousness by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttnerhttp://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigm...The Conscious Universe: The Scientific Truth of Psychic Phenomena by Dean Radinhttp://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Uni...




Document Number: 1070 
Lawsuit seeks to ban genetically modified sugar beets
(NaturalNews) A group of Oregon farmers are seeking an injunction against this year's planting of Monsanto's genetically engineered sugar beets. The groups of organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservationists, is seeking to persuade a judge to ban the crop until the USDA provides a proper environmental impact statement proving that the crops are safe and that they will not cross-contaminate nearby fields.The debate over whether or not to allow GE crops into the food supply has been a hotly debated one, but the biotech industry has been the side unable to prove that its products are safe. Those concerned about the negative consequences of GE crops have plenty of unresolved questions that demand answers prior to any GE crop being approved. Yet in reality, the USDA has succumbed to industry pressure instead, jeopardizing the entire food industry.Nearly half of the nation's sugar beets are genetically modified. They can be found planted on more than one million acres across ten states. The beets have been engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's "RoundUp" herbicide, but their components are not limited to the fields in which they are planted, spreading across the landscape via pollen and seeds carried in the wind. Because it is impossible to track where GE plant fragments end up, there is no ensuring that any crop is truly non-GE or organic.Concerned groups already won a previous lawsuit that required federal officials to reevaluate their 2005 approval of unrestricted GE beet plantings in light of allegations that the government agencies failed to properly evaluate their environmental impacts. Now they hope to stop any further plantings of the crop until the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service conducts a proper analysis, a process which could take upwards of three years.Until then, the plaintiffs hope to eliminate all sales of GE beet sugar because it was unlawfully deregulated in the first place. "Legally, they shouldn't be on the market," explained Paul Achitoff, an attorney for Earthjustice, in an AP article. "The sugar beets were unlawfully deregulated," he opined. "The court has already found that."Frank Morton, one of the Oregon farmers who is suing the USDA, explained that he has already found GE pollen on his own crops. He grows organic seed for vegetables on his farm, but because of the pollen contamination, his crops are now worthless in the organic market. Sprouts from GE sugar beets are also randomly showing up in people's farms and gardens, including in compost sold at local garden centers in Oregon. Sources for this story include:http://www.organicconsumers.org/art...




Document Number: 1331 
WikiLeaks exposes Pope as supporter of GMOs
(NaturalNews) Though the Vatican refuses to issue a public stance on genetically-modified organisms (GMO), several leaked cables have revealed that Pope Benedict XVI secretly favors GMOs and believes more should be done to encourage their spread around the world. Both a leaked cable from June and one from November confirm the Pope's endorsement of biotechnology and the Vatican push to promote its use.The June 2009 report, which was recently confirmed by a Vatican spokesperson, explains that the Pope believes "further infrastructure development" is necessary to increase "food security." And the November 2009 report elucidates even further, proclaiming that "[t]he Vatican's own scientific academy has stated that there is no evidence GMOs are harmful, and that they could indeed be part of addressing global food security."Apparently the Vatican "scientific academy" overlooked key data highlighting the link between GMOs and a host of serious health problems, including sterility, organ damage, diabetes, obesity and severe allergic reactions. And pesticides like Monsanto's Roundup (glyphosate) that are used on GMO crops are causing birth defects, miscarriages and cancer in humans, not to mention a mass die-off of nature's important pollinators like bees, bats and butterflies.The leaked reports coincide with others that exposed the U.S. State Department's agenda of forcing GMOs upon the nations of the world. This U.S. effort on behalf of biotechnology includes the Obama Administration's "Evergreen Revolution," a program designed to spread GMOs to Africa just like the first "Green Revolution" did in India (http://www.naturalnews.com/030695_G...). The State Department is also pushing the Vatican to increase its vocal support for GMOs "in the hope that a louder voice in Rome will encourage individual church leaders elsewhere to reconsider their critical views."Sources for this story include:http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/20...http://wikileaks.ch/cable/2009/11/0...




Document Number: 8157 
Study author calls on FDA to require truthful trans fat labeling (how about GMOs as well?)
(NaturalNews) Many processed foods are loaded with trans fats -- including even those labeled as having "zero grams of trans fat per serving." The problem lies in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) thwarted labeling requirements that permit certain "low" levels of trans fats to be labeled as zero, a deception that Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine student Eric Brandt says needs to change.According to Brandt's recent study on the issue, which was published in the American Journal of Health Promotion, many people easily exceed daily recommended maximums for trans fat intake because FDA requirements dictate that foods with less than .5 grams of trans fat per serving be legally rounded down to zero, and labeled as such.Overall fat content in foods with more than five grams of fat per serving must be labeled in increments of one gram. Those with less than five grams can be labeled in .5 gram increments. And anything lower than .5 grams can be labeled as having zero grams of fat. But with a threshold of 1.11 grams of trans fat per day, one can easily exceed this amount by consumer just three servings of "trans fat free" foods that contain as little as .37 grams of trans fat each.Though these amounts may seem somewhat insignificant, studies have shown that even a slight increase in trans fat consumption can greatly increase one's risk of developing cardiovascular disease. And trans fat consumption is also linked to coronary heart disease, diabetes and sudden cardiac death.Brandt is calling on the FDA to revise its labeling standards for trans fats in order to give consumers an accurate understanding of the trans fat content in foods they buy. And the best way to accomplish this is to require food manufacturers to label trans fat content in lower increments like .01 grams, for instanceMany are calling for similar labeling requirements for genetically-modified organisms (GMOs), which can be found in the vast majority of processed foods now sold in the U.S. but are not labeled. To learn more about the nationwide "Truth-in-Labeling" campaign for GMOs being conducted by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), visit:http://www.organicconsumers.org/art... Sources for this story include:http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...




Document Number: 1460 
"Unscientific" is secret code for anyone who opposes GMOs or pesticides
(NaturalNews) Watch out for the word "unscientific" in propaganda that's pushing GMOs, pesticides or other dangerous chemicals onto our world. In a joint letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, three Republican members of Congress (Rep. Frank Lucas, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, Sen. Pat Roberts) attempted to spin GMOs as being "scientific."They urged the USDA to "return to a science based regulatory system" and claimed that "science strongly supports the safety of GE alfalfa." (http://agriculture.house.gov/press/...)The implication, of course, is that anyone who opposes GMOs is "unscientific" (and therefore stupid). The letter further implies that any USDA opposition to GMOs is purely political in nature and not based on science.Apparently the cabal of GMO pseudoscientists have forgotten one of the most important principles of science: The Precautionary Principle which states that when dealing with large-scale unknowns (such as modifying the genetic code of the world's food crops), it is wise to err on the side of caution.Intellectually dishonest spinThis effort to characterize GMO opposition as "unscientific" is just the latest outlandish spin campaign that attempts to reframe the entire GMO debate as "scientific versus unscientific." You're either in favor of GMOs, the twisted logic goes, or you're against science!In reality, it's not actually science that's behind GMOs but rather corporate greed, public relations, lobbying and the financial influence of members of Congress. Today, Frank Lucas, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts all effectively painted signs on their foreheads that read, "GMO sellout."Another key phrase: "Unscientific restrictions"This isn't the first effort to frame the GMO battle as a defense of science, of course. The phrase "unscientific restrictions" has cropped up in the GMO debate throughout the EU, where anyone who opposes GMOs -- even for perfectly rational reasons -- is immediately branded "unscientific."NaturalNews was the first to break the story about how GMOs were being forced into European nations by the U.S. ambassador to France who plotted with other U.S. officials to create a "retaliatory target list" of anyone who tried to regulate GMOs (http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_G...).Astonishingly, virtually the entire mainstream media has still failed to report this groundbreaking story, which just goes to tell you how deeply in bed the media is with corporate interests. (Since when did the media not cover a Wikileaks cable?)Commonsense restrictions would be a "dangerous precedent"Continuing with the "science" gobbledygook, another letter put together by a group of seven Big Ag monoculture crop giants claimed:Agriculture regulators would set a "dangerous precedent" by imposing unscientific restrictions on alfalfa growers who plant genetically modified seed, harming farmers using other biotechnology-based crops.(http://www.dairyherd.com/news_edito...)There's that term again: "Unscientific restrictions."This is the GMO industry's carefully-crafted spin phrase to try to hammer away at any policy that attempts to protect natural crops from GMO contamination. It also serves to halt any real debate over the issue. Rather than engaging in an intellectually-founded discussion of the potential risk factors associated with GMOs, the GMO camp simply shouts, "Unscientific!" and demands that the debate be halted.This is the playground equivalent to saying, "Everything you say bounces off of me and stick on you. Nah nah nah!"It's actually the same tactic used by the vaccine industry. Any attempt to reasonably question the safety or efficacy of seasonal flu vaccines is immediately and savagely branded "unscientific" before any real debate can take place at all.The bludgeon of "science" admits intellectual weaknessThis is the tactic, of course, of the intellectually inferior who have no solid science to back up their intellectual playground bullying. Rather than debating on the merits of good science, they seek to stifle discussion by accusing their opponents of questioning all science. It is, of course, a fallacious argument, and it only makes the so-called "scientists" appear to look even more like desperate zealots pushing their own particular twisted dogma.That's what the pro-GMO position is, of course: A zealot-infused dogma backed by lots and lots of dollars but absolutely no legitimate science.And yet, GMO zealots continue to argue as if they have scientific truths on their side.The most astonishing spin letter you will ever readTake a look at this astonishing letter from Big Agro giants which literally claims that any regulation of GMOs would "...undermine the public's trust in the integrity of the scientific process that the president directed all executive branch agencies to uphold."(http://www.naturalnews.com/files/GM...)The letter goes on to say that "coexistence" (of GMOs and non-GMO crops) would "set a dangerous precedent" and that all the following regulations and restrictions on GE crops are entirely unacceptable: "Isolation distances, geographic planting restrictions, limitations on harvest periods and equipment usage, seed bag labeling, seed coloration, and the listing of seed production field locations on a national data base."This same letter even boldly insists that regulating GMOs would harm America's international trade! "If USDA moves forward with injecting non-science-based criteria into the regulatory process it will undermine our international trade efforts," it claims.Linguistic contortionismThat letter, in fact, is one of the most grotesque examples of pseudoscientific linguistic contortionism I've ever seen. The author of the letter, whoever he may be, is an intellectually dishonest individual who is knowingly bastardizing the use of the word "science" to try to hide the real agenda of corporate domination over the world's food crops.The whole point of the letter, by the way, is to request that genetically engineered alfalfa be exempted from regulation by the federal government. This particular pesticide-ready alfalfa is designed to withstand exposure to Roundup. Care to guess which corporation is likely behind this particular bit of nefarious deception?What the letter essentially states is that GE alfalfa seed bags need not be labeled as such; that GE seeds can be the same color as non-GE seeds (so that farmers can't tell them apart), that GE alfalfa can be planted right next to non-GE alfalfa crops (where DNA cross-contamination will obviously occur), and that the location of GE alfalfa fields should remain a secret.All this has been hidden underneath the veil of "science.""Science," you see, is no longer what it once was. In fact, the abandonment of ethics and honesty by those who invoke the term is now so severe that the entire scientific community is seeing its reputation erode by the day.That brings me to the second part of this article, called "The downfall of science and the rise of intellectual tyranny," which you can read at this link: http://www.naturalnews.com/031073_s...




Document Number: 1474 
Whole Foods to Use "Non-GMO" Seal on Its Private-Label Products
(NaturalNews) Whole Foods Market has announced plans to have all of its store-brand products independently tested to certify that they are made without the use of any genetically modified organisms (GMOs)."Since there is no U.S. regulation regarding disclosure on products manufactured with GMO ingredients, we are committed to helping our shoppers make confident choices by knowing that what they are buying has been verified as meeting the standards of the Non-GMO Project," said Senior Global Vice President of Purchasing Michael Besancon.Ensuring a food supply free of GMO ingredients can be difficult for manufacturers, since GM and unmodified crops are often mixed together prior to distribution. In addition, the prevalence of genetic modification in some crops &ndash; 90 percent of U.S.-grown soy is genetically modified &ndash; can make finding traditional varieties difficult.Whole Foods is the largest retailer to ever take part in the Non-GMO Project's Product Verification Program in order to prove its GMO-free claims. Other companies whose products already carry a Non-GMO seal include Lundberg Family Farms, San J, SK Foods and Whole Soy & Co.The Product Verification Program provides a GMO-free seal to any products that have tested free of GMO contamination in a combination of document-based reviews, on-site inspections and genetic tests.Whole Foods called on other segments of the food industry to join it in seeking Non-GMO verification. It is holding a Web seminar on August 26 to educate the food industry about the Non-GMO Project and its Product Verification Program."As you can imagine, the level of diligence involved will require an enormous amount of effort at every step in the manufacturing process," said Non-GMO Project board member and Whole Foods Quality Standards Coordinator Joe Dickson. "The more participation we have in the program, the more rapidly the industry will realize efficiencies. Economies of scale will ultimately have a real and lasting impact on the available supply of non-GMO ingredients."Whole Foods' in-house brands should carry the GMO-free seal by October.Sources for this story include:  www.foodnavigator-usa.com.




Document Number: 1552 
YouTube censors video interview with Jeffrey Smith about GMOs
(NaturalNews) Within hours after posting our video interview with Jeffrey Smith, creator of Seeds of Deception and author of Genetic Roulette, YouTube pulled the video. Attempts to play the video are now met with the following message: "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."That is, of course, an outright lie.This video features myself (the Health Ranger) talking with Jeffrey Smith about the health dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) at the recent Health Freedom Expo. NaturalNews staff filmed the segment, and we used intro music legally licensed from a music production company. There was no violation of the YouTube terms of agreement.There was, however, some straightforward discussion about the dangers of genetically modified foods. Jeffrey Smith (www.SeedsOfDeception.com) explained in the video how GM foods have been proven in animal studies to damage internal organs, cause infertility problems and increase rates of death among those who consume such foods.This was all just too much for YouTube to handle, apparently. The truth isn't welcome on YouTube. While the network can host any number of idiotic videos in the form of street fights, traffic accidents, personal video blogs and profanity-filled flame wars, it has no ability to stomach the simple truth that GMOs are dangerous for your health.The YouTube agenda exposedLet there be no question about the YouTube agenda. Owned by Google, this video network is playing right into the hands of the big corporate agenda in America -- an agenda that demands consumers be kept in the dark about the dangers of GMOs.U.S. government representatives, in fact, are right now attempting to force a new global rule at the CODEX meetings taking place this very week. They're trying to outlaw all "no GMOs" labeling and food claims, thereby making it illegal for a food company to tell consumers that its products are non-GMO. (http://www.naturalnews.com/028716_G...)NaturalNews to launch its own UNCENSORED video networkThis YouTube censorship is one of the main reasons why we at NaturalNews have decided to launch our own uncensored video network.The network is under development and will be launched this June. To learn more about the upcoming NaturalNews video network, read this story: http://www.naturalnews.com/028717_v...The video interview with Jeffrey Smith will be re-launched on our own video network where the whole world will soon be able to hear what Jeffrey Smith had to say about GMOs that YouTube desperately wants to silence.It's all coming soon here on NaturalNews.com.




Document Number: 3837 
From Seattle to Chicago, and in Cyberspace, The Non-GMO Project is Making an Impact


Project Excutive Director Megan Thompson with Board President Michael Funk (of UNFI) at The Organic Summit, and with Board Member Joe Dickson (of Whole Foods) at All Things Organic
Its been a busy season for the Non-GMO Project! Since a jam-packed meeting schedule and presentation at Expo West we have visited with retailers in Austin, San Antonio, Seattle, and Portland, hosted a Round Table at the Organic Summit in Stevenson, WA and participated in a panel at the All Things Organic Conference in Chicago. Moving into summer, the pace shows no sign of slowing, but we arent complaining!

Its exciting to see awareness growing not only within the organic and natural products industry, but also among consumers. For over two years, we have been working diligently to find creative solutions to the challenges posed by GMO contamination. Our focus has been the creation of an industry-wide collaboration within which we have created North Americas first consensus-based non-GMO Standard, as well as an innovative Product Verification Program to assess compliance with the Standard. All this hard work is paying off, and a Non-GMO Project Verified seal will start appearing on retail products this fall. For the first time, the North American public will have access to an informed choice about consuming GMOs. This was the vision of the founding retailers of the Non-GMO Project, and it has taken a tremendous amount of dedication to get us to this point. Were now ready to start spreading the word, and early response has been quite encouraging!

A Non-GMO Project Facebook page has created a platform for some of our initial outreach. Membership has more than tripled in the last week, with over 1300 fans now tracking our progress, and we expect that fan base to keep growing exponentially as people reach out to their friends about the exciting work of the Project. With the launch of our new website on June 22nd, we are starting a Consumer Pledge campaign, and we are also moving into a phase of renewed connection with our retailer base with the creation of a Supporting Retailer Program.

The success of the Non-GMO Project is a heartening example of what is possible with enough determination and collaborative spirit. Together we can ensure that North Americans have non-GMO choices, now and long into the future. Were grateful to you for doing whatever you can to help support this undertaking, and we look forward to sharing more good news as the summer progresses.






Document Number: 7974
Just say NO to GMO

From Non-GMO Month guest contributor Dr. Gayle Eversole, writer of the Natural Health News Blog (naturalhealthnews.blogspot.com)

====

Time goes by so very quickly it often seems amazing that so many topics I have written or taught about for more than a decade and more are being written about as if they were new concepts.

Genetic modification of food (GMO) is on of those topics.

I am glad to see more awareness but I still feel as if not enough people clearly understand this issue.

First of all, it has been clearly established that GMO foods cannot feed the multitudes, regardless of what the media is reporting.

Other concerns involve the alteration of the lining of your gastrointestinal system, and no one knows what can come of this, ten years or more in the future.

We do know, however, that using specific herbicides and pesticides in commercial agriculture has, during this time, led to failed crops, over growth of weeds, and what perhaps is one of the largest cover-ups in agriculture.

Each new article I read really raises the hair on the back of my neck.  It should do the same to you.

As I write this I think how the FDA plans to review whether or not to allow for GMO fish.  If this isnt bad enough, because we know farm-raised fish will raise cholesterol levels and is often found to be contaminated with killer chemicals, we are in the no label zone.

Imagine not knowing what your food is, and what is in it, or how it is fed as it is grown.

This is a tough one for me because I was raised on farm fresh food from the Amish in Lancaster County Pennsylvania and South Jersey shore truck farms in summer.

This past week I was in town, a 40 mile one-way drive from my rural home.  I shop in a supermarket that does not have loyalty cards and has a health-oriented food section.

I was walking down the aisles looking to see if there were items I needed, finding just a few.   The new manager stopped to ask if I needed help and I mentioned I had been around the natural market place since the 1950s.

He looked at me a bit oddly.  I replied that most people think of me as a walking encyclopedia, so he was free to ask me any questions.

We were on the aisle with what used to be a great brand, Walnut Acres. Since I grew up in Pennsylvania, I knew Walnut Acres from the old time when it was not corporate owned.  I mentioned it surely wasnt the same quality today.

Annies was also on the same row and I mentioned that most of the dressings were made with canola oil; a liver toxic oil.  And I told him too that I had just learned that Annies macaroni and cheese now had a GMO ingredient

I noticed he had to get back to work, so as he walked away I mentioned that it was disappointing that there were so few products I buy, even from the health food store, because of corporate ownership.

And so here we are.

If you are new to the food issues of today, I suggest you do every thing you can to get educated and learn how to be more discerning in what food you buy for yourself or your family.

I also suggest that you learn more about the flood of genetically modified food and food ingredients.

You know that while General Mills is pushing whole grain cereal, their whole grain is sourced from GMO grain. However it is just a bad for so-called health brand cereal to be on sugar overload.

Soy oil, canola oil, and so many other ingredients are GMO, and it is difficult to add time to shopping to allow for label reading.  But, you must be the first line of defense!

Your health depends on it.






Document Number: 352
Fresh: A Review

As an intern with The Non-GMO project this fall I have begun to notice that the US food chain from farmer to consumer is much more complex than I originally thought.   I decided to do a little research to uncover the complexities and have come across many films on this issue including Food Inc., The Future of Food and Fresh. I have found that all of these films are informative on the problems which arise from the industrialization of food, however Fresh seems to be the best example of a film that focuses on the potential solutions from all aspects of the food chain (farmer, distributer, retailer and consumer).  The film coherently outlines the risks of our current food system including food contamination, environmental pollution, depletion of natural resources, and health consequences.  In addition, it strongly emphasizes the alternatives to the system.  Fresh demonstrates how individuals and communities across the nation are choosing different modes of food production and consuming, ranging from a medium sized organic farm (Joel Salatin), to an urban farmer (Will Allen), to a super market owner who sells primarily local products (David Ball).  While Fresh does not directly address GMOs in our food system, I would still recommend the film to anyone who is interested in finding out just how your food gets from farm to fork.

For more information on the film and trailers visit the official website at www.freshthemovie.com/.

Fresh is a film by Sofia joanes made in 2009.

If Food Inc. was your wake up call, Fresh, The Movie is your call to action. Freshs strength is that it shows the incredible creativity of individuals who are devoting their lives to producing food differently.

- EcoSalon.com

Posted by Halley Everall, Administrative Intern for The Non-GMO Project.  Halley is currently a senior at Scripps College, with a dual major in Humanities and French with an emphasis in Environmental Studies.





Document Number: 650
Non-GMO Project the Talk of the Town at Expo East



View of the show floor in the Boston Convention Center where Expo East was held for the second year in a row
Last week, the Projects Executive Director, Megan, and I spent three busy days at Natural Products Expo East in Boston. For those of you who have been to one of these shows, you know just how overwhelming yet sensational Expo can be. The Project, thanks to UNFIs generosity, set up camp at the UNFI booth, right in the middle of everything. We put up posters, set out fliers, and spent the entirety of the show speaking with retailers, brokers, manufacturers, and everyone else in between about the Non-GMO Project.

The effort was definitely worth it.

According to the feedback we received during and after the show, the Non-GMO Project was the talk of the town. From the We Support the Non-GMO Project posters hanging in Participants booths to retailers willingness to help spread the word about the Project to vendors, we truly had an impact. It seemed that the number of people who stumbled across us equaled the number of people who specifically sought us out, and both groups were equally receptive to the Projects message and goals. I had many retailers tell me that GMOs are a primary concern for themselves and for their customers, and several manufacturers mentioned that becoming Non-GMO Project Verified is a priority. Hopefully all the buzz will result in an even greater number of products sporting our seal in the coming months!

(Posted by Camille Frazier, Non-GMO Project Outreach Coordinator)







Document Number: 6040
UN Commission Poised to Adopt New Labeling Guidelines for GMO Food


Dr. Phil Bereano
By the close of its 39th session, the United Nations Codex Alimentarius Commission was poised to adopt Labeling Guidelines for GMO foods that will provide some protection from the World Trade Organization for national-scale GMO-labeling programs around the world.  The Non-GMO Project sponsored activist Phil Bereanos participation in this session, and in so doing helped to ensure that the voices of the Activist and    NGO communities would be heard, in an industry-dominated debate.

Find below Dr. Bereanos report on the outcome of the session, with links to the relevant Codex Alimentarius documents:

NON-GMO PROJECT REPORTBACK
Codex Committee on Food Labeling
39th Session, Quebec, Canada
May 2011

Labeling of GE Foods

The Codex Alimentarius Commission is a somewhat obscure UN agency (joint between the World Health Organization and the Food and Agricultural Organization) which sets international norms for food safety and the food trade.  It operates through a number of issue-area committees.

After nearly two decades of contentious debate, the Codex Committee on Food Labeling has finally adopted a Guideline on labeling of GE foods.  Although the text is not as strong as many countries and NGOs would have liked, the adopted language does provide guidance to countries which have requested it.  Since the WTO decided in 1995 that it would follow Codex rules in international trade disputes, this text would also appear to provide protection against a WTO challenge to a national labeling scheme that is consistent with it.

Officially, the text must be adopted by the Codex Commission at its July meeting in Geneva before it is final; this is generally expected to occur, but not guaranteed. As with all Codex texts, this guideline is voluntary; no country is obligated to adopt it.

The Non-GMO Project supported my attendance at this meeting, enabling me to continue the work I have been doing at Codex for over a decade.


 

BACKGROUND


The 19th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (1991) originated work on this topic to provide guidance on how the fact that a food was derived from modern biotechnology could be made known to the consumer. Although this seems like a very straightforward idea, and although many countries were already on the way to requiring some sort of labeling, there was tremendous resistance to such work, primarily by the USA. (It will, perhaps, not be a surprise to know that the US has historically exercised an outsized influence over the operations of the Codex.) The Codex Committee on Food Labeling (CCFL) began work on the topic in 1993.  In 1996, the Executive Committee of the CAC disappointingly noted that the claimed right to know was ill defined and variable and in this respect could not be used by Codex as the primary basis of decision making on appropriate labeling.

For almost two decades this issue has been debated, moving forward and suffering setbacks. In recent years, a workshop in Oslo compiled a listing of various labeling actually being followed by different countries at that time (2007);  subsequently, a Background Paper was prepared by Nigeria/Canada/US enumerating Codex texts that are relevant to the issue; and a Working Group met in Accra, Ghana (2008) to try to move along a text.  In addition to the yearly CCFL meetings, the Chair (Paul Mayers of Canada) conducted a two-day facilitated Work Session in Brussels last November (where I was one of only 2 NGO delegates, other than the industry people) which isolated the issues and made the various concerns explicit; it agreed on a rudimentary text based on reference to existing Codex documents, to be decided upon at this meeting (under a Commission deadline to complete the work this spring).  The report of that meeting is at ftp.fao.org/codex/ccfl39/fl39_13e.pdf

 

THE TEXT

As you can see in Appendix 3 of the above report, three options were sent forward for CCFLs considerationdiffering only in how they would present the relevant existing Codex textsby name, by reproduction of the relevant sections only, or by reproduction of the full documents. (Many developing countries wanted the whole texts because of problems they experience trying to access materials on-line.) These portions of the document would provide the guidance function; it is the language of the Purpose section and of the Considerations which could provide WTO protection.

Given these materialsstrenuously fought over (and Mayers was a skillful chair, both in Brussels and here in Quebec, not even favoring the Canadian position on various matters)we were not going to get an outcome that a green NGO activist would have authored.  The US was successful in avoiding any clear new rule (eg, that nations had the right to require GE labeling), insisting that existing texts were sufficient (hence the listing).  But sufficient for what? Sufficient to allow labeling, which is what would provide WTO protection.  But the wording is not robust.

The final text was an amended version of Option 1, with the Codex references in hyperlinks to make it easy for country officials to access. (And I argued that transparency required it as well, since the Codex site is not the easiest to navigate, as some of you undoubtedly know.) Some comments by me are below the text.

Heres what was adopted:

 

Proposed Draft Compilation of Codex texts relevant to labeling of foods derived from modern biotechnology

1. Purpose:
The purpose of this document is only to recall and assemble in a single document some important elements of guidance from Codex texts, which are relevant to labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology.

2. Considerations:
Different approaches regarding labelling of foods derived from modern biotechnology are used. Any approach implemented by Codex members should be consistent with already adopted Codex provisions. This document is not intended to suggest or imply that foods derived from modern biotechnology are necessarily different from other foods simply due to their method of production.

3.    Compilation of Relevant Codex Texts

3.1  The Codex General Standard for the Labelling of Prepackaged Foods, (Codex Stan 1-1985);   and particularly, Sections 3.1, 3.2, 4.1.1, 4.1.2, 4.2.2, 7.1

3.2 The Codex General Guidelines on Claims (CAC/GL 1-1979); and particularly, Sections 1.2, 1.3, Section 2  Definition of Claim, 3.3, 3.5, 4.1, 5.1(iii), 5.1(iv), 5.1(v), 5.1(vi)

3.3 The Codex Guidelines for Use of Nutrition and Health Claims (CAC/GL 23-1997); Introduction   and particularly, Sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5

3.4 The Codex Guidelines for the Production, Processing, Labelling and Marketing of Organically Produced Foods (CAC/GL 32-1999); and particularly Section 1.5

3.5 General Guidelines on the Use of the term Hallal (CAC/GL 24-1997)

3.6 Working Principles for Risk Analysis for Food Safety for Application by Governments (CAC/GL 62-2007)

3.7 Principles for Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (CAC/GL 44-2003); and particularly, Paragraph 19.

3.8 Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessments of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA plants (CAC/GL 45-2003)

3.9 Guidelines for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessments of Foods Derived from Recombinant-DNA microorganisms (CAC/GL 46-2003)

3.10  Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods derived from Recombinant-           DNA Animals (CAC/GL 68-2008)

 

COMMENTS


The Purpose sectionthe inclusion of the word guidance makes a direct connection back to the mandate from the Commission: to provide guidance on how the fact that a food was derived from modern biotechnology could be made known to the consumer. In other words, it can be read that Codex is promoting GE labeling.  Thus, if there were a WTO challenge, the defending nation can argue that the Codex has authorized/ accepted/normalized the labeling of GE foods as such.
The Considerations
(a)  The first sentence said, in the draft, that the parties acknowledged the various approaches to GE labeling.  The US repeatedly objected to this language, saying that it is not the business of Codex to validate whatever any nation does or doesnt do.  Of course, acknowledge does not mean endorse, as I and others pointed out. This seems like a rear-guard ideological position by the US, and since the sense of the sentence is not really changed by the elimination, countries finally seemed to just let the US get its way;

(b)  Different approaches are noted; thus, there is no labeling scheme that is OK and none that is interdicted.

(c)   consistent with Codex provisionsthis is fairly standard sort of language, and in my view perhaps the most important provision referenced is, using the words of Consumers International:

The Principles for the Risk Analysis of Foods Derived from Modern Biotechnology (CAC/GL 44-2003) clearly state that labeling can be used as a risk management option to deal with scientific uncertainties associated with the risk assessment of GE/GM foods: 18. Risk managers should take into account the uncertainties in the risk assessment and implement appropriate measures to manage these uncertainties. 19. Risk management measures may include, as appropriate, food labeling, conditions for market approval and post-market monitoring (pars 18, 19 in CAC/GL 44-2003). [emphasis supplied]

(d)   not intended to suggestanother sentence that was an obsession of the US. It is fine that this document doesnt make a distinction between engineered and non-engineered foods, since many of the Codex texts referenced already do, especially those that came out of the seven years of work of the Task Force on Biotech Foods held in Japan (and included in the listing above).  This is, after all, a document about labeling, not biology, so there was no need to re-argue whether GE foods posed risks; our position is that we won that debate when Codex set up the special Task Force, and confirmed the win when it adopted the special texts for GE.

 

Other

(a)  The Secretariat will publish (based on funding availability) a hard copy of this text and the full texts of all the referenced Codex documents. The possibility that subsequent text changes would affect the usability of such a booklet were addressed only generally (maybe it will be a loose-leaf format).

(b)   Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, and Mexico consistently supported the US.





Document Number: 5795
Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto: Now We Continue the Fight, Together

By Megan Westgate

I am no stranger to the rush of radical activism, to the satisfaction of identifying an enemy and throwing heart and soul into righteous indignation. In this complicated world, its tempting to reduce shades of gray to simple black and white. Sometimes thats the only way to achieve a reassuring sense that we know where we stand (and therefore who we are). As a college student a decade ago, I devoted endless hours to organizing protests against the Keck Graduate Institute, the first university in the world dedicated solely to biotechnology. When we successfully shut down their inaugural celebration, I wrote about it in the Earth First! Journal. In 2001 I attended the Ruckus Societys Biojustice Action Camp, where I learned about the threats posed by the new science of genetic engineering, and how to scale a building or lock myself to the axle of a car if an action called for those skills.

It was all incredibly exhilarating, and my friends and I did accomplish some things of lasting value, including the protection of what remains one of the largest plots of endangered Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in Los Angeles County. As time passes, though, what I cherish most from my early activist days is not the rush of combat, but the satisfaction I experienced in collaborating with like-minded allies. The true power behind everything we accomplished came from our ability to work together as a team. In the wake of the USDAs recent decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa, it is that powerthe power of unification with like-minded alliesthat we must seek. The understandable (and completely justified) feelings of anger, frustration and helplessness that the organic community is experiencing must be directed constructively. We are too small and up against too much for there to be any other way forward.

Leading up to the ruling, a broad coalition of organic organizations and companies were working around the clock in an attempt to influence the USDAs decision. The USDA had already made it clear that alfalfa would be deregulated, but hope remained that there might be some way to soften the blow. Organic Valley, Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farm, along with many others in the organic community, were doing everything in their power to secure protections for organic farmers so that if their fields were contaminated once the GMO alfalfa was released, biotechnology companies for the first time would be held accountable for their pollution and would be forced to pay for the damages. These groups were also pushing for measures to protect seed purity so that non-GMO alfalfa supplies could be maintained. Unfathomably, these tireless organic organizations are now being criticized for their efforts. In total denial of the incontrovertible fact that the USDA was never even remotely considering a full ban on GMO alfalfa, some are suggesting that these groups efforts to make the most of a bad situation *somehow* (though no one is very specific on how, exactly) signals corruption, and are even calling for boycotts. HOW ON EARTH is taking this out on 1200 organic family farmers going to help anything?!  This is divisiveness we cannot afford.

Of the whole circular firing squad thats been exploding in recent days, most shocking to me personally was a statement by Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association that the Non-GMO Project is basically a greenwashing effort. Say what?! Cummins goes on to say that the Project is unnecessary for organic products, since they are already basically free from GMOs, while failing to focus on so-called natural foods. Totally wrong on both counts!

First of all, the hard truth is that organic foods are not necessarily free of GMOs. While the National Organic Program (NOP) identifies genetic modification as an excluded method, GMOs are not a prohibited substance. This means that although GMO seeds are not supposed to be planted, and GMO ingredients are not supposed to be used, no testing is required under the NOP. With the majority of key crops like soy and corn being planted with GM varieties in North America, contamination of seeds and ingredients is a real risk, even for certified organic products. It is critical to understand that the ONLY way to identify (and control) GMO contamination is through testing, in combination with other best practices. The organic standards do not require testing; the Non-GMO Project Standard does. Over half of the companies participating in the Non-GMO Project produce certified organic products. These companies have chosen Non-GMO Project Verification in addition to their organic certification because they are committed to keeping their products non-GMO, and are concerned that organic certification is not adequate. Many organic companies joined the Project after their internal GMO testing indicated a growing risk of contamination.

With regard to natural products, there are literally thousands of them enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, so I fail to see how we are failing to focus on them. As an example, Whole Foods has their entire 365 product line, organic AND natural enrolled in the Non-GMO Project. This commitment means that they are requiring testing of every single GMO risk ingredient used in every single one of their house brand products, both organic and natural. As a founding member of the Non-GMO Project, Whole Foods made a point from the very beginning of ensuring that this program would be available for not only their organic products, but their natural ones, too. Their commitment is exemplary. In fact, it is exactly the sort of positive action step that Cummins called for in his recent article.

Okay, so Ill admit itthis is where I got really confused. After talking trash about the Non-GMO Project and its founders, Cummins, whose support is important to me, says Weve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products. Oh hey, good idea! Lets do that! I know: we can create a non-profit to oversee standards, third party verification, and consistent labeling so that consumers can have full transparency about companies non-GMO practices. We can call it the Non-GMO Project, and it can be the most effective tool in North America for stopping the unchecked flow of GMOs into natural and organic products. Oh, wait a minute

Yes, thats right, how wonderful for everyoneall of that work has already been done. Yay! As a founding board member of the Non-GMO Project, and its first (and only) Executive Director, I have been working on exactly this strategy virtually non-stop for the last four years, along with a huge group of passionate, determined, and highly-principled people and organizations, and I have to admit I feel pretty darn good about what we are accomplishing. I am loath to even dignify the greenwashing accusation with a response, but I guess I should.

So please consider this: Since being handed my first article about the deadly impact of GMO corn pollen on monarch larvae in 1999, when I was 19 years old, I have been moved to action on the GMO issue. Following my activism in college, I worked as the Outreach Coordinator at the Food Conspiracy Co-op in Tucson, AZ, where I saw firsthand how much confusion there was in the public about GMOs, and how bad the situation was getting. With the government consistently ignoring consumer calls for labeling, and organic products increasingly at risk, a group of small retailers decided it was time to take matters into our own hands. That was the beginning of the Non-GMO Project, and those of us who started it were motivated by one thing: the desire to make sure that Americans did not lose the right to eat non-GMO food. Our efforts are finally starting to pay off, though the battle is far from over. Because of the Non-GMO Project, hundreds of farmers, processors and manufacturers across North America are learning how to control GMO contamination as much as is possible, and consumers are finally being given an informed choice in the form of the Non-GMO Project Verified label. Its just barely not too late.

I do this work because when I start having children in a few years, I want to make sure that they can eat non-GMO food for their whole lives. I am also doing this because I am a person of exceptional moral integrity who believes it is my duty to do what I can to serve the greater good, and food and health are my passion. This is not an easy undertaking, and it will not succeed without the full support of everyone who cares about stopping GMOs. Since Thursdays ruling, far too much anger and blame has been directed in entirely the wrong direction. Its time to take a step back, remember that we are all on the same team, and get smart about our next steps. For my part, I am going to make a donation to the Center for Food Safety, so that they can get the USDA back into court ASAP, and then Im going to spend the weekend catching up on running the Non-GMO Project. I hope I dont get waylaid by any more baseless criticism; none of us can afford it. The health of our children, our grandchildren, and our environment is at stake, so lets take good care of each other and give this our best.






Document Number: 789
Holiday Celebrating With Non-GMO Choices

If youre like me, you often feel a bit vulnerable during the holiday season when confronted with tempting holiday sweets and foods that would normally be on your do not eat list. Fortunately, we have options! There are now an ever increasing number of brands, either enrolled in the Non-GMO Project Product Verification Program, or those that have completed the process (bearing the product Seal of verification). What better way to celebrate family and friends than by ensuring they are eating non-GMO foods and at the same time supporting the brands and retailers who make these healthy choices possible!

Options and more options! Looking for holiday recipe ideas? The web offers many links to healthy non-GMO recipes to make your holiday decisions even easier! The Wellness Workshop offers Healthy Holiday Entertaining with great recipes like, Easy Fudge, Vegan Coconut Whipped Cream, Alton Browns Moo-less Chocolate Pie, or the yummy Mega Chocolate Mint Holiday Cookies (exclusive for Cookie Monsters). Other delicious recipes can be found at the Earth Balance and Whole Foods Market Holiday Bake-Off and at the Whole Story Official Whole Foods Market Blog! What better way than to celebrate with healthy non-GMO foods!

As 2010 comes to a close, we find non-GMO categories from Body Care to Pet Productsthe choices abound this holiday season! The Meat, Fish and Eggs listing offers great products from 365, Natural Sea and Pure Country. If vegetarian is your choicebrowse the many brands in the Tofu, Tempeh and Alternative Meats listing, oh and dont forget your Vitamins and Supplements.and the list goes on! Before making your next holiday shopping list, check out our complete Product Listing.

As the non-GMO brands are increasing, so too are the many retailers, non-profits,  and consumers; the retailers and non-profits committed to  ensuring we have informed choices,  and the consumers who have taken the Non-GMO Pledge ,  ensuring they are making the healthiest consumer choices possible.  See the complete list of Retailer Endorsers.

We have much to celebrate and thanks to everyone who has given their support, time, and effort we have many options!






Document Number: 7734
Who Is To Blame For The Superweed Invasion?



A second contribution from our wonderful guest blogger Deniza Gertsberg, author of the GMO Journal.

======

A fundamental change occurred when the first genetically engineered crops went commercial in 1996. Farmers who planted GE crops that were altered to withstand continued application of herbicide glyphosate began to rely on a single system for weed management  the use of glyphosate, sold under brand name Roundup and manufactured by Monsanto.   As Dr. David A. Mortensen of the Pennsylvania State University noted in his testimony before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee on July 28, 2010, [i]n evolutionary terms, widespread and persistent glyphosate use without diversity in weed control practices is a strong selection pressure for weeds able to survive glyphosate. (Mortensen Testimony). In other words, get ready for the invasion of superweeds.

Fast-forward fourteen years later and farmers around the world are dealing with superweeds, the number of which went from zero in 1995 to 19 in June of 2010.  These superweeds grow fast, big and wide in a matter of days. Pig weed, for example, is a superweed that grows up to three inches a day, and at its base its as thick as a baseball bat. It kills crops and destroys heavy machinery, keeping farmers from bringing their combines and cotton pickers into the fields.

Welcome to todays farming where farmers are facing a dramatic rise in the number of weed species that are resistant to glyphosate and a concomitant decline in the effectiveness in of glyphosate as a weed management tool. North Carolina Weed Scientist, Alan York, has called glyphosate resistant weeds potentially the worst threat to cotton since the boll weevil due to extraordinary levels of dependence on glyphosate. (Testimony transcript of Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director of Center For Food Safety before Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, July 28, 2010, p. 4) (Kimbrell Testimony).  Even scientists who actively support GE crops cannot deny that the invasion of superweeds is a major problem.  (See the testimony transcripts of Prof. Michael Owen, PhD of Iowa State University, as well as the testimony transcript of Dr. Steve Weller of Purdue University.).

But thats not the end of the story.  As Dr. Mortensen reports, not only is the number of species evolving resistance to glyphosate increasing at rate of 1-2 species per year, and thats by conservative estimates, but there is a dramatic increase in acreage infested with glyphosate resistant weeds. In a period of three years, between 2007 and 2010, for example, the number of reported sites in the United States infested by glyphosate resistant weeds has increased nine-fold, while the maximum infested acreage increased nearly five-fold.

The news gets grimmer because not only is the number of weeds resistant to glyphosate increasing but farmers are also forced to return to weed management practices that were supposed have been eliminated with the use of glyphosate.  Oops.  As crops become resistant to glyphosate, harsher herbicides, such as triazines, 2,4D and dicamba are being tank mixed with glyphosate to eliminate problems with glyophosate resistant weeds. (Kimbrell Testimony p. 5).  And not unexpected, farmers are already seeing resistance to multiple herbicides. Farmers also have to return to tillage, a more labor intensive and soil-damaging practice of weed management. (Mortensen Testimony p. 2).   Superweeds invasion is costly in other ways as well.   USDAs Agricultural Research Service estimates that up to 25% of annual U.S. pest (weed and insect) control expenditures are attributable to pesticide resistance management, thats 900 million dollars each year. (Mortensen Testimony, p. 2).

But where should the blame for the superweed invasion lie? Should we look to farmers, as Professors Owen and Weller suggest, to tackle this weediness? Are the seed and herbicide producing companies to blame? Or are the policies of the United States regulatory agencies responsible for the superweeds invasion?

In light of the fact that companies such as Monsanto, spent years erroneously advising to farmers to exclusively use ever-greater quantities of Roundup to control the weeds in their fields, and in light of the fact that USDAs Health and Plant Inspection Services (APHIS) approved GE crops without engaging in a serious environmental review and deregulated them without post-commercial supervision, blaming the farmers would be disingenuous.  Farmers may be the players in the system but before we hurl accusations at them lets look at how the system encourages them to engage in farming methods that engender superweeds.

It has been widely reported how USDA employs many industry insiders to regulate those same industries. (See many of our articles on this topic here.)  It may be the number one reason why the regulations and the agencys interpretation of its role is so limited.  For example, Andrew Kimbrell correctly noted in his testimony before Congress that USDA the has self-imposed a very limited interpretation of its regulatory ambit, claiming that once that narrow review is completed, all further oversight or inquiry must end. And its not just Kimbrells view.  In 2005 the Office of Inspector General concluded that weaknesses in APHIS internal management controls undermine the agencys ability to oversee successfully the safe development of genetically engineered organisms.  In short, the OIG found that APHIS often failed to follow its own mandates.  And this seems to have become the agencys modus operandi.

And when Kimbrell recently stated that USDA has become a rogue agency in its regulation of biotech crops, he was not just trying to spin the PR web.  In recent years, USDA has been shot down by several federal courts for the agencys conduct, or, more properly, misconduct.  Courts have criticized the agency for being cavalier, ignoring concerns of farmers, acting with utter disregard for laws, abdicating the agencys responsibilities, and more recently, a Federal Judge ordered the agency under penalty of perjury to produce evidence that it made information about beet stecklinkgs permits publicly available on APHIS website, what information was made available and when.  (See Kimbrells Testimony before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, July 28, 2010, pp. 3-5).  Such agency conduct doesnt exactly inspire public trust and confidence.

And seed companies, like the giant Monsanto, believed to control as much as 90 percent of seed genetics, are diligently working to ensure that farmers look nowhere else but a single weed management system.  Offering discounts, enticing farmers with what now known to be unrealized promises of higher yields, and engaging in less than truthful tactics, such as those reported by Troy Roush, who was advised by a Monsanto scientist to increase application rates of Roundup when he contacted the company to inquire about weed resistance, are all methods designed to keep farmers indentured to the Monsantos vision of farming.   Furthermore, after enticing farmers to switch to GM crops and the associated herbicides that must be used on the crops, farmers have to sign ironclad, one-sided contracts in which they give up a lot of their rights, including the right to farm their fields as they know and want (remember the no-seed-saving clause).

This movie, starring Roundup and Roundup Ready seeds, is familiar to many U.S. farmers, many of whom come to question their decisions to plant GM crops. In fact, because the long-term promises of GM crops did not pan out and because farmers are facing increasing costs and soil degradation in attempting to battle with superweeds brought about by the use of GM crops, farmers are considering switching back to conventional seeds. (See Roush Testimony and also this article by Tiffany Kaiser of the DailyTech). Furthermore, after painful trial-and-error with superweeds management they realize that the alternatives to weed resistance, i.e., harsher chemicals and tillage, as well as those alternative being contemplated by the biotechnology companies and the agri-chemical industry, i.e., designing crops resistant to multiple herbicides, are short sighted and wrong-headed.  (Troy Roush Testimony Transcript before the Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, July 28, 2010, p. 2-3, stating that genetically engineered crops that are resistant to multiple herbicides are a disaster waiting to happen.).

Before we blame farmers and target them exclusively as the be-all solution to superweeds, as suggested by Professors Weller and Owen, careful attention must be paid to the USDAs policies, activities of the seed companies and how the two work in a partnership to create and foster conditions that make superweeds a daily reality.






Document Number: 1713
October is Non-GMO Month: 10-10-10 is No-GMO Day

By guest blogger Rady Ananda, author of Food Freedom

======

Okay, heres your chance, with a new way for you to know that your food does not contain genetically modified organisms. The Non-GMO Project, a collection of top suppliers and advocates in the organic industry, and the only no-GMO certifier in North America, has kicked off a GM-free month.

Ruh-roh  October includes Halloween. Since half of the refined sugar in the US is genetically modified, coming from GM sugar beets, finding GM-free candy might be a little hard. Though GM beets are now illegal until further notice, whats on the shelves today is most likely made from last years crops.

The NGP product page lets you see whats already verified as being GMO-free and whats under review. You could pass out candy bars or other treats made by:

Endangered Species Chocolates
EnviroKids Organic
Luna & Larrys Coconut Bliss
So Delicious
Funky Monkey Snacks

Taste of Natures 100% certified organic exotic bars are also vegan and Kosher.

Communications Director for the Non-GMO Project, Skylar Boorman, told Food Freedom, Through our Product Verification Program, a growing number of products have become Non-GMO Project Verified and bear our seal.  Right now, thats 58 vendors, he said, amounting to 1,569* products verified so far.

As of October 9** 191 vendors have enrolled with the program. One company, 365 Everyday Value, submitted over 700 of its products for review, with 29 now GM-free verified.

The non-profit has a technical advisory team that reads like a whos who of the organic industry. That includes regional organic alliances, universities and names like Whole Foods, Natures Way, Organic Valley, Natures Path, Whole Soy, and Newmans Own Organic. Six committees review different aspects of food: Growers & Producers, Processors & Manufacturers, Vitamins & Supplements, Seed, Livestock, and a Policy Committee.

The Public Has a Right to Know

By creating a non-GMO verification program, NGP avoids FDA policy to hide GM food. Boorman explains, Our label was specifically designed to be a process claim (Non-GMO Project Verified) and not an absence claim.

The right-to-know issue is significant.  The FDA considers claims of  GMO free and Non-GMO to be not technically accurate and misleading. Firstly, thats because the FDA believes the use of bioengineering is not a material fact. The FDA recognizes no difference in GM and non-GM foods.  They are substantially equivalent.

Secondly, the FDA subscribes to a definition for genetically modified food that is broadly outside the scope of everyone elses understanding:

Genetic modification means the alteration of the genotype of a plant using any technique, new or traditional.

While the public uses the terms genetically modified and genetically engineered interchangeably to mean the DNA was directly manipulated, the FDA does not. Conveniently, the FDA does not apply such a broad definition to the term biotechnology. But, arent all plant breeding technologies biotechnology by the same broad standard that the FDA applies to genetic modification?

Thirdly, the FDA asserts that food can accidentally become contaminated with GMOs, so vendors cant claim their products are GM-free unless theyve undergone extensive testing and verification. Thats an interesting admission on the part of the FDA.  Now, the FDA recognizes a material difference between GM and non-GM foods.  Now, substantial equivalence doesnt apply.

When GM crops contaminate natural ones, courts recognize a substantial and patent difference between them. Already at the appellate level, an Ohio district court just rejected a similar ban (claiming milk is rBST-free), saying it was more extensive than necessary to serve the states interest in preventing consumer deception.

Human and Environmental Health

Theres also the food safety factor to keep in mind. GM crops (trees, too) are genetically modified to produce or tolerate pesticides. Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsantos Roundup, has been linked to birth defects, cancer and miscarriages in humans.

Other studies have linked GM-foods to organ damage and sterility in mammals, while others correlate rising diabetes and obesity rates with GMO introduction. Theres also the question of allergic reaction to GM foods, proof of which is hidden by lack of labeling.

Environmental concerns cannot be ignored, either. Pesticides are suspected in causing or contributing to mass bee, bat and butterfly die-off, as well as a pandemic amphibian decline. This is ecologically critical  loss of pollinators will cause an Extinction Level Event that takes out most life on Planet Earth.  That includes humans, as our food supply disappears.  Remember, extinction is forever.  No species has ever re-emerged after going extinct.

The Sun Is Fading on Biotechnology

Biotechnology may have had its day in the sun, but that light is fading. The New York Times reported Monsantos stock dropped from a peak of $145 a share in 2008 to under $48 a share on Monday. The Christian Science Monitor noted that the rapid increase in the percentage of US farm acres planted with biotech crops has slowed. It rose only 1 percent last year, from 85 percent to 86 percent, the smallest increase since 2001.

Check out this interactive map of the history of GMO releases in the US from 1987 thru 2008.

Cataloguing the problems of the biotech industry, CSM states:

Corn Belt farmers complain loudly about the soaring cost of seed. The federal government is investigating the industry for anticompetitive practices. Farmers are grappling increasingly with weeds that have grown resistant to Roundup, an herbicide widely used with genetically modified crops, and genetic contamination of conventional crops.

Even the United Nations rebuked biotechnology this year when it concluded that agroecology improves food production and farmers incomes while at the same time protecting the soil, water and climate. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Olivier De Schutter, reported:

The widest study ever conducted on the subject found that agroecological approaches resulted in an average crop yield gain of 79 per cent. The study covered 286 projects in 57 developing countries, representing a total surface of 37 million hectares. (Thats over 91 million acres.)

Biotech found a friend in billionaire Bill Gates, however, so this fading light still has juice. This is precisely why a home-grown solution like the Non-GMO Project can be so effective.  By verifying which products are GM-free, NGP allows consumers to make informed choices, despite censorship by the FDA.

Use NPGs PDF shopping guide or their iPhone app to find products verified as GM-free. The Rodale Institute, also involved with NGP, advises to buy organic and grass-fed. Check the PLU code:

GMO foods contain the number 8 before the four-digit code printed on the produce sticker. Organic foods contain the number 9.





Document Number: 1683
Life is a Cabaret

From Non-GMO Month Guest Blogger, Jeanne Blackwell AKA Mom, co-author of Hole in the Fence (holeinthefence.net/)

======

Prize in a Cracker Jack box, quite the cabaret for kids of all ages. Never know what you are going to get and always excited to find out.

I like a little cabaret with my Mongolian barbecue and for sure a couple of Velvet Hammers will get me dancing on a table top at the Lemon Tree.

What is not fun is Aspic, sometimes called cabaret, or eating fish sperm in my tomatoes, firefly larvae in my corn, or boobies in my rice. That is just weird and disgusting to me but apparently some people like it and that is why they make that stuff.

All I am saying is that Eating, Drinking and being Merry is what makes life worth living. So, the next time I go to buy some Cracker Jacks, tomatoes, corn,  rice, or pork chops, I want to see,  on the label,  if there is a disgusting surprise inside. If it says NON-GMO  on the label then no icky surprises.

Some people dont care one way or the other about labeling the ingredients. Thats fine. The problem is I care a lot and need to know.

What is happening  is: There is a campaign to label all NON-GMOs products for all those people, like myself, who dont like disgusting, icky surprises in their food products.   That works for me. I know it would make a lot more sense to label the stuff  WITH GMOs but that kind of labeling pissed off the I dont care what I eat. people.  So, what we have are labels that tell us what we are  getting. We are getting a NON-GMO product.  If you care about labeling give these guys a look see.







Document Number: 6791
6 Reasons To Avoid GMOs

From guest blogger Deniza Gertsberg, author of the GMO Journal.

========

When was the last time you thought about how food was made, where it came from, whether and if it was chemically treated? With the first ever Non GMO Month around the corner, an awareness campaign launched by the Non GMO Project, perhaps now is a good time to pay attention. As you look at each food item and its ingredients, consider these fundamental unanswered questions concerning genetically modified (GM) foods  which are most foods that you eat today. Disturbingly, while we are force-fed wholesome messages about the alleged benefits of GM foods, a decade and a half after the first GM crops went commercial many of the same concerns persist.

Read on and find out whether you want frankenfood to be your next meal.

1. Human Health Concerns

Many scientists, doctors and health advocates raise concerns about the unintended impact of GMOs on human health. Yes, because there is no independent research (and in fact, seed companies agreements forbid the use of seeds for independent research), nobody can say with any degree of certainty that GMOs are safe. And so it is not surprising that there are unresolved questions concerning the potential alteration in human genome, allergenicity of introduced genes and high toxin production in plants and animals that may lead to long-term health effects.

Whats more is that certain GMOs may also have the potential to further lower the effectiveness of antibiotics in the population. Amflora, the GM potato, for example, that was recently approved in the European Union for industrial uses, has a gene for antibiotic resistance. Superbugs anyone?

While biotech supporters often argue that GM crops have been around since at least 1996 and that people have been consuming GM foods or foods with GM ingredients for a long time without alleged side-effects, the argument is misleading. There are no specific tests designed to analyze the long term safety of GM foods, no independent research, and no post-marketing follow-up analysis.

Furthermore, from a policy standpoint, since the safety assessment of GMOs at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been based on the idea of substantial equivalence such that if a new food is found to be substantially equivalent in composition and nutritional characteristics to an existing food, it can be regarded as safe as the conventional food, FDA gives its stamp of approval. Interestingly this substantial equivalence determination is made by the biotech company and not FDA. Obviously this policy is fraught with problems and is a creature of politics and not science. Moreover, such policies create the undeniable impression that government agencies charged with regulating GMOs and ensuring public safety are pandering to industry interests. (Read here, here and here to find out how government regulatory agencies suffer from the revolving-door syndrome as industry insiders go back and forth between leading industry jobs and government regulatory posts.)

If this makes you think that the fox is running the chicken coop, you would be correct. Just take a look at this report from the Union of Concerned Scientists on the issue.

It is inappropriate, at best, for biotech companies to prevent independent testing of its products, as they hide behind the wall of intellectual property protection, and then go on to argue that their products are safe. As Scientific American noted, when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nations food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the countrys agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous.

It is the same merry-go-round with GM animals, whose approval is within the jurisdiction of the FDA. The FDA relies on company data to evaluate the safety of the GM animal. Even so, since the FDA does not have an approval process designed specifically for GM animals, it evaluates the GE animal under the process used for new veterinary drugs. As demonstrated by recent submission for approval of GE salmon, what that means is that much of the data provided to the FDA to demonstrate the safety of the GM animal is considered a trade secret.

Thats not safety. Thats secrecy enshrouded in enigma, and tied tightly with a pink bow of pro-gmo policies.

2. Animal Health Concerns

Often less discussed is the impact of GMOs on animal health. While we should be altruistically concerned about the well being of our fellow creatures, the fact is that if they are impacted by GMOs, we are not far behind.

Worker bee. Original by Makro Freak
Animals, especially insects who feed off GM crops, are our canaries in a coal mine. Take bees and the colony collapse disorder. Many scientists believe that while several causes may have contributed to the massive bee die-offs of the last four years, at least one contributing factor is the increased use of pesticides.

If there is anything we learned since GM crops went commercial is that pesticides and GMOs go hand-in-hand.

In fact, recent research indicates that since GMOs were introduced, farmers applied 318 million more pounds of pesticides than compared to the amount of pesticide likely to have been applied in the absence of GM seeds. Now, youve heard it before: if bees become extinct then humankind has about four years left.

Oh, and by the way, increased use of pesticides and herbicides leads to superweeds, the weeds that are resistant to those same pesticides we are told are safer (ahem, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsantos Roundup line of pesticides). Such superweeds include the common ragweed, common water hemp, giant ragweed, hairy fleabane, horseweed, Italian Ryegrass, Johnson grass, palmer amaranth and rigid ryegrass.

This resistance to glyphosate, which is now ravaging the nations South and Midwest, leads to the use of more toxic pesticides such as paraquat and 2,4-D, one component of the Vietnam War defoliant, Agent Orange. (See our discussion on GMOs leading to the use of more toxic pesticides here.)

In addition to impacting bees, GMOs may also be negatively impacting other insects  insects that serve as food for larger animals or serve other beneficial purposes in the ecosystem. For example, some researchers point out that the monarch butterflies are at risk and that more long term studies are needed. There is also research demonstrating that glyphosate adversely impacts the composition of soil thereby causing adverse impact in nematoes (earthworms) and other beneficial soil bacteria. Finally, plants engineered to express toxic substances could present risks to other organisms, thus disrupting the natural food chain.

3. Environmental Concerns

Eucalyptus
In addition to the threats that GMOs may have on human and animal health, there are also numerous pressing environmental concerns. The list of potential problems highlighted by the Union of Concerned Scientists is long and portentous. First, the engineered crops themselves could become weeds. For example, some compared the recently approved for trial planting of GE eucalyptus trees with kudzu, a plant imported for purposes of preventing soil erosion but which became a pest throughout the southern U.S. states.

Second, the crops might serve as conduits through which new genes move to wild plants, which could then become weeds.

Third, crops engineered to produce viruses could facilitate the creation of new, more virulent or more widely spread viruses.

Fourth, plants engineered to express potentially toxic substances could present risks to other organisms like birds or deer thereby potentially disrupting the ecosystem and, as such, have a negative impact on the natural food chain.

Fifth, crops may initiate a perturbation that may have effects that ripple through an ecosystem in ways that are difficult to predict. Finally, the crops might threaten centers of crop diversity.

Similar alarm bells are ringing for GE animals. As examples, take this report from Greenpeace concerning GE fish and a recent Jill Richardson article discussing the science behind testing of GE salmon.

In addition, the World Health Organization also noted that concerns about GMOs impact on the environment include the persistence of the gene after the GMO has been harvested as well as the stability of the gene.

While GMO supporters argue that there have been no major environmental catastrophes, the absence of something that we are not looking for is not evidence of non-existence. As authors of the Union of Concerned Scientists report point out, [o]ther than for insect resistance, there is no systematic monitoring underway in the United States to detect adverse effects of genetically modified crops. So much may be going on that we are simply not aware of.

4. Moral and Ethical Concerns

In addition to the practical and earthly concerns over the health and ecological impacts of GMOs, there are also considerations of the higher sorts. Since genetic modification, by its very essence, requires manipulation of the genetic make-up of an organism, the very core of its existence, some religious scholars question whether scientifically altered crops and animals are unnatural or threaten the natural order, whether genetic manipulation is tantamount to playing God, whether it is a violation of the laws of nature or tampering with nature. (See GMO Journals series of articles regarding religious perspectives on GMOs.)

In a some cases, GM manipulation involves using animal genes from different species and, for example, if these were pig genes, consuming derived foods may be prohibited by some religions. Vegetarians and vegans would also want to avoid consuming foods containing genetic material from animals.

Genetic modification of animals also raises animal welfare concerns because such mutation may result in animal suffering.

Even if you are told that GMOs are permitted under your religious or philosophical point of view, you should still engage in some soul searching to determine if you believe that all is right with the world if GMOs are what you eat.

5. Socioeconomic Concerns

GM crops bring to the forefront issues of dominance, power and control, both, domestically and abroad. As William F. Engdahl exposes in his book, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation, control the food and you control the people.

Socioeconomic concerns stem in part from intellectual property protection and the profit interest that flows from it. Fundamentally, however, it is not simply the profit-driven perspectives of the biotech industry that have so many civil society advocates concerned. Knowledge that once belonged to everyone, a communal understanding of seeds, crops, farming practices, and an appreciation for biodiversity is now being gobbled up, privatized, patented, and sold to those same farmers in licensed chunks.

As many farmers have painfully discovered, using GM seeds comes with legal strings (and penalties) attached. Biotech companies require farmers to enter into license agreements in which farmers waive rights, including the right to save seeds. These contracts also, among other things, encourage farmers to use company specific pesticides. And thanks to the advocacy of the United States State Department and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, biotech companies are exporting and imposing their idea of agricultural practices to many impoverished parts of the world with great success.

No wonder many farmer advocates are concerned that such imposition of GM seeds is tantamount to corporate colonialism.

And while biotech companies want us to believe that GMOs will save the world from hunger (it sure makes for a great PR message), in reality, complex problems such as hunger and malnutrition will not be solved with GMOs. Hunger has many contributing factors, as Jim Goodman wrote in a recent article, such as natural disaster, discrimination, war, poor infrastructure and ineffective or corrupt governments. Similarly, food shortages often have little to do with lack of food and more to do with, as Francis Moore Lappe put it, a lack of justice.

And, by the way, the best hope for ending hunger lies with local, traditional, farmer-controlled agricultural production, not high tech industrial agriculture.

So lets dispense with the faux humanitarianism and call spade a spade.

6. Labeling Concerns

Dont let anyone tell you otherwise: Consumers want to know!

Just recently, an article appearing on The Daily Green reported on a survey about American attitudes on GMOs. According to the survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 53% of Americans would not eat GM foods if given the choice, while 87% believe GM foods should be labeled as such regardless.

Furthermore, broad public opposition to GMOs in the United States and abroad goes back many years. Another survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, conducted in 2002, reported that 55% of Americans considered GMOs bad. According to that survey, the opposition to GMOs was far less wide-spread in the U.S. than in Europe and Asia. Nearly nine-in-ten in France (89%) said it is bad to scientifically alter fruits and vegetables. More than seven-in-ten in Germany (81%), Japan (76%) and Italy (74%) also took a negative view of scientifically altered produce.

At the same time, the research fact sheet from the U.S. Department of Agriculture is still citing a 1999 study that boldly proclaims that American consumers are quite positive regarding continued acceptance of biotechnology. The statistic would be different if those same consumers had a better understanding about what was involved in the process of genetic modification, what types of tests were conducted on GE animals and crops to assess their safety, as well as the duration of those tests, and the type of non-health related consequences that they may be facing. (Wed also like to see what types of questions were asked during that study and how the questions were worded.)

Mass media is also not free from blame for the lack of public debate about labeling. Genetic modification is an obscure topic that is hard to explain in a 30 second sound news byte. It is much easier to talk about the alleged benefits of biotechnology in those 30 seconds  feeding the world, sustainability, saving fish populations, making hardier, drought resistant plants, lowering the costs of foods  than to discuss the lack of progress on those lofty goals and the adverse impacts of GMOs. It is also too convenient that the biotechs purchase plenty of ad space and air time in many news media outlets.

Consumers not only want to know, they also deserve to know if their food contains GMOs or GM ingredients.

Note that the Food and Drug Administration does allow voluntary labeling and some No GMOs. No Bioengineered Ingredients. labels have started to appear on packaging.

Next time you shop, consider if you can avoid GMOs and use this Non-GMO Shopping Guide (or the iPhone version) to help you navigate the store isles. And remember, if you are what you eat, then arent you a GMO?







Document Number: 8679
Straight Out of a Sci-Fi Movie: Salmon Engineered to Eat (All the Time)

September 8, 2010   one comment.
   Blog, News
Now Im not sure about you, but these headlines about our food supply are getting pretty tough to stomach.  From egg recalls large enough to feed every American two scrambled eggs to meat recalls warning us about e. Coli in our hamburgers, I cant help but yearn for simpler times.

But the latest food headline sounds like its out of a sci-fi movie: Genetically Modified Salmon Safe to Eat, FDA Report Says.  A fish designed to eat year round. And it comes with an on switch.



Could things get any stranger? 

Now if youre anything like me, you may not have been aware that about fifteen years ago a new technology was introduced into our food supply called genetic engineering since it hasnt gotten a whole lot of attention in the U.S. media.  But from corn to milk to fish, the United States started manipulating the DNA of our food using all kinds of wild sounding tools and technology beginning in the mid 1990s in an effort to drive profitability for agricultural companies. 

Using instruments like gene guns that sound like they are out of a sci-fi movie, scientists began to manipulate the DNA of our food supply and insert things like new proteins and insecticides into the genetic makeup of about 90% of our soybeans, 60% of our corn and even some of the animals that we eat.

No long term studies were conducted as to what the implications might be of eating this technofood with manipulated DNA, so most developed countries (like all of Europe, Australia, the UK, Japan and others) exercised extreme precaution and either did not allow these biotech ingredients into their food supplies or insisted on labeling them so that consumers could make an informed choice when it comes to feeding their families. 

But here in the U.S., we took a different approach: we simply assumed that these foods were safe and didnt label them. 

And now 15 years later, no long term studies yet conducted, and with the jury still out (especially on the role that these foods and their novel proteins and allergens play in the epidemic increase in food allergic reactions), the U.S. is about to introduce the first genetically manipulated animal into the food supply: salmon.  A salmon designed to double its weight in record time.

With the insertion of an on switch gene into the DNA of salmon, scientists at a company called AquaBounty Technologies have manipulated and patented the genetic makeup of salmon and engineered it to eat year round so that it can grow twice as fast.  As a result, salmon producers will be able to grow salmon more quickly, driving profitability and capitalizing on the growing demand for fish.



But in the midst of our nations growing health crisis, what will eating this mutating salmon with an insatiable appetite do to our widening waist lines?  The answer is, we simply dont know.

Sure, genetically manipulated foods have been on the market in the United States for the last 15 years, according to the United States Department of Agriculture, but no long term studies have ever been conducted to see what their health impact might be, and unlike other developed countries, no labels were ever put on these products to alert American eaters of these new ingredients in their food supply. 

As a result, there has been a fair amount of controversy around this new technology which created some tension back in 2002 at a government meeting of the Food Biotechnology Subcommittee of the Food Advisory Committee in which the committees acting chair, Edward N. Brandt, Jr., MD, PhD, said Of course, we havent worked into this some kind of test for allergencity, per se.. prompting an almost allergic reaction from renowned allergist, Dr. Fred McDaniel Atkins, who said, To me, the logical problem is that we are going to take that stuff and feed it to the public without their informed consent.

Yes, Dr. Atkins, that is a problem, a very big problem when you consider that the Centers for Disease Control has reported a 265% increase in the rate of hospitalization due to food allergic reactions since the introduction of genetically engineered foods whose labeling was never required in the US. 

Now Im all for fish, as it is full of Omega-3s that contain anti-inflammatory benefits as well as an ability to affect insulin sensitivity, making it an important part of a well-balanced diet.  But given that the United States Department of Agriculture currently has no organic guidelines in place for seafood and the jury is still out on what the long term impact might be on our countrys ever expanding waistlines and increasingly allergic children of eating genetically manipulated salmon that contains an on switch triggering an insatiable appetite, I am going to sit this experiment out and not only get to know the details about the salmon that my family eats and how it is grown, but also opt for fish like tilapia, cod and halibut whose DNA havent yet been manipulated to eat year round.






Document Number: 7827
Interns Experience Expo West


Non-GMO Project Interns Halley Everall and Alison Cantor, both Scripps College '10 on the floor at the Natural Products Expo West, March 2010
Imagine every brand and company you have ever thought of or associated with the natural product industry. Then add a thousand more companies that you have never even heard of. Next, picture all of the representatives associated with each company, plus everyone with a considerable interest in the industry. Manufacturers, retailers, processors, brokers, distributors and consumersall in one enormous room, exchanging information and promoting their products and services. This is Expo West.

As interns working for the Non-GMO Project we were completely amazed when we walked into the Anaheim Convention Center for the tradeshow. Initially, our senses were pretty overwhelmed. The smells of all the food and body products, the colors and designs of all the companies display booths and the chatter of the crowd was definitely an intense experience. For the majority of the day we were standing at the Non-GMO Projects corner of the distributor UNFIs booth. It was fascinating to see the vast array of people walking around, and engaging them in discussions of the Non-GMO Projects work was exciting and fun. Many people had already heard about the Non-GMO Project and our goals. Many retailers displayed interest in the supporting retailer program, and we had numerous manufacturers show interest in enrolling their products in our verification program. We were exhilarated to see our efforts clearly being recognized and supported by such a large population!

Another thrilling event of the day was seeing the Non-GMO Project seal fully incorporated into packaging on Guayaki Tea products. We look forward to seeing more and more packages with our seal in stores.

As interns, Expo West helped to conceptualize the large market we are working with. It was inspiring to see so many gathered together to celebrate the natural product industry and the fight for sustainable Non-GMO food choices. All of this encourages us to continue working for this worthwhile cause.







Document Number: 2093
Fresh Picked Interns


Pictured, from left to right: Alison Cantor, Intern; Camille Frazier, former Outreach Coordinator; Megan (Thompson) Westgate, Executive Director; Sara Krautbauer, Intern. Not pictured: Sara Young, Outreach Coordinator; Aerienne Russell, Intern; Isa Ballard, Intern
In a small sunlit office in Upland, CA, the smell of cloves and the sound of keyboards clacking linger gently in the air as the employees of the Non-GMO Project work diligently on databases, events, and more. It is here where I find myself to be one of five interns this semester (along with Halley, Alison, Isa, and Sara) and thus far, I have had quite a positive experience.

As a sophomore in college, I knew it was time to start thinking about gaining experience in a field more legitimate than pizza-making. As I combed through internship opportunities in my area, the Non-GMO Project caught my eye; it seemed to encompass my interest in food politics and organics while still offering something unfamiliar and new. My prior knowledge about GMOs was limited, a mere conglomeration of informational tidbits gathered from books, documentaries, and news articles. Within two days of working with the Project, though, I had built a pretty solid basis of knowledge about GMOs, and I am still adding to it everyday.

Each of the interns here has been given their own specific projects to work on, from making phone calls to building the database to outreach and education. Because of prior experiences with reviewing and writing, I have been given the task of blogging for the Project. Though its always a little intimidating to speak on behalf of someone else, its nice to finally be able to put these higher-education writing skills into practice and to do something I enjoy. And no matter what we are working on, the real goal of the internship experience here is to learn what we love, love what we learn, and support ourselves and our goals through supporting the Project as a whole. I know inevitably what I put in I will get out, and thats what makes this a truly rewarding experience.

It is only my third week at the Project, but I can tell already Im going to love it; Ive learned so much not only about GMOs, but also about all the hard work it takes to keep up a small non-profit. Its easy to forget that the Non-GMO Project is more than just a label or a website; its an organization founded and supported by real people who are dedicated to maintaining consumer awareness and choice. The employees and interns here work hard each and every day to bring together the consumer and the company to ensure consistent and quality labeling of GMO-free foods. I am thankful to be working with such an organization and am excited to see what comes next for both the Project and myself.





Document Number: 2265
Understanding Our Seal
The retailers who started the Non-GMO Project were motivated by a simple idea. They believed that consumers in North America should have access to clearly-labeled non-GMO food and products, now and in the future. That conviction continues to be the guiding mission of the Non-GMO Project, but its a lot easier said than done! A huge part of the challenge is that by the time the Project was created, GMOs had already been in production across the U.S. and Canada for close to 10 years. Contamination risks to seeds, crops, ingredients and products had been steadily increasing without any standardized set of best practices in use to identify and stop contamination. But whereas this difficult reality had previously paralyzed all efforts to address the problem, the Non-GMO Project took a different approach. We decided that the lack of a perfect solution was no excuse not to try, and we believed that with enough hard work and collaborative spirit we could improve the situation, rather than allowing it to worsen. Our efforts are paying off, and while our work on the Projects consensus-based Standard and independent Product Verification Program continues to be incredibly complex, we have succeeded in establishing an industry-wide system for addressing contamination and a Non-GMO Project Verified seal that is now appearing on retail products.

So what does Non-GMO Project Verified mean? First of all, we want you to understand what it doesnt mean. It is not a guarantee that the product is 100% GMO free. The reason for this is that our program is process-based, using a set of best practices to avoid contamination. We do require testing of all ingredients (everything being grown in GMO form in North America), but we dont require testing of every single finished product. Instead, testing can be done at any one of a number of places in the production chain, for example right after harvest. Following the test, which must indicate that the ingredient is below 0.9% GMO (in alignment with laws in the European Union), we require rigorous traceability and segregation practices to be followed in order to ensure that the tested ingredients are what get used in the product. So in short, what our seal means is that a product has been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, including testing of risk ingredients. Companies enrolled in the Non-GMO Project are serious about keeping GMOs out, and work hard to do so. While you might see other claims regarding GMO status (e.g. GMO free), these are really not legally or scientifically defensible, and they are not verified by a third party. The Non-GMO Project is the only organization offering independent verification of testing and GMO controls for products in the U.S. and Canada. Buying products that are enrolled and verified in our program is the best way to support the sustained availability of non-GMO choices in North America. As a non-profit organization, we are committed not only to verifying and labeling products, but also to supporting and coordinating efforts between seed breeders, farmers, processors and manufacturers. With time, these efforts will allow us to protect and even expand the availability of non-GMO seeds, ingredients and products.





Document Number: 7222

Monsanto Nation: Taking Down Goliath
By Ronnie Cummins 
Organic Consumers Association, July 27, 2011 
Straight to the Source 

"If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." - Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co., a subsidiary of Monsanto, quoted in the Kansas City Star, March 7, 1994

After two decades of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans, it's time to move beyond defensive measures and go on the offensive.  With organic farming, climate stability, and public health under the gun of the gene engineers and their partners in crime, it's time to do more than complain. With over 1/3 of U.S. cropland already contaminated with Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), with mounting scientific evidence that GMOs cause cancer, birth defects, and serious food allergies  and with new biotech mutants like alfalfa, lawn grass, ethanol-ready corn, 2,4 D-resistant crops, and genetically engineered trees and animals in the pipeline, time is running out.

Living in Monsanto Nation there can be no such thing as "coexistence." It is impossible to coexist with a reckless industry that endangers public health, bribes public officials, corrupts scientists, manipulates the media, destroys biodiversity, kills the soil, pollutes the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically enslaves the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. It's time to take down the Biotech Behemoth, before the living web of biodiversity is terminated. 

But, to bring down Goliath and build an organic future, we need to be strategic, as well as bold. We must take the time to carefully analyze our strengths and weaknesses and critique our previous efforts. Then we must prepare to concentrate our forces where our adversary is weak, like a chess master, moving the field of battle from Monsanto's currently impregnable territory into more favorable terrain. Given the near-dictatorial control of Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association over the Congress, the White House, regulatory agencies, and state legislators, we have no choice in the present moment but to revert to "asymmetrical" guerrilla tactics, to seek out the Achilles heel or fundamental weakness of the biotech industry.

Consumers' Right to Know: Monsanto's Achilles Heel

The Achilles heel of Monsanto and the biotech industry is consumers' right to know. If GE-tainted foods are labeled in supermarkets and natural food stores, a massive rejection of chemical and GMO foods will take place, transforming the marketplace and supercharging the organic and local foods revolution. The biotech industry has been aware of their tremendous vulnerability in the United States ever since Monsanto forced their controversial recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone on the market in February 1994.  In the wake of nationwide "Frankenfood" protests and milk dumps, industry made sure that no federal labeling or safety testing would be required. As the biotechnocrats understand full well, mandatory GE food labels will cripple the industry: consumers will not buy gene-altered foods, farmers will not plant them, restaurants and food processors will avoid them, and grocery stores will not sell them. How can we be certain about this? By looking at the experience of the European Union, the largest agricultural market in the world. In the EU, there are almost no genetically engineered crops under cultivation or GE consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Not because GE crops are automatically banned in Europe. But rather because under EU law, all foods containing genetically engineered ingredients must be labeled. 

European consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GE foods; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as these gene-altered are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by the Monsanto executive quoted above: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

The biotech and food industry are acutely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or DuPont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides and industrial chemicals, Agent Orange, carcinogenic food additives, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are definitely aware of the fact that every poll over the last 20 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on genetically engineered foods. Why do consumers want labels? So that we can avoid buying these mutant foods, gene-spliced with viruses, bacteria, antibiotic-resistant marker genes and foreign DNA. Gene-altered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from ever getting a public discussion, much less coming to a vote, in Congress. 

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) perennially introduces a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GE foods, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations, millionaires, and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. 

Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.

With biotech and industrial agriculture's big money controlling Congress, the White House, and the corporate mass media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and our campaigning to more favorable terrain: the state level and the marketplace. 

Besides boycotting non-organic foods likely containing GMOs (even those marketed as "natural") and demanding that natural food stores adopt truth-in-labeling practices, we've got to push for mandatory GE food labeling laws in the legislatures of those few remaining states like Vermont where Monsanto and corporate agribusiness do not yet have total control. Of the 18 states where GE food labeling legislation has been introduced over the past two years, only in Vermont does our side seem to have the votes to push labeling through, as well as a Governor who will not cave in to Monsanto.

State Ballot Initiatives: Monsanto and Biotech's Greatest Weakness

Although passing a mandatory GE foods labeling law in Vermont is a distinct possibility, and something we should all support, the most promising strategy for restoring consumers' right to know lies in utilizing one of the most important remaining tools of direct citizen democracy, state ballot initiatives. A state ballot initiative is a means by which a petition signed by a certain minimum number of registered voters can bring about a public vote on a proposed statute or constitutional amendment, in this case a law requiring mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods.  Ballot initiatives are also called, depending on the state, "popular initiatives," "voter initiatives," "citizen initiatives" or just "initiatives."

Twenty-four states, mainly west of the Mississippi, allow ballot initiatives. Each state has its own requirements for how many signatures are required, how many days can be spent collecting the signatures, and when petitions must be turned in. States also vary on the average amount of money spent by initiative committees to support or oppose ballot measures. 

The essential advantage of state ballot initiatives is that they enable the grassroots (in our case the 85-95% of consumers who want labels on GE-tainted foods) to bypass corrupt politicians, industry lobbyists, and special interest legislative practices. In addition, the very strategic point to keep in mind is that it will not be necessary to pass GMO labeling ballot initiatives in all 24 of these states. In fact, passage in just one large state, for example, California, where there is tremendous opposition to GE foods as well as a multi-billion dollar organic food industry, will likely have the same impact as a national labeling law. 

If Vermont passes a state labeling law though its legislature in 2011, or California voters put a GMO labeling initiative on the ballot in 2012 and pass it, the biotech and food industry will face an intractable dilemma. Will they dare put labels on their branded food products in just one or two states, admitting these products contain genetically engineered ingredients, while still withholding label information in the other states? The answer is very likely no. Withholding important and controversial information in some states, while providing it to consumers in other states, would be a public relations disaster. 

A clear precedent for this situation was established in California in 1986 when voters passed, over the strenuous opposition of industry, a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredient to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether, and they did this on a national scale, not just in California. 

This same scenario will likely unfold if California voters pass a ballot initiative in 2012 requiring labels on food containing genetically engineered ingredients. Can you imagine Kellogg's selling Corn Flakes breakfast cereal in California with a label that admits it contains genetically engineered corn? Or labeling their corn flakes as GE in California, but not divulging this same fact to consumers in the other 49 states or Canada? Of course not.  How about Kraft Boca Burgers admitting that their soybean ingredients are genetically modified? How about the entire non-organic food industry (including many so-called "natural" brands) admitting that 75% of their products are GE-tainted?  Once food manufacturers and supermarkets are forced to come clean and label genetically engineered products, they will likely remove all GE ingredients, to avoid the "skull and crossbones" effect, just like the food industry in the EU has done. In the wake of this development American farmers will convert millions of acres of GE crops to non-GMO or organic varieties.

The biotechnocrats and their allies have indeed used their vast resources to buy off Congress, the White House, and most state legislatures with campaign contributions. Monsanto, DuPont, and other corporate giants have used their enormous clout to send their lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into jobs as government regulators. Biotech's financial power has polluted state and federal governments, along with trade associations, universities, research institutions, philanthropic organizations, and media outlets.

But there are two things Monsanto's money can't buy: Our trust, and our votes.

Polls Show Consumers Overwhelmingly Support GE Food Labels

Poll after poll has shown that most consumers want to know whether their food includes engineered ingredients. 

The results of a recent MSNBC poll that posed the question, "Do you believe genetically modified foods should be labeled?" indicate that nearly all Americans believe that foods made with genetically modified organisms should indeed be labeled. 

Of the more than 45,000 people who participated in the poll, over 96% answered "Yes. It's an ethical issue - consumers should be informed so they can make a choice."

It's not news that most Americans support labeling of GMO foods. Since genetically modified foods were first introduced in mid-1990s, scores of public opinion polls have shown that the vast majority of consumers want mandatory labeling of all genetically modified foods. These include recent polls by CBS News/New York Times, NPR/Thomson Reuters and the Consumers Union. Unfortunately, Congress and the White House have ignored these polls, accepting instead the claims of lobbyists and indentured scientists that genetically engineered foods are perfectly safe, and that uninformed and scientifically illiterate Americans must not be given the choice to buy or not to buy GMOs, because they will reject them.

Monsanto spent more than $1 million on the 2010 election cycle, splitting its contributions evenly between state and federal candidates. It spends much more on lobbying - more than $8 million in each of the last three years. Monsanto's money has bought it influence and allowed it to move its lawyers and scientists through the revolving door into roles within the regulatory agencies. The USDA, FDA and State Department are full of appointees with connections to Monsanto. Monsanto's efforts have successfully stifled attempts in Congress and state legislatures to pass GMO labeling legislation.

The Slingshot that Can Bring Down Goliath

The most important advantage or weapon in a ballot initiative (or in a grassroots legislative lobbying campaign) is to have the overwhelming support of the people, especially registered voters. As poll after poll has shown, 85-95% of Americans support mandatory GE food labels. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend to defeat a ballot initiative, it is very difficult to turn back overwhelming public sentiment. Monsanto has become one of the most hated corporations on earth.

The second requirement for a successful ballot initiative is to have the active support of a massive grassroots movement, like the growing anti-GE food movement and OCA's Millions Against Monsanto campaign. This grassroots movement can gather petition signatures, mobilize public opinion, and get out the vote. No matter how much money Monsanto and their allies spend, it will be very difficult to defeat a volunteer grassroots army of organic consumers who enjoy the massive support of the public.

The third prerequisite for victory is to have the ability to raise significant sums of money. Not only do we have millions of organic consumers in the U.S. who are passionately opposed to GMOs, and willing to donate to a labeling campaign, but we also have a rapidly growing $30 billion organic food industry that depends upon keeping GMO contamination out of the organic sector. We probably won't be able to raise enough money to outspend Monsanto, the Farm Bureau, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but we can raise enough money to defend our popular position and maintain majority support.

Just like everything in U.S. politics, ballot initiatives have a price tag.

According to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center:
"The chances of victory are directly correlated with the amount of money raised and are almost always proportional to the amount of money the opposition spends."
"People power is equally important to factor in. Particularly for Citizen-based ballot initiative efforts, it is imperative to have people on the ground across the state that are connected and invested in the initiative."
Biotechnology or BioDemocracy?

Restoring consumers' right to know and driving genetically engineered foods off supermarket shelves are not going to solve all of the life and death issues that are currently staring us in the face: the climate crisis, endless wars, economic depression, corporate control over government, and the health crisis. But cutting Monsanto and the biotechnocrats down to size and restoring consumer choice are a good first step to move us toward sustainability and a healthy food and farming system. Just as important, in political terms, by defeating the Biotech Bullies and indentured politicians, we can begin to restore the tattered self-confidence of the American body politic. A resounding victory by the organic community and OCA's Millions Against Monsanto campaign will prove to ourselves and the currently demoralized public that we can indeed take back control over the institutions and public policies that determine our daily lives. 






Document Number: 9075
Obama's FDA is regulating genetically engineered salmon, a genetically modified organism (GMO) that is the first of its kind, not as an animal, but as an animal drug.

Normally, a veterinary drug would be used for health purposes, but there's no therapeutic benefit associated with jacking up an Atlantic salmon with the genes of a Chinook salmon and the eel-like ocean pout to make it grow twice as fast. On the contrary, genetic engineering increases the salmon's mortality, disease and deformity.

So, why would the FDA treat a the first genetically engineered animal for human consumption like a drug? The idea came from the biotech industry. They knew that the FDA's animal drug process would keep companies' "proprietary" information secret, while limiting public participation and downplaying food safety concerns. Genius.
Since 1992, the FDA has operated under the legal fiction created by the Bush-Quayle Administration that there is no risk associated with the human consumption of genetically engineered plants and animals. The FDA explains that DNA is Generally Recognized as Safe, so genetically engineered DNA is safe, too, and it doesn't have to be safety tested.
A human study conducted by the UK's Food Standards Agency found that consuming genetically engineered soy can result in "horizontal gene transfer," where the bacteria of the gut takes up the soy's modified DNA. With GMO salmon, the bacteria of our digestive tracks could take up the engineered salmon genes, but the FDA isn't looking into whether this would happen or how it might effect our health.

Instead of reviewing the safety of consuming genetically engineered salmon DNA, the FDA food safety review is a simple quacks-like-a-duck-style comparison of genetically engineered and normal salmon for hormone levels, nutrition, and allergenic potency.

The FDA's food safety review of GMO salmon consists of collecting data produced by AquaBounty, the company that wants to sell it. Not surprisingly, that data is seriously flawed.

* AquaBounty did not always segregate, or even collect, data specific to their AquAdvantage GMO Salmon. And, FDA did not require AquaBounty to produce data in the actual conditions under which the salmon will be commercially produced, so we don't have food safety data on the Panama-raised, triploid, monosex AquAdvantage Salmon that people will be actually be eating if the FDA grants approval.

* FDA did not require AquaBounty to show that AquAdvantage and normal salmon were similar when raised under the same conditions. AquaBounty's food safety data for genetically engineered salmon did not have to match data for its control salmon. FDA compared AquaBounty's data for genetically engineered salmon to data for farmed salmon raised under unknown conditions and data for salmon from other scientific studies.

* AquaBounty only tested a few fish, making it less likely that its food safety studies would reveal statistically significant differences between genetically engineered and normal salmon.

* AquaBounty's detection levels were often set too low to produce food safety data for comparison.

* AquaBounty selected which fish to test, and unblinded samples.

But, even with all of the flaws and biases that likely hid differences between GMO and normal salmon, it's clear that Frankenfish isn't same.
GMO salmon has 40% more IGF1, a hormone linked to prostate, breast and colon cancers in humans.
GE salmon is less nutritious than normal salmon. It has the lowest omega-3 to omega-6 ratio of all the salmon in the studies FDA reviewed.
GE salmon have mean allergenic potencies that are 20% and 52% higher than normal salmon, increasing the risk of potentially deadly allergic reactions.
The FDA notes evidence of "increased frequency of skeletal malformations, and increased prevalence of jaw erosions and multisystemic, focal inflammation" in the tissues of GMO salmon.

Most people wouldn't be too surprised to learn that genetic engineering can mess a fish up. What might shock you is that the FDA dismisses these findings as "within the range observed in rapid growth phenotypes of non-genetically engineered Atlantic salmon."

The abnormalities FDA found weren't much worse than those currently plaguing the factory farmed salmon selected for rapid growth and subjected to the physiological stress of intensive production. "Screamer disease" deforms 80% of Chilean salmon and "humpback" spinal compression is found in 70% of Norwegian salmon operations.

Thanks, FDA, for letting us know that factory farmed salmon are so messed up! But, that's no reason to turn them into Frankenfish!

The main justification for GMO salmon is that it could "reduce the pressure on wild fish stocks". But, consumption isn't the primary pressure on wild Alaskan salmon, which gets a "best choice" rating from the Monterey Bay Aquarium's Seafood Watch program. The biggest threat to wild Alaskan salmon is the destruction of their habitat.

Ironically, as Paul Greenberg, author of the new book "Four Fish," explains, "While the government seeks to boost farmed salmon supplies through transgenics, it is simultaneously letting wild salmon go to pot."

The spawning grounds of wild salmon in Bristol Bay, Alaska, are threatened by the international mining giant, Anglo-American, which plans to construct Pebble Mine, the largest open-pit copper and gold mine in the US. Two months ago, a copper mine failure in China's TingRiver killed millions of fish. A similar disaster at Pebble Mine could mean the destruction of a quarter of a billion pounds of salmon, curiously, about the same amount of GMO salmon Aqua Bounty hopes to produce. The EPA could stop Pebble Mine through the Clean Water Act but has failed to act.

Greenberg writes, "More transgenic fish, less wild fish. You have to scratch your head at a government that's planning that kind of seafood menu for its citizens. Instead of endorsing a risky experiment in genetic salmon modification wouldn't it be better if our leaders protected wild salmon habitat? In the end we'd have just as much fish on our plates and a safer environment to boot."







Document Number: 9480 

Despite Fears, More Genetically Modified Crops Are on the Way

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

In a way, the old science-fiction movies were right. Genetically engineered crops have taken over the world - but not because mutant plants went on a rampage.

	Fifteen years after the biotech revolution first hit rural America, farmers overwhelmingly choose to grow genetically modified (GM) varieties of corn and soybeans. In Minnesota this year, a record 95 percent of the soybeans are GM varieties. For corn, it's 93 percent. A similar trend is unfolding around the world.

	"Everybody thinks it's just a U.S. thing, and that's far from the case now," said David Morgan, president of Syngenta Seeds, which has its U.S. headquarters in Minnetonka. "With the exception of Europe, it's pretty well adopted around the world."

	More than 80 percent of the world's soybeans are GM varieties, industry data show. So is nearly two-thirds of the world's cotton. That brisk adoption rate is welcomed by developers of biotech seeds, including Syngenta, which ranks No. 3 behind Monsanto and Pioneer.

	And what has all this genetic engineering wrought? The debate continues, but so far, the scorecard includes:

	Crop yields are up. The food supply remains safe. Consumers have grown more accepting of - or at least more indifferent to - genetically modified crops. And opponents remain.

	"The good news is that there have been no serious environmental impacts - certainly no catastrophes - associated with the use of engineered crops in the United States," wrote two biotech experts with Advertisement the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Of course, that does not mean that one can conclude that there have been no environmental effects." 






Document Number: 5407 

OMG, GMOs: Organic Seed Farmer Frank Morton

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

EJ: How did you first learn about GE crops in your area? 

FM: I was at a meeting of the Willamette Valley Specialty Seed Association in Oregon in 2006 when a member told us that he had planted GE sugar beets. None of the other members of the association had any idea this had happened. We were never informed by the USDA. Nobody asked the seed association whether this would have any impact on us. So basically a lot of us felt like we weren't consulted about this, but there was a sort of fatalism about it among the membership because they didn't think there was anything that could be done about it.

I am the only 100 percent organic seed farmer in the group, so it fell to me to make the organization realize the long-term consequences of us having GE crops in the valley. I told the group that whether they were conventional or organic, their customers would not want to have GE seed contamination. The group actually did agree with that perception. However, they insisted that because the USDA allowed this happen, we were powerless to do anything about it. So, nobody wanted to get involved, except eventually I did.

EJ: How do GE crops threaten farmers of organic or conventional (non-GE) crops?

FM: This past January, one of the members of the seed association lost a multimillion dollar contract with a European seed company because the company perceived a risk of contamination from GMOs now that GE crops were being allowed in the Willamette Valley. This is precisely what I envisioned happening. When this member reported that he had just lost a multimillion dollar contract not because of contamination but because of the fear of the risk of contamination, suddenly the conventional growers completely got it. 






Document Number: 442 

Glyphosate Drift to Rice a Problem for All of Us

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Louisiana News page, and our Mississippi News page.

Airplanes and ground applicators have been used to apply amendments to rice crops in Mississippi since the mid-1950s, and the interests and success of rice producers and aerial aviators have become intricately intertwined.

In the late 1990s, technology inserted into cotton, soybeans, and corn allowed over-the-top application of glyphosate onto those crops. The technology immediately revolutionized the production systems for those crops.

The U.S. rice industry never adapted the glyphosate-resistant technology for fear that its product - consumed with virtually no processing - would be forsaken by consumers worldwide. And so, non-transgenic rice is planted in a sea of genetically modified crops that are tolerant to glyphosate.

For years, this seemed to pose no real problem or threat. In the early to mid part of the last decade, however, reports of rice damaged by glyphosate drift began to surface with increasing frequency. Rice specialists noticed that rice that had no obvious damage through the growing season would yield and mill poorly and would exhibit the classic trait associated with late glyphosate drift - the kernel would be shaped like a parrot beak instead of its normally elongated, symmetrical shape.

In 2006, immediately after most crops were planted in the Delta, a wet and windy period set in. Airplanes set out to spray cotton, corn, and soybean fields plagued with weeds. Not many thought much of it at first.

By mid-May, however, reports of dead rice and rice burned off to the ground began to surface. Soon the reports were widespread. It was estimated that 30,000 to 50,000 acres of rice were damaged or destroyed that year by glyphosate. 






Document Number: 8526 

Organic Consumers Association Takes Aim at Whole Foods Over Labeling of GM Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All about Organics page, Whole Foods and the Myth of Natural page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
Whole Foods customers have a love/hate relationship with the natural and organic foods giant. They have run afoul of their customer base before - remember the mass outcry and call for boycott as a result of comments thrown about by the CEO regarding health care rights (http://www.naturalnews.com/026906_f...)? Now there is the issue of mandatory labeling of genetically engineered foods being bandied about in a variety of state legislatures - an effort that recent polls indicate 90 percent of America is in favor of - and Whole Foods is again being called upon to make a decision that is aligned with their espoused business mission.

	The problem is a recently leaked internal memo that doesn't indicate their readiness to do so. The memo, in short, acknowledges the dangers of genetically modified foods, yet falls of any real commitment, stating "the reality is that no grocery store in the United States, no matter what size or type of business, can claim they are GE-free..."

	Critics are insisting that this isn't enough. The Whole Foods brand is built upon the basic tenant that their products are natural or organic and a good choice for the eco-organic conscious consumer. So for them not to pick up and unquestionably support the movement for mandatory labeling of GE food is for some another disappointing move.






Document Number: 2574 

"Every 30 Minutes": Crushed by Debt and Neoliberal Reforms, Indian Farmers Commit Suicide at Staggering Rate
16 Comments so far
A quarter of a million Indian farmers have committed suicide in the last 16 yearsan average of one suicide every 30 minutes. The crisis has ballooned with economic liberalization that has removed agricultural subsidies and opened Indian agriculture to the global market. Small farmers are often trapped in a cycle of insurmountable debt, leading many to take their lives out of sheer desperation. We speak with Smita Narula of the Center for Human Rights and Global Justice at New York University Law School, co-author of a new report on farmer suicides in India.Surely Thomas Friedman will give us the silver lining in a NYT op ed.that figure is staggering.................This has to be the saddest goddamn planet in the universe.No that's a false statement. The true statement is that there are about 5 - 12% of the population who are psychopaths and are hellbent on destruction. The destroy everything they see, want or touch. These are the ones who must be removed from society so they can no longer hate and destroy the human race and the planet.What you say is true of course, but it only reinforces what I said.  These vicious epigones are defective in every respect but one:  complete disregard for anyone or anything, and not for any reason except the ones they invent.What chance do I have against them?  This has been the problem for the last ten---maybe hundred--- thousand years.  But I would not change places with these throwbacks for anything.  Something has helped the rest of us survive in spite of being sheep among wolves since forever.  Christ, what do I know?Okay, I can see the point - they're doing it because of neo-liberal reforms.However I still don't think financial issues are a good reason to commit suicide.Middle and upper class call the tokens that can be exchanged for the basics of life financial issues.  To a subsistence farmer they are life itself.If I can't afford the car I want or the latest fashion that is no reason for suicide.  If I know I'm going to have to watch my family starve maybe it is.There is a limit to what I will accept from life---or the hell greedy financiers have made my life---there is a limit.It's only partially about the debt.  Most of them commit suicide by huffing the pesticides Monsanto sells them.  The pesticides cause suicidal depression in humans and have addictive qualities.As a matter of fact, the article detailing this was on Common Dreams, entitled: Suicide by Pesticide: India's Hidden Climate Change Catastrophe:http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/01/02-2Monsanto - those motherf*ckers never miss a trick, do they?You have to ask who benefits from this, though.  Who is gobbling up all the land these dead farmers are leaving behind?  Follow the money.What you say about addictive qualities is true.  I know from first hand experience.  My flower beds are weed beds this year and that's OK by me.Tell that to the farmers.REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE REGULATE REGULATEPsychopaths, such as the owners, ceos, and board members of corporations like monsanto, do not have the ability to self-regulate. The regulation of the corporations and those who run them must be imposed from the people, not the other way around which is what is happening now.Narula  must be deluded to believe that the US or NYU has the slightest interest in the plight of these hapless people other than to further their own globalist agenda.At least some of the blame should go to the rich people in India who are starting to splurge on luxuries like crazy. Such inequality in a country where there are so many poor people is criminal and inhumane. I know there are lots of external factors, but the unfortunate reality is that there are many educated, rich Indians who simply don't care for their fellow Indians who are suffering.There is a movie--Places in the Heart.  If you have never picked cotton this movie is a good depiction of what it is like.When I was about ten years old My father decided to grow two acres of cotton.  JUST TWO ACRES.  We worked every day after work, after school, until dark.When the cotton was ginned and baled I waited eagerly outside the gin office to hear what our labours had wrought.  Half a bale.  One hundred dollars.  Even allowing for the adjustment in currency it was a pathetic return.I can't believe one person would do that to another.  The rich in India---hell the rich in every country spend on one dinner what a whole family works their hearts out for some flour and a little lard.Neoliberalism will be the death of capitalism.   (well, not quite, but it is doing real damage...)Without exception, every place neoliberal policies are implemented the effects are the same: a few people get rich and everyone else is made to suffer so badly that the situation becomes unsustainable.     That shouldn't really be surprising because the whole neoliberal idea is a disaster capitalist's scam to extract money from developing nations.Central and South America were the neoliberals' first victims.  The results were that people organized, and now nearly the entire continent has moved to the left.Reaction to neoliberal policy has also been a driving force in the uprisings in the Middle East.  Needless to say, what's happening in India is a tragedy.  The farmers need to organize, fight back, and eject the neoliberal vultures. Death to neoliberalism.






Document Number: 7822 

USDA Looks to Approve Monsanto's Drought-Tolerant Corn

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, Organic Transitions page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Farm Issues page, and our USDA Watch page.

The Obama administration will seek to allow the unlimited sale of a corn variety genetically engineered by Monsanto Co. to resist drought, the Department of Agriculture announced today. The corn, if approved, would be the first commercial biotech crop designed to resist stressful environmental conditions like drought, rather than pests or herbicides.

	Drought tolerance has been a longtime goal of the agricultural biotech companies, who hold up the trait as one way they could aid both their bottom line and farmers in drought-prone regions. But the trait, influenced by a wide variety of genes, has proved difficult to develop.

	The market could be vast. In North America, up to 40 percent of crop-loss insurance claims are due to heavy or moderate drought, according to some estimates. Worldwide, corn-growing regions lose about 15 percent of their annual crop to drought, and losses run much higher in severe conditions.

	However, Monsanto's corn is unlikely to perform well enough to tap this potential, USDA found. 

  






Document Number: 5142 

Factory Farms the Only Way to 'Feed the World'? Not So, Argues Science Paper

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, Environment and Climate Resource Center page, Organic Transitions page, and our Factory Farm Food Safety page.

To "feed the world" by 2050, we'll need a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. At least that's the conventional wisdom.

	Even progressive journalists trumpet the idea (see here, here, and here, plus my ripostes here and here). The public-radio show Marketplace reported it as fact last week, earning a knuckle rap from Tom Laskway. At least one major strain of President Obama's (rather inconsistent) agricultural policy is predicated on it. And surely most agricultural scientists and development specialists toe that line ... right?

	Well, not really. Back in 2009, Seed Magazine organized a forum predicated on the idea that a "scientific consensus," analogous to the one on climate change, had formed around the desirability of patent-protected genetically modified seeds. If I must say so, my own contribution to that discussion shredded that notion. If anything, a pro-GMO consensus has formed among a narrow group of microbiologists -- the people who conduct gene manipulations to develop novel crops. But no such accord exists among scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems: soil experts, ecologists, development specialists, etc. 

  






Document Number: 2765 

Conservation International Exposed as the Worst Kind of Greenwashers

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Environment and Climate page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	A leading environmental charity has been accused of corporate 'greenwashing' after a senior employee was secretly filmed by undercover reporters discussing ways in which the organisation could help an arms company boost its green credentials, the Ecologist can reveal.

	Options outlined by the representative of Conservation International (CI) included assisting with the arms company's green PR efforts, membership of a business forum in return for a fee, and sponsorship packages where the arms company could potentially invest money in return for being associated with conservation activities. 

	The sting was carried out by the London-based magazine Don't Panic, with their journalists posing as representatives of a major international defence corporation.

	Don't Panic have produced a twelve-minute film in which they make the allegations (watch it below).

	The female CI employee was recorded describing how the organisation could help the arms company develop key environmental messages, identify target audiences and craft a communications plan as part of one package offered by the charity.

	Footage from the meeting shows the CI representative outlining the benefits of a number of the charity's initiatives, including membership of the 'Business and Sustainability Council', which is offered to companies in return for a payment of $37,500 per year. 

  






Document Number: 6221 

The Audacity of Genetically Modified Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
TAKE ACTION: Sign the Millions Against Monsanto Truth-In-Labeling Petition!
The biotech industry, led by Monsanto, promotes the idea that the 
arguments about genetically modified crops should focus on the science 
and the economics as Monsanto sees them. I maintain that the real 
discussion should be about the audacity and illegitimate way GM crops 
have been forced on a reluctant United States and world -- the money, 
corruption, politics and obfuscation that characterize its rise to 
dominance. The discussion should focus on how GM crops have taken over 
our food supply with little concern for safety or our right to choose.
	
	
	Does it bother you that we consumers are largely unaware that 70 percent to 80 percent of the processed foods we buy contain GM ingredients? We are "largely unaware" because these foods are not labeled -- even though 90 percent of Americans want them labeled and think that we have the right to know what is in our food. The biotech industry fights labeling viciously because they know that, if GM foods were labeled, many would refuse to buy them as is the case in Europe. It`s not financial considerations that leave us with no choice; it`s our lack of awareness that allows them to take advantage of us. How many realize that Kraft Mac  Cheese is non-GM in Europe but does contain GM ingredients in the United States?

	
	
	Our regulatory bodies and government are staffed with pro-GM people, a veritable revolving door. Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer, moved from Monsanto to the Food and Drug Administration where he wrote the rules that were used to justify the release of Monsanto`s bovine growth hormone RBGH. He then returned to Monsanto as vice president. He currently is the FDA deputy commissioner for foods -- not the best place for a person with such apparent bias. And Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, previously general counsel for Monsanto, supported a ruling that GM alfalfa could be released. He does not recuse himself in cases like this involving conflict of interest. 

  






Document Number: 3315 

Tea Party and Hippies Unite: Food Safety and the President's Food Safety Czar

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Why has the Food Safety Modernization Act (S510) encountered opposition from the Tea Partiers and their unlikely ally, the hippy, natural food, organic farmer, granola crowd? Look at the history of the FDA and see if they truly have the best interests of America's health and food safety at the core of their concerns.

	
	In the early 1990s the FDA was constructing their genetically modified organisms (GMO) policy. During the Clinton Administration Michael R. Taylor was appointed policy chief at the FDA, whose job it was to make policy with regards to these GMOs. Prior to working at the FDA he had been Monsanto's attorney. One of the products of Monsanto was Posilac, which is the brand name of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST). This product, when injected into dairy cows, causes them to produce 10 to 15% more milk on average. This was marketed as a safe drug to increase milk production and therefore increase revenues for dairy farmers. Michael R. Taylor declared all GMOs, including rBGH/rBST, to be essentially identical to the natural product and therefore safe for human consumption, even though no safety studies were done. In late1993 Monsanto received permission from the FDA to market Posilac.

	
	Farmers began purchasing Posilac and injecting their cows and found that it did indeed cause the cows to increase their milk production. What they also discovered is that these cows began to suffer with mastitis (infected udders) continuously and they had to inject them with antibiotics to fight these infections, resulting in pus being present in the milk the cows produced. They also suffered with fertility problems, hoof diseases and lameness among other illnesses. The cows were producing milk constantly and were living shorter, unhealthier lives. The farmers decided that the health of their cows was not worth the increased profits and began to market their milk products as not containing milk from rBGH or rBST treated cows. 

  






Document Number: 9854 

Marketplace's Botched 'Feed the World' Story

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
TAKE ACTION: Don't Let Monsanto Buy Out Public Radio!

In a recent report entitled "The Non-Organic Future," public radio's Marketplace program considered the challenge to agriculture of feeding a world population estimated to reach 9 billion by 2050. It was, to be frank, a terrible piece of journalism. Short, virtually fact-free, and weakly reported, it gave pride of place to soil scientist Pedro Sanchez of Columbia University. To his credit, Sanchez is a well-intentioned scholar dedicated to reducing world hunger. However, he sees his mission through the lens of conventional ag. In essence, Sanchez is nothing short of an evangelist for the policy of handing out fertilizers, pesticides, and hybrid seeds to developing world farmers. Reporter Adriene Hill allowed Sanchez to state, without the need for such things as corroborating facts, the following:

	
	Pedro Sanchez: If you ask me point blank whether organic-based farming is better than conventional, my answer is no. There are just too many of us, we just need too many nutrients.

	
	Adriene Hill: And those nutrients come from plants that need nutrients that organic fertilizers can't always provide.

	
	Sanchez: It's like a bank account, you've got to have a positive balance.

	
	Hill: And if you deposit only organics, he says ...

	
	Sanchez: ... you're going to go broke.



  






Document Number: 1020 

GMO Hay Threatens Organic Dairy Farmers?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

GELLERMAN: Hay is for horses - but it's also for cows, especially dairy cows. And soon they could be munching on hay from a different seed: genetically engineered alfalfa. It's called Roundup Ready alfalfa and its maker, Monsanto, says it's just like any other hay seed except that it's resistant to their herbicide, Roundup, which kills weeds in alfalfa fields.

	But organic farmers and those who choose organic dairy products fear the new seed could kill the organic dairy industry. And for the past four years, they've been waging a legal battle all the way up to the Supreme Court to prevent the seeds from being sown. Living on Earth's Jessica Ilyse Smith brings us up to date.

	SMITH: Last year the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture should decide the fate of Roundup Ready Alfalfa. And this January, the USDA made the unexpected decision to give the go-ahead to Monsanto to sell its seeds, and for farmers to plant them without restrictions.

	This blindsided many organic farmers and consumer advocates. Just a month earlier, the agency brought together organic farmers and food distributors, biotech corporations and crop exporters to talk about a coexistence plan - a plan of how Roundup Ready Alfalfa could be grown with everyone's interests in mind. Mark McCaslin was at this meeting. His company, Forage Genetics, developed the genetically engineered alfalfa with Monsanto. 

  






Document Number: 7597 

Here Come the Superweeds: USDA Approves Invasive GMO Grass

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.


Uh oh. If you've been following the issue here at RGB, you're aware of the fact that the US Department of Agriculture has been making life very easy for Monsanto, the big agriculture behemoth that controls a huge share of US (and global) seed production. They've approved a number of Monsanto's genetically modified (GMO) crops already this year. But the latest development blows the doors off what has happened so far.


The USDA slipped through an innocuous-looking press release about Kentucky bluegrass late Friday afternoon before the Fourth of July weekend. It's GMO bluegrass, engineered to resist Monsanto's nasty plant-killer, Roundup, so you can plant it on your lawn and then douse the whole joint with their chemical weedkiller.


The USDA ruled that there was no danger, so they don't need to do any tests. Just start selling.


"It's a blatant end-run around regulatory oversight," said George Kimbrell, senior lawyer at the Center for Food Safety.


Bye-bye, dandelions, hello birth defects. (See: It's official: Monsanto's Roundup herbicide causes birth defects.)


But hey, lots of people would be willing to exchange their firstborn child for a truly pristine, weed-free lawn, right? Although the company's main target is golf courses. (Henceforth pregnant women will be advised to abstain from cigarettes, alcohol, and golf ). 

  






Document Number: 8690 

Save the Seeds

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The development of agriculture stems from when people discovered the great power of saving seeds. It's been for some 10,000 years that people have been carefully collecting and saving seeds from a crop one year so that they could be used to plant another crop the following year.

	But agricultural practices have dramatically changed over the last century, and this foundational act of seed saving has nearly become a lost art over the past couple decades. Seeds are increasingly not being saved from year to year, as traditional, local crops are being replaced by identical, new crops in fields all over the world. This threatens tens of thousands of plant species with extinction and is causing many to once again recognize the importance of saving seeds, not just from local fields, but from all around the world.

	The history of saving seeds: Saving seeds is an essential component of agriculture itself. Originally, it's thought that people collected seeds from edible wild plants and learned how to grow these plants in a more controlled fashion so they didn't have to solely rely on gathering food from the wild plants. By taking seeds from the most desirable plants (those with the largest fruits or other edible parts, or that simply grew best in the local area), people over time came up with domesticated crops that were an improvement upon their wild relatives-an improvement at least as far as the people who wanted to eat them were concerned. Over thousands of years, this selection process led to the amazing array of crops we have today, with people historically consuming over seven thousand plant species in their diets. 

  






Document Number: 2816 

Monsanto in Haiti

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Last Spring, the agribusiness Monsanto announced it was making a $4 
million gift of seeds "to support the reconstruction effort" in Haiti. 
The "gift" - reportedly hybrid maize and vegetable seeds - was slated to
 total 505 tons of seed over 12 months.
	Six months after the alleged distribution of the first delivery of Monsanto seeds. Haiti Grassroots Watch decided to follow up on the controversial donation, especially of the maize hybrid seed.

	â€¢ Why were the seeds accepted by government officials?

	â€¢ Where were the seeds distributed?

	â€¢ Did the farmers - who were slated to receive the seed for only 10 percent of the real cost - like the seed? Did they understand what "hybrid" means as far as using the seed's "offspring"?

	â€¢ Were and are proper precautions being taken regarding the seeds, which are coated with potentially poisonous fungicides and pesticides?

	â€¢ Will the rest of the "gift" be distributed, or has it been already?

	â€¢ Does it appear likely that Haitian farmers could become dependent on highly subsidized Monsanto or other hybrid seeds, only to be slammed the full price in a few years, the way US homebuyers were hit with "exploding mortgages?" 

  






Document Number: 3153 

California Assembly Health Committee Passes Bill to Require Labels on Genetically Engineered Salmon

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Food Safety page, Information on Fish  Sustainability page, and our California News page.

In Wake Of Pending FDA Approval Of GE Salmon, California Bill Could Restore Americans' Right To Choose In The Marketplace

	Dissatisfied with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) current review of the first-ever proposed commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) salmon, late yesterday the California Assembly Health Committee approved a bill which would require that all GE fish sold in California contain clear and prominent labeling. The bill, AB 88, was introduced by Assemblymember Jared Huffman. The Center for Food Safety (CFS), a co-sponsor of the bill, applauds the Health Committee for protecting the public's right to know how their food is produced.

	"The FDA has indicated that it will not require these GE fish to be labeled once they are approved," said Rebecca Spector, West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety. "As such, it is incumbent on the California State legislature, starting with the Health Committee, to let the people of California make informed choices about the food they eat by requiring the labeling of GE fish sold in California."

	Public opinion clearly and consistently calls for food labeling. Recent polls indicate that 95% of the public want labeling of genetically-modified foods, and that nearly 50% of the public would not eat seafood that has been genetically engineered. Consumers sent nearly 400,000 public comments to FDA demanding the agency reject this application and require mandatory labeling of this transgenic salmon should it decide to approve it. 

  






Document Number: 776 

Bad Seeds: A Plan to Phase Out the $5 Billion in 'Direct Payment' Agricultural Subsidies

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, USDA Watch page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Environmnet and Climate Resource page.

Agriculture and the family farm are the foundation of strong and healthy rural communities, and a critical engine of U.S. economic growth. Regrettably, a key aspect of U.S. agricultural policy does not meaningfully contribute to the success of U.S. farmers: Most federal farm subsidies are outdated, expensive, and inequitable.

	In an era of fiscal constraint and more immediate budget priorities, many of these ineffective subsidies can no longer be justified. The federal government each year pays owners of historical croplands $4.9 billion in "direct payment" subsidies regardless of whether the people receiving the payments farm their lands. And these payments are automatically made every year despite rising fiscal deficits and a relatively healthy farm economy that saw net farm income grow by 27 percent in 2010.

	An exclusive set of commodities -- corn, sorghum, barley, oats, cotton, wheat, rice, soybeans, and peanuts -- have received 72 percent, or $160 billion, of all U.S. farm payments since 1996. Even among this small group of commodities there are widespread disparities. Upland cotton and rice growers, for example, receive a disproportionately high level of farm program payments relative to the other crops. Meanwhile, fruit and vegetable growers, and the majority of other agricultural producers in the United States, receive minimal direct subsidies despite contributing more than 50 percent of the total farm gate value in the United States. 

  






Document Number: 2408 

Eight Foods You Should Almost Never, Ever Eat

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Health Issues page.

Most soybean, corn, cotton and canola crops in the U.S. are genetically altered. Some experts argue that these crops could pose serious health and environmental risks, but the scientific picture is currently incomplete -- deliberately so.

	Agricultural corporations such as Monsanto and Syngenta have restricted independent research on the crops. They have refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or else have set restrictive conditions that severely limit research. This is legal because under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable.

	The Los Angeles Times reports:

	"Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else as well: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as promised."

	Even if you don't want to eat genetically engineered foods, you most likely already are doing so. Corn and soy are two of the most common food ingredients, especially in processed foods, and over 90 percent of both these crops in the US are now from GM seeds.

	Organic food companies and consumer groups are stepping up their efforts to get the government to exercise more oversight of engineered foods. Critics of current policy argue that the genetically modified (GM) seeds are often contaminating the nearby non-GM crops.

	ABC News reports:

	"The U.S. government has insisted there's not enough difference between the genetically modified seeds its agencies have approved and natural seeds to cause concern. But Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, more so than his predecessors in previous administrations, has acknowledged the debate over the issue and a growing chorus of consumers concerned about what they are eating."

	Sources: 
Los Angeles Time February 13, 2011 
ABC News February 28, 2011

	Dr. Mercola's Comments:

	George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley, the nation's largest organic farming cooperative, which had more than $600 million in sales last year, put it succinctly in the above article from ABC news:

	"There is a growing awareness that our [food supply] system makes us all guinea pigs of sorts."

	I couldn't have said it better myself, because that statement boils down the one fundamental truth about the current (non-organic) US food supply. You and your family are being treated as guinea pigs with food ingredients that have never been tested for long-term safety. 

  






Document Number: 4949 

Prince Charles: Save the World with Organic Farming

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our All About Organics page.
Britain's crown prince has a message for America: You don't pay enough for your food. And the way you produce it is ruining the planet.

	Fresh from his oldest son's wedding, Prince Charles came to Washington to slam today's conventional agricultural system as unsustainable because of its reliance on biotechnology and chemicals.

	"The current model is simply not durable in the long term," he told a food-policy conference hosted Wednesday by Georgetown University.

	The prince, who has long been a virulent opponent of biotechnology, has devoted some of the royal lands to organic farming. He ran through a list of the challenges facing the globe - growing populations, rising commodity prices, increased demand for meat as incomes grow, a changing climate, and limited water supplies. He offered organic farming as the answer to those challenges because of its ability to maintain soil fertility reliance on chemical inputs. 

  






Document Number: 6903 

Codex to Consider Labeling for Genetically Engineered Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Next week, committee members of Codex, the UN-sponsored would-be global regulator, will be reviewing guidelines for genetically engineered (GE) foods. The US delegation to the committee says-surprise-that no labeling is needed! An URGENT new Action Alert -the deadline to send comments is TODAY.

	The Codex Committee on Food Labeling will meet May 9-13 in QuÃ©bec City, Canada, where members will review the Codex guidelines on labeling food. Among the items for review are the Codex labeling standards for genetically engineered foods.

	The Codex Alimentarius (Latin for "Food Code") is a collection of internationally adopted food standards, guidelines, codes of practice, and other recommendations which supporters hope will become a global standard. The US is a Codex Committee member country.

	In preparation of the upcoming meeting in Canada, the US delegates held a public meeting in Washington, DC, on April 25 to discuss their draft position that they will present in QuÃ©bec. ANH-USA attended that meeting-and the US position is pretty dismal. The US draft position is open for public comment only through May 2, so we are sending this newsletter out a little early. 

  





Document Number: 496 

Monsanto-Tied Scientist Abruptly Quits Key USDA Research Post

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, farm Issues page, and our USDA Watch page.

On a slow Friday afternoon, a surprising bit of news came down the pike: Roger Beachy, head of National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), the main research arm of the USDA, has officially resigned his post, effective May 20.

	
	Who is Beachy? When Obama hired Beachy in 2009, I got a case of policy whiplash, because it seemed to me that the administration kept whipping back and forth between progressive food-system change and agribusiness as usual. Beachy, you see, came to the post from the Danforth Plant Science Center, where he had served as the organization's president since its founding in 1998. Nestled in Monsanto's St. Louis home town, Danforth has long and deep ties to Monsanto.

	
	According to its website, the center "was founded in 1998 through gifts from the St. Louis-based Danforth Foundation, the Monsanto Fund (a philanthropic foundation), and a tax credit from the State of Missouri." Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant sits on the center's board of trustees, along with execs from defense giant McDonnell Douglas and pharma titan Merck. Another notable board member is Alfonso Romo, a Mexican magnate who cashed in big during his country's notoriously corrupt privatization /liberalization bonanza in the early '90s, and who sold Seminis, the globe's largest vegetable-seed company, to Monsanto in 2005. (Here's my account of that deal from the time.) 

  






Document Number: 4711 

Monsanto's GM Soy: The Invisible Ingredient 'Poisoning' Children

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

"Soy destroys people's lives," she says. "It is a poison. It is no way to live. Soy is deadly to us".

	
	Sitting outside her painted green shack in rural Paraguay, the mother of eight describes the day in January 2003 when her 11-year-old son Silvino Talavera came home from cycling to the shops.

	
	"I was washing clothes down by the river and he came to tell me he had been sprayed by one of the mosquitoes (the spraying machines behind a tractor)," she says.

	
	"He smelt so bad that he took his clothes off and jumped straight in the water."

	
	The busy mum did not think much more about it. For people living around GM soy fields spraying with chemicals is a common occurrence. 

But later that day the whole family was ill after eating the food Silvino had brought from the shops.

	
	Petrona rushed her youngest to hospital and by the time she was back the usually healthy child was in bed rigid with pain.

	
	Now in a blind panic, she begged local farmers to take her to hospital.

	
	"He was violently sick, he said mummy, my bones ache, his skin went black," she says. 

  






Document Number: 6952 

Monsanto and Gates Foundation Push GE Crops on Africa


Skimming the Agricultural Development section of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation web site is a feel-good experience: African farmers smile in a bright slide show of images amid descriptions of the foundation's fight against poverty and hunger. But biosafety activists in South Africa are calling a program funded by the Gates Foundation a "Trojan horse" to open the door for private agribusiness and genetically engineered (GE) seeds, including a drought-resistant corn that Monsanto hopes to have approved in the United States and abroad.

The Water Efficient Maize for Africa (WEMA) program  was launched in 2008 with a $47 million grant from mega-rich philanthropists Warrant Buffet and Bill Gates. The program is supposed to help farmers in several African countries increase their yields with drought- and heat-tolerant corn varieties, but a report released last month by the African Centre for Biosafety claims WEMA is threatening Africa's food sovereignty and opening new markets for agribusiness giants like Monsanto. 

The Gates Foundation claims that biotechnology, GE crops and Western agricultural methods are needed to feed the world's growing population and programs like WEMA will help end poverty and hunger in the developing world. Critics say the foundation is using its billions to shape the global food agenda and the motivations behind WEMA were recently called into question when activists discovered the Gates foundation had spent $27.6 million on 500,000 shares of Monsanto stock between April and June 2010. 
  






Document Number: 4107 

19 Studies Link GMO Foods to Organ Disruption

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Food Safety page.

	A new paper demonstrates that consuming genetically modified (GM) food leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice. Researchers reviewed data from 19 studies and found that parameters including blood and urine biochemistry and organ weights were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals.

	The kidneys of males were the most affected, experiencing 43.5 percent of all the changes. The livers of females followed at more than 30 percent. Other organs may have been affected too, including the heart and spleen, and blood cells.

	According to the Institute for Responsible Technology:

	"The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials 'constitute 83 percent of the commercialized GMOs' that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world."

	Further, the biotechnology firm Monsanto is only an FDA approval away from its latest monstrosity -- soybeans that have been genetically modified to produce omega-3 fats. That FDA approval is expected this year.

	Monsanto plans to include GM soybean oil in every product it can -- baked goods, baking mixes, breakfast cereals, cheeses, frozen dairy desserts, pasta, gravies and sauces, fruit juices, snack foods, candy, soups, and more.

	According to Forbes:

	"Monsanto is so despised by environmentalists that Google's first suggested search term for the St. Louis company is 'Monsanto evil.' Readers ... voted Monsanto the world's most evil corporation in a January poll, giving the corporation a whopping 51 percent of the vote."

	Scientists have also introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows in a process that they say will cause the cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk. They believe that this could provide an alternative to formula milk for babies.

	Critics of GM technology questioned the safety of milk from genetically modified animals, and also its potential effect on the cattle's health.

	According to the Telegraph:

	"The researchers used cloning technology to introduce human genes into the DNA of Holstein dairy cows before the genetically modified embryos were implanted into surrogate cows ... [T]he researchers said they were able to create cows that produced milk containing a human protein called lysozyme."

	Sources: Environmental Sciences Europe March 1, 2011 Institute for Responsible Technology April 7, 2011 Forbes April 11, 2011 The Telegraph April 2, 2011 PLoS One March 16, 2011; 6(3):e17593

	Dr. Mercola's Comments:

	In the latest review of genetically modified organisms (GMO) -- an analysis of 19 animal studies -- it was revealed that nearly 10 percent of blood, urine, organ and other parameters tested were significantly influenced by GMOs, with the liver and kidneys faring the worst. 

  






Document Number: 834 

News From Mexican State of Tlaxcala About New GMO Law

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Via Organica Tours page.

In January 2011 the Congress of the state of Tlaxcala, one day before the legislators left office, approved the "Agricultural Law of Support and Protection of Corn, our original patrimony, in Constant Diversification and Nourishment, for the State of Tlaxcala."

	This law, veiled by a supposed interest in "defending" native corn, approved the planting of genetically modified corn, without taking into account the wishes of Tlaxcalan farmworkers. After a very long, rhetorical introduction, the law states:

	"The municipal authority, within its competence and in accordance with this law, authorizes the storage, distribution, and commercialization of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) of corn, with the purposes of conservation, improvement, and preservation of habitat and the earth."

	It should be mentioned that before occupying his current seat as Secretary of Agriculture and Livestock of the state of Tlaxcala, Jaime Jonatan BretÃ³n Galeazzi, held a position as an executive of Monsanto.

	The national press publicized the implementation of the law in the beginning of April, three months after it was published in the national registry, a requirement for any new law. In this way, farmworkers, who would be most directly affected by this law, found out through the press-not from their supposed representatives-about this attack on corn, source of every farmer's livelihood. 

  






Document Number: 8909 

The Great Seed Robbery

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The seed, the source of life, the embodiment of our biological and cultural diversity, the link between the past and the future of evolution, the common property of past, present and future generations of farming communities who have been seed breeders, is today being stolen from the farmers and being sold back to us as "propriety seed" owned by corporations like the US-headquartered Monsanto.

	Under pressure from the Prime Minister's Office, various state governments are signing MoUs (memorandums of understanding) with seed corporations to privatise our rich and diverse genetic heritage. For example, the government of Rajasthan has signed seven MoUs with Monsanto, Advanta, DCM-Shriram, Kanchan Jyoti Agro Industries, PHI Seeds Pvt. Ltd, Krishidhan Seeds and J.K. Agri Genetics.

	The Rajasthan government's MoU with Monsanto, for example, focuses on maize, cotton, and vegetables (hot pepper, tomato, cabbage, cucumber, cauliflower and water melon). Monsanto controls the cottonseed market in India and globally. Monsanto also controls 97 per cent of the worldwide maize market and 63.5 per cent of the genetically-modified (GM) cotton market. DuPont, in fact, had to initiate anti-trust investigations in the US because of Monsanto's growing seed monopoly. Sixty Indian seed companies have licensing arrangements with Monsanto, which has the intellectual property on Bt. cotton. 

  






Document Number: 9817 

Monsanto Will Soon Be Allowed To Police Itself

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, USDA Watch page, and our Farm Issues page.

Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies as part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. And Monsanto isn't the only biotech company that will be permitted to police itself.

	
	As it stands, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops. The agency has been lax about this, to say the least. In 2005, the USDA gave Monsanto the go-ahead to unleash its sugar beets before preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. This decision triggered a judge to rule that Monsanto sugar beet seedlings should be ripped from the ground.

	
	Because the USDA is so bad at doing its job on time, the agency decided to see if anyone else was prepared to do its EIS work instead. And so it looks like the USDA will at least temporarily hand over environmental impact responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops. The pilot program will allow these companies to conduct their own environmental assessments of crops or outsource the work to contractors. 

  






Document Number: 7351 

Two Mexican States Ban GM Corn

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Biodemocracy Alliance page, and our Via Organica Tours page.

The Mexican States of Tlaxcala and MichoacÃ¡n each passed legislation banning the planting of genetically modified corn to protect natural plants from further contamination of transgenes. Together, both states produce about a third of all of Mexico's corn. Below this story is a detailed timeline of genetic contamination and legislation in Mexico.

	It's been an exciting couple of months in the debate over Mexican maize with some good news for Mexican agriculture and biodiversity. However, the consequences of recent frosts in northern states and the aggressive propaganda of the industry is still putting at risk Mexican's basic grain. Here's the latest: GM free States arising in Mexico:

	Because of the lack of interest of federal government to protect the large diversity of Mexican maize against the contamination of GM crop, MichoacÃ¡n State congress passed by a majority the "Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as Alimentary Patrimony of MichoacÃ¡n State", which will allow the protection of 18 of the 59 races of this crop that exist in Mexico. MichoacÃ¡n is the fourth largest maize producer on a national scale and represents 30 percent of Mexico's total maize crop area.

	MichoacÃ¡n's initiative follows the recent approval of the "Law of Promotion and Protection of Native Maize as an original patrimony, in constant diversification, and alimentary for Tlaxcala State". Both states decided to go ahead with the protection of such an important crop for Mexican society. 

  






Document Number: 5658 

Cap The Gene Spill - New Video Says GMO Contamination is Far Worse than Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

As part of an ongoing effort to warn the public about the dangers of runaway GMO pollution of our planet, the Institute for Responsible Technology executive director Jeffrey Smith has released a new video called Cap the Gene Spill.

	The video is viewable in its entirety at: http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=29315...

	In it, Jeffrey compares the genetically modified contamination of the planet to the Gulf of Mexico oil catastrophe. Except the genetic pollution of our planet is actually far worse than the Gulf spill because genetic pollution can't be "cleaned up." It persists in the environment... perhaps for the entire future of life on planet Earth.

	Here's some of what Jeffrey Smith says in this new video:

	[GMO pollution causes] intense, insidious environmental degradation that may never be able to be cleaned up.

	And just like the oil spill, you can trace it back to government incompetence and collusion, and industry manipulation -- putting out technologies that are not safe long before the science is ready.

	What about the self-propagating genetic pollution? Once it gets out, it then spreads, and cross pollinates... it becomes a self-propagating pollution that could outlast the effects of global warming or nuclear waste. This is an impossible thing to clean up, and we are bequeathing to all future generations the folly of this generation.

	

  






Document Number: 1260 

Monsanto Wants to Start Testing GM Wheat

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Campaign Against Genetically Modified Wheat page.

Biotechnology giant Monsanto has announced plans to start testing genetically modified (GM) wheat, in spite of prior failures to gain acceptance for the technology.

	GM food crops already on the market include corn, soy and sugar beets. Monsanto attempted to introduce GM wheat in the early part of the decade, but abandoned the effort in 2004 when international buyers threatened to boycott U.S. wheat, prompting U.S. wheat growers to reject the technology.

	In the face of record high wheat prices sparked by climate-related crop failures, Monsanto has launched plans to develop GM wheat strains that are more drought- and stress-resistant and produce higher yields, according to company executive Claire CaJacob. Rival companies Syngenta and BASF have also announced plans to engineer GM wheat varieties.

	"I wouldn't say we're jumping in with two feet," CaJacob said. "But I wouldn't say we're tentative. We have traits that make more sense. It's the right time."

	Monsanto researchers are still testing genes and have yet to try engineering any new wheat varieties. The company hopes to start field tests within a year or two, CaJacob says, and it may be 10 years before it can commercialize GM wheat.

	The company is also developing pricing schemes and deciding whether to allow farmers to save GM wheat seeds, CaJacob says. To date, Monsanto has forbidden farmers from saving the seeds of GM crops, a practice that has drawn worldwide condemnation. 

  






Document Number: 8927 

Europe Scorns Supersalmon as GM Battle Widens

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Food Safety page, and our Guide to Which Fish Are Safe to Eat page.

"We don't have any monster pigs in Europe, or monster cows, and there's no need for such a salmon," said Geir Isaksen, the chief executive at big Norwegian fish farmer Cermaq.

	Genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon patented by U.S. biotech firm AquaBounty are widely billed as growing at double speed and could be approved by U.S. regulators as early as this summer, taking the global GM food fight to the fish counter.

	"This is a safe and stable construct," AquaBounty CEO Ronald Stotish told Reuters, explaining how technicians inject Atlantic salmon eggs with genes from Pacific Chinook and bottom-dwelling ocean pout.

	The result -- three species in one, thus transgenic -- would be the first GM animal approved for human consumption, joining GM plants like soy and corn that have been altered to tolerate harsh herbicides.

	"If it (GM salmon) becomes a big thing, it's clearly negative for the existing salmon farmers," said Dag Sletmo, an analyst at Oslo investment bank ABG Sundal Collier. 


  






Document Number: 3020 

Ireland Says Not In This Country: Bans Genetically Modified Crops

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Prince Charles has called it the "biggest environmental disaster of all time," while Monsanto and others maintain it's safe for humans and the environment. Genetically modified foods are a contentious issue, but Ireland is erring on the side of caution, placing a ban on growing any genetically modified crops.

	Ireland will ban growing of GM crops, and a voluntary GM-free label can be placed on all animal products--such as meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy--that are raised with GM-free feed, according to a GM-Free Ireland press release. Ireland joins Japan and Egypt as one of the few but growing number of countries that have banned the cultivation of GM crops.

	Smart Move for Irish Farmers The agreement, signed by the government's two coalition partners, declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone."

	The move will help Irish farmers who can't compete with subsidized agriculture powerhouses, says GM-Free Ireland Co-ordinator, Michael O'Callaghan:

	The WTO's economic globalization agenda has forced most Irish farmers to enter an unwinnable race to the bottom for low quality GM-fed meat and dairy produce, in competition with countries like the USA, Argentina and Brazil which can easily out-compete us with their highly subsidized GM crop monocultures, cheap fossil fuel, extensive use of toxic agrochemicals that are not up to EU standards, and underpaid migrant farm labor. 

  






Document Number: 8424 

Nanoparticles Destroy Soil and the Environment, Study Finds

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Gentic Engineering page and our Information on Nanotechnology and Synthetic Biology page.

Though some might argue that nanotechnology offers benefits not afforded by normal molecules, the environmental and human health consequences of this "breakthrough" technology appear dire, to say the least. New research published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials explains that nanoparticles damage beneficial soil bacteria and ultimately ruin plants' ability to uptake necessary nitrogen.

	Researchers Niraj Kumar and Virginia Walker from Queen's University in Canada set out to investigate the effects of nanoparticles in the environment, comparing soil from the Arctic -- which they believed would be the least contaminated with nanoparticles -- to soil that was deliberately contaminated with various nanoparticles, including silver nanoparticles.

	"We hadn't thought we would see much of an impact, but instead our results indicate that silver nanoparticles can be classified as highly toxic to microbial communities," the team wrote. "This is particularly concerning when you consider the vulnerability of the arctic ecosystem."

	According to the team's analysis, uncontaminated soil contains beneficial microbes, some of which are necessary to help plants absorb nitrogen. But when nanoparticles enter the picture, these microbes are largely killed off. The end result is plants that lack nitrogen, and which thus lack the ability to grow properly and maintain necessary levels of vital nutrients.



  






Document Number: 3088 

Kenya: The Shocking Reality About GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Nairobi - The specter of people developing new and strange allergies, indigenous seeds losing their genetic codes and disappearing altogether, farmers making bumper harvests -- or no harvests at all -- is in the air.

Two weeks ago on July 1, Kenya became the fourth African nation to permit imports of GMO crops, joining South Africa, Egypt and Burkina Faso.

Supporters of the move say it is essential in helping to stabilize prices and feed millions of hungry Kenyans, but matters are not that straightforward.

The online encyclopedia Wikipedia defines a genetically modified or genetically engineered organism (GEO) as one "whose genetic material has been altered using genetic engineering techniques."

These techniques, generally known as recombinant DNA technology, explains the encyclopaedia, use DNA molecules from different sources, which are then combined into one molecule to create a new set of genes.

This DNA is then transferred into an organism, giving it modified or novel genes. Transgenic organisms, adds Wikipedia, are a subset of GMO organisms which have DNA that originated in a different species.

To put it more clearly, think of an orange with tomato genes. The coming into force of the Bio-Safety Act, 2009 on July 1 that allows the growing and sale of genetically modified crops has elicited mixed reactions.

GMOs are modified in the laboratory to enhance desired traits such as increased resistance to herbicides or improved nutritional content.

But, as expected, anti-GMO lobbyists have kicked up a storm, saying the safety of genetically engineered crops has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt. 

  






Document Number: 3712 

Got Milk? Got Drugs? Got Both?: State Responds After Idaho Dairy Cattle Test Positive in Food Safety Tests

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Information on rBGH or rBST page, Factory Farm page, Food Safety page, and our Idaho News page.

The Food and Drug Administration is worried about what it calls an "important potential public health issue." It could be in your latte or your child's bowl of breakfast cereal. It could be in your refrigerator or freezer. At the very least, the FDA wants to make certain that it's not in any of the 8 million milk-producing cattle in the United States or the 500,000 dairy cows in Idaho.

	When test results released last year by the United States Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service showed extremely high levels of drugs and antibiotics in cattle from dairies across the nation, including in Idaho, the federal agency announced it would launch a series of tests to address a potential problem. The Idaho dairy industry decided to preclude the FDA action with some unofficial testing of its own. Yet records of the testing are inaccessible and records of their strategy meeting don't exist.

	On Jan. 4, dairymen from across the Gem State met to address the issue at the Boise headquarters of the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Officials at the ISDA told BW there are no minutes, no recordings and no notes of the proceedings.

	Attendees decided that Idaho dairies would send milk samples for drug and antibiotic analysis to the ISDA Animal Health Lab. But the ISDA kept no record of the analysis, and the findings were sent to the Idaho Dairymen's Association, which has exclusive ownership of the findings. 

  






Document Number: 6531 

USDA Moves to Let Monsanto Perform its Own Environmental Impact Studies on GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Politics and Democracy page, USDA Watch page, Environment and Climate Resource page, and our Farm Issues page.

Last August, Federal Judge Jeffrey White issued a stinging rebuke to the USDA for its process on approving new genetically modified seeds. He ruled that the agency's practice of "deregulating" novel seed varieties without first performing an environmental impact study violated the National Environmental Policy Act.

	The target of Judge White's ire was the USDA's 2005 approval of Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets, engineered to withstand doses of the company's own herbicide. White's ruling effectively revoked the approval of Monsanto's novel beet seeds pending an environmental impact study, and cast doubt upon the USDA's notoriously industry-friendly way of regulating GM seeds.

	A rigorous environmental impact assessment would not likely be kind to Roundup Ready sugar beets. First, sugar-beet seeds are cultivated mainly in Oregon's Willamette Valley, also an important seed-production area for crops closely related to sugar beets, such as organic chard and table beets. The engineered beets could easily cross-pollinate with the other varieties, causing severe damage to a key resource for organic and other non-GMO farmers. Second, Monsanto's already-unregulated Roundup Ready crops -- corn, soy, and cotton -- have unleashed a plague of Roundup-resistant "superweeds," forcing farmers to apply ever-higher doses of Roundup and other weed-killing poisons. Finally, the Roundup herbicide itself is proving much less ecologically benign than advertised, as Tom Laskawy has shown. 



  






Document Number: 6739 

High Levels of Agrochemicals Found in Breast Milk of Brazilian Mothers

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health page, Appetite for a Change page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The pesticides and herbicides used to treat genetically-modified organisms (GMO) are showing up in significant amounts in rainwater, water wells, and even mothers' breast milk, according to new research out of Brazil. Particularly among residents living near massive GMO monoculture operations, research reveals that 100 percent of women tested positive for at least one agrochemical in their breast milk, and cumulatively tested at agrochemical levels much higher than what is even permitted in cow's milk.

	In 2006, an airplane spraying accident contaminated the entire Brazilian city of Lucas do Rio Verde with untold levels of toxic agrochemicals. Residents of that city are already exposed to more than 35 gallons of agrochemicals in a year, but during that particular year, residents were exposed to even higher amounts. As a result, researchers decided to delve deeper into what the effects of that exposure have been on the population.

	According to an investigation out of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul, a sampling of breast milk from 62 women revealed that all were contaminated with at least one dangerous agrochemical. Every single sample also tested positive for DDE, a metabolite of the infamous synthetic pesticide DDT, which has been banned in Brazil for over a decade. Other chemicals detected in the majority of samples included organochlorines, which are extremely toxic.



  
  






Document Number: 8729 

New Documentary Investigates War Being Waged by Biotechnology Companies Against Scientists Who Expose the Truth About GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	In order to maintain its massive charade of deception in claiming that genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) are the safe, practical solution to the world's food problems, the biotechnology industry has had to silence and destroy the lives of many in the scientific community. In the hard-hitting new documentary Scientists Under Attack - Genetic Engineering in the Magnetic Field of Money, German filmmaker Bertram Verhaag explores the heavy hand of the biotechnology industry in steering "science" towards its own interests, and eliminating the actual, legitimate science that exposes genetic engineering (GE) as the fraud that it is.

	In the film, Verhaag speaks to various experts in the industry, including two scientists in particular whose lives have been ruined as a result of their inquiry into GE. Going against the flow, Arpad Pusztai and Ignacio Chapela questioned the "science" being peddled by the likes of Monsanto about GE, and instead sought to discover the real truth. In the process, they both ended up being threatened by the biotechnology industry and essentially losing their careers.

	"The attack on scientists is very well-structured by the biotech industry," says one scientist in the film. "It's systematic. It's worldwide. It's very coordinated. It's part of the way they do business."



  






Document Number: 5609 

National Research Council Disavows GM Wheat

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Geneticly Modified Wheat Resource Center page, and our Canada News page. 

Update. Thursday, April 7, 2011: The National Research Council of Canada (NRC) issued a statement to clarify that it has no plans to research genetically modified (GM) wheat.

	NRC now states: "GM wheat is not an objective of the NRC wheat program. We will be developing a number of tools that will be used to reduce the breeding cycle, increase yield and adapt to climate stresses. GM varieties are not contemplated at this time."

	The statement was issued to CBAN in response to media stories of April 3 that reported on a leaked memo from the government research agency. "NRC has finally recognized what everyone but Monsanto understands: that GM wheat is unacceptable to farmers and consumers," said Lucy Sharratt of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

	GM wheat is not grown or eaten anywhere in the world, it has never been on the market. In 2004, Monsanto withdrew requests for government approval of its herbicide tolerant GM wheat in Canada and the US because of widespread farmer and consumer protest in both countries, and around the world. However, Monsanto re-launched research into GM wheat in 2009 and the biotechnology industry is now engaged in a new public relations campaign in favour of GM wheat. Monsanto's new plans for GM wheat are, however, meeting the same strong objections that defeated the company's product in 2004. The Premier of Australia's largest wheat growing state recently panned GM wheat, and Japanese flour companies continue to say that they will refuse to process GM wheat. In early 2010, CBAN coordinated an effort that resulted in 233 groups from 26 countries restating their opposition to GM wheat.

  






Document Number: 3050 

Bt Toxin Found in Blood of Pregnant Women and Fetuses

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Appetite for a Change page, Health Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	
	CryAb1 toxin was detected in pregnant women, their fetuses and non-pregnant women. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating [pesticides associated to genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.

	
	NOTE: Bt corn (maize) was developed by transferring cry1Ab from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) into corn. It is to be found in the most common GM corn - Monsanto's Bt MON810 (marketed with the trade name YieldGard) - a corn genetically engineered to resist corn borers by producing its own insecticide, the Cry1Ab toxin. Global production of Bt corn takes place on many millions of hectares worldwide and many different types of foods contain Bt corn. In the European Union, seven countries - Austria, Hungary, Greece, France, Luxembourg, Germany and Bulgaria have banned Mon810. 

	
	Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). 

	
	The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYP and its metabolite aminomethyl phosphoric acid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. 

  






Document Number: 3368 

Monsanto and Gates Foundation Have Major Control Over Large Global Seed Bank in Norway

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that erupted over the Fort Collins collection in the mid 1980s. Journalists had published stories dramatically detailing the grossly negligent manner in which deposits to the seed bank were treated. Numerous seed deposits were spilling out onto the floors of the facility, the facility was woefully understaffed, there was no testing of the seed and a virtually complete failure of required regeneration - in short a seed saving disaster. A legal petition by my organization to rectify the decision seemed to get the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) attention. But when no real action resulted we litigated. I was a very active member of that legal team. As such I reviewed much of the material in the case that documented USDA's complete disregard for the safety and integrity of the seeds under its care. This litigation ultimately forced a settlement where USDA agreed to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conditions at the seed bank improved somewhat.

	Since that first experience I learned that bigger is definitely not better or safer when it comes to seed saving. As noted elsewhere on this site, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) strongly advocates for in situ protection of plant diversity, and when ex situ seed saving is required it should reside at the most local and ecologically appropriate level. This has been one of the bases for CFS' longstanding concerns about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Not surprisingly these fears have recently been justified. In December 2010 NordGen, the entity overseeing Svalbard, fired its Director Jessica Kathle. Some at NordGen believed that she was a "scapegoat" for the seed bank's well known problems including continuing deficits, significant understaffing, and failure to do routine tests on the deposited seed to determine viability. (http://dagendresen.wordpress.com/about/Dot.) Sadly it seems like the Fort Collins fiasco redux. 

  






Document Number: 8643 

Monsanto's Fishy Fat From Soy Is Headed For U.S. Dinner Tables

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Food Safety page.

	Most people have heard about omega-3 fatty acids, the primary constituents of fish oil. Stearidonic acid, one of those omega-3s, is hardly a household term. But it should become one, researchers argued this week at the 2011 Experimental Biology meeting.

	In any case, stearidonic acid should at least become a welcome constituent of kitchen larders. The scientists' reasoning: This fatty acid can provide fish oil's heart and other health benefits - without the fishy taste or high cost of finned fare. Beginning next year, it also can be supplied without harming a single fish.

	Numerous health organizations advocate that Americans down at least two fish meals a week, notes Eileen Kennedy, dean of Tufts University's Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy in Boston. This emphasis on seafood is not because nutritionists prize fish, per se, she says, so much their wanting to see consumers get more of two long-chain omega-3's in the animals' oil: eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA).

	"The American diet, as typically consumed, is low in omega-3 fatty acids," Kennedy says. And the recently released federal nutrition guidelines not only recommend consuming a variety of fish and shellfish species, but also set a weekly target of eating some 8 ounces of seafood. Pregnant women, she notes, are being advised to eat up to 12 ounces per week. 

  






Document Number: 2900 

GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric SÃ©ralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that "several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects." The authors point out that livers and kidneys "are the major reactive organs" in cases of chronic food toxicity.

	"Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells," stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is "a very good predictor of side effects in various organs."

	The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials "constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs" that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world. 

  






Document Number: 9821 

AntiSec Exposes U.S. Soldiers' SSNs, Passwords, Vows Attack on Monsanto

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

Anonymous vowed Monday to step up attacks on contractor Monsanto Comp. (MON). 

Monsanto is a firm with a long and controversial history. It is accused of abusing intellectual property rights to sue small farms (allowing its patented crops to blow seeds onto their properties, then suing them); trying to bribe officials in Canada and Indonesia [1][2]; and suing dairy farmers who advertise that their milk doesn't contain growth hormones. And they also were the company responsible for spraying Agent Orange all over soldiers in Vietnam, which is thought to have led to cancer and other ailments.

Anonymous broke the news of new possible attacks, writing:

@MonsatoCo is now suing small dairy farmers for advertising that they use no growth hormones. For NOT using their product.

The operation's Twitter account "OpMonsanto", posted on June 26:

We're going to hit @MonsantoCo with something a little bit more serious than a DDoS this time around. **** 'em. #ExpectUs

It posted a brief press release, writing:

Over the last 2 months we have pushed the exposure of hundreds of pages of articles detailing Monsanto's corrupt, unethical, and downright evil business practices. We've created a nice go-to reference guide on piratepad/anonpad(anonpad.org/opmonsanto, backed up elsewhere), where anyone can read up on and add their own info about MonsantoCo.

We blasted their web infrastructure to shit for 2 days straight, crippling all 3 of their mail servers as well as taking down their main websites world-wide. We dropped dox on 2500+ employees and associates, including full names, addresses, phone numbers, and exactly where they work. We are also in the process of setting up a wiki, to try and get all collected information in a more centralized and stable environment. Not bad for 2 months, I'd say.

What's next? Not sure... it might have something to do with that open 6666 IRC port on their nexus server though ;)

Expect Us



  






Document Number: 1823 

Pressure Mounts to Take Monsanto's Roundup off the Market

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	It's glyphosate, the key - but controversial - ingredient in Roundup herbicide and the top selling weed killer used worldwide. For more than 30 years, glyphosate has been embraced for its ability to make farming easier by wiping out weeds in corn, soybean and cotton fields, and for keeping gardens and golf courses pristine.

	But the chemical touted as a safe, affordable and critical part of global food production, is now at a crossroads.

	Amid rising voices of alarm, regulators in the United States and Canada are conducting a formal review of glyphosate's safety, lawsuits are pending and some groups are calling for a global ban.

	"Glyphosate's days are numbered," said Paul Achitoff, a lawyer for Earthjustice, an environmental law firm that last month sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture in part over concerns about heavy glyphosate use. 

  






Document Number: 6871 

U.S. Subsidizes Brazilian Cotton to Protect Monsanto's Profits

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	
	On February 18, Republicans in the House of Representatives defeated an obscure amendment to the House Appropriations bill by a 2-to-1 margin. The Kind Amendment would have eliminated $147 million dollars that the federal government pays every year directly to Brazilian cotton farmers. In an era of nationwide belt tightening, with funding for things like education and the U.S. Farm Bill on the chopping block, defending payments to Brazilian farmers may seem curious.

	
	In order to understand this peculiar political move, one has to look all the way back to 2002, when Brazil filed a case in the WTO challenging U.S. cotton subsidies. In 2004, the Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO found in favor of Brazil, ruling that government subsidies afforded U.S. cotton producers an unfair advantage and suppressed the world market price, which damaged Brazil's interests. After multiple appeals the WTO upheld the original ruling, and by 2009 the U.S. still had not reformed its cotton programs. Brazil then asked the WTO for permission to retaliate against the U.S. by imposing trade sanctions. The WTO decided that Brazil was entitled to impose 100-percent tariffs on over 100 different goods of U.S. origin. Even more importantly, however, Brazil was entitled to suspend intellectual property rights for U.S. companies, including patent protections on genetically engineered seeds. 

  






Document Number: 4599 

Monsanto Cash Helped Fund Bill to Stifle Whistleblowers in Iowa

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Iowa News page, Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
Speaking of Monsanto, it turns out they are playing a role in Iowa's proposed anti-whistleblower bill -- a bill focused primarily on agriculture. Should the bill pass, it will become illegal to produce undercover videos at various types of agricultural facilities (as well as to get a job at a facility with the express intent of producing a video). Sarah Damian of the Government Accountability Project, a "whistleblower advocacy organization," observes over at the Food Integrity Campaign's blog that Monsanto has been throwing lobbying dollars behind Iowa's effort to draw a steel curtain around food production. And not without reason:

	... Monsanto has more facilities in Iowa than in any other state in the country, with more than 25 offices. The company is heavily invested in the bill's outcome because "crop operations" are also covered, which would apply to Monsanto's seed houses, pesticide manufacturing plants and research facilities throughout Iowa. The biotech and crop chemical giant wouldn't want any undercover videos produced on its clock, apparently.

	That's a bit ironic, however, given the fact that Monsanto investigators are notorious for trespassing on farmers' property and going to extreme measures to produce evidence of seed patent infringement, including posing as land mappers or even joining a local Alcohol Anonymous group to gain the farmers' trust and gain video access to their fields. Talk about undercover.

	And don't think that Monsanto hasn't planned ahead. According to Damian, there are provisions in the bill that would allow Monsanto to continue snooping around farmers' fields in its ongoing search for so-called "seed thieves" aka "patent infringers." 

  






Document Number: 4017 

The Time to Act on GMOs is Now

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, USDA Watch page, Genetic Engineering page,  Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

	The USDA's sudden announcement on Jan. 27 to allow unregulated planting of GMO alfalfa sent shockwaves and a sense of betrayal through the food integrity movement. (Alfalfa hay is used primarily to feed dairy cows and goats.) Questions have arisen among farmers, retailers, manufacturers, advocacy groups and other stakeholders as to the legitimacy of the manner in which recent events have unfolded. In a complex situation such as this involving the courts, the USDA, the White House, and major players in the natural foods and biotech industries, the exact truth of backroom dealings may never be known, at least not in the short run. Legal experts question whether the USDA's recent actions are in accord with the Supreme Court's June 2010 decision regarding GMO alfalfa, which required impact studies and economic compensation agreements to be in place before commercial planting could commence. We are also left with speculation that pressure from a nervous White House wanting to shore up its image with big business may have prompted premature USDA action (e.g., the USDA itself told the Court that an environmental impact study would take at least a year, not a mere six months, to complete.) To say that the situation is delicate and dicey, and that an array of vested interests may have played a larger than appropriate role, is an understatement.

	In the more than 15 years since GMOs were introduced, the U.S. has caved to the biotech and petroleum industries in ways that would be inconceivable in other industrialized and democratic nations. As a result, our health, our environment, our agricultural resources and our civic fabric has been under prolonged and pernicious attack from those very institutions which are supposed to safeguard, not actively endanger, our welfare. There have been tremendous successes in the food arena, such as the emergence of organics into the mainstream and the more recent interest in food localization, and we need to rejoice in those. At the same time, and as painful as it is to acknowledge, while the American food movement has significant battles, it is losing the GMO war. 

  






Document Number: 9765 

Letters: Organic Market Takes a Stand on Food Labeling

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Michigan News page.

	As a citizen concerned about the health, environmental, ethical and socio-economic hazards of GMOs (genetically modified organisms) and industrial-scale factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), I am writing to inform your readers about a new consumer campaign calling for Truth-in-Labeling. The campaign, sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association, is calling on conscientious grocers to implement voluntary package or shelf labeling of foods products containing GMOs and/or products coming from large factory farms or CAFOs.

	Although "USDA Organic" standards and labels prohibit the use of GMOs or CAFO confinement practices, the overwhelming majority of non-organic foods in grocery stores or supermarkets today fail to reveal whether or not they are likely contain GMOs or come from a factory farm supply chain. Up to 90 percent of U.S. soy, corn, cotton, canola and sugar beets are now genetically engineered and routinely laced into foods with no labels or safety testing whatsoever. And, of course, hapless animals confined in CAFOs are reared on a diet of genetically engineered corn, soy, cottonseed and drugs.

	According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Biotechnology Industry Association, approximately 80 percent of current grocery food items contain GMOs; while according to U.S. Department of Agriculture records, the majority of beef, pork, poultry, dairy and eggs now come from CAFOs.

	CAFOs breed pathogens, pollute water sources, add tons of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and systematically abuse and mistreat animals. CAFOs are defined legally by the Environmental Protection Agency as containing 1,000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2,500 pigs, or 125,000 broilers or 82,000 laying hens or pullets. 

  






Document Number: 5591 

Clash Leaves Cloned Meats Unregulated Across the European Union

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Information on Cloning, Patenting, Biopiracy, Nanotechnology page.

	Meat from the offspring of cloned animals could appear in stores across the European Union, with no one being any the wiser, after Member State government representatives early this morning refused the European Parliament's demand to label clone-derived food products.

	The lack of agreement leaves the 1997 rules on novel foods in place, while sending proposals on the sale of new types of foods back for rethinking after three years of debate.

	EU Health Commissioner John Dalli said Tuesday it is a "great pity" that talks over food from the offspring of cloned animals broke down, because it opens a pathway for the unregulated entry of such products into the EU market.

	Dalli emphasized that "the scientific assessment we have on cattle is that there is absolutely no risk to health" from cloning.

	The first mammal cloned from an adult cell, Dolly the sheep, was created in 1996 and since then cows, pigs and goats also have been cloned, raising the question of whether or not cloned animals should be eaten. 

  






Document Number: 9583 

Monsanto is Poisoning Us All: Famous Scientist, Don Huber Exposes Hazards of Monsanto's Roundup Herbicide


For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.



After trucking across the high plains for five hours, and casting
 my eyes over perhaps 100,000 acres or more of winter's still deathly 
gray industrial farmland, I came face to face with the newly famous Dr. 
Don M. Huber in the cave-dark meeting room of the Black Horse Inn just 
outside the American Heartland village of Creighton, Nebraska.

On the morning of March 24, along with about 80 farmers and 
Extension agents, I listened as Huber discoursed with erudition and 
eloquence upon industrial farming practices that may be impacting nearly
 every morsel of food produced on the planet, and that subsequently may 
also be having staggeringly serious health consequences for plants, 
animals, and human beings.

Huber is emeritus soil scientist of Purdue University, and a 
retired U.S. Army Colonel who served as an intelligence analyst, for 41 
years, active and reserves. In Nebraska, he stood ramrod straight for 
three hours with no notes and spoke with an astonishing depth and range 
of knowledge on crucial, controversial matters of soil science, genetic 
engineering, and the profound impact of the widely used herbicide 
glyphosate upon soil and plants, and ultimately upon the health of 
animals and human beings.

Dressed in a conservative dark suit and tie, Huber set the stage 
for his presentation by observing that he has been married for 52 years,
 and has 11 children, 36 grandchildren, and a great-grandchild on the 
way. He then began his formal talk framed by a PowerPoint slide bearing a
 Biblical quote: "All flesh is grass." - Isaiah 4:6. With this he 
emphasized the foundational reality that the biotech grains we eat, as 
well as the biotech grains eaten by cows, hogs, and chickens, are grown 
in vast herbicide-treated fields.

For the domineering giants of industrial agriculture - 
multinational corporations, universities, and governments - Huber's 
assertions about the impact of glyphosate, and the mounting scientific 
questions about GMO crops, may be as significant and disrupting as 
Martin Luther's "heretical" act in 1517. That's when Luther nailed his 
95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany to 
challenge the systemic problems in the almighty institutions of his era.

Luther disputed the claim that spiritual forgiveness from sins 
could be legitimately sold for money. Huber and other researchers say 
they are accumulating evidence that - along with the 2010 report
 of the U.S. President's Cancer panel which bluntly blames chemicals for
 the staggering prevalence of cancers - raises profoundly challenging 
questions about the chemical and genetic-engineering practices of 
industrial agriculture. The challenge, if it holds up, has implications 
not just for agricultural institutions, but also for the primary food 
chain serving the Earth's population.

Not an altogether new controversy, the complex matters of 
industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and the far-flung use of 
herbicides has been ominously and exponentially accentuated in the last 
year by virtue of its ominous context: last summer's epic oil 
catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation-ripping 9.0 earthquake in 
Japan earlier this month, with its subsequent tsunami and nuclear 
meltdown which is contaminating the nation's water and food chain, in 
combination with the statistical reality that on our planet of nearly 
seven billion people, over a billion human beings - one of every six of us - is hungry.

All of this was brought into prominent public focus - both sharp 
and fuzzy - in January of this year by the unlikely matter of alfalfa.


Challenges to the Web of Life
The seminar with Dr. Huber, sponsored by Knox County Extension 
and the Center for Rural Affairs, commenced on a somber note. The 
moderator announced that Terry Gompert, 66, a veteran Extension educator
 and respected advocate for sustainable agriculture, and a man who had 
played a key role in organizing the conference, had just suffered a 
massive heart attack. A moment of silence followed before Dr. Huber 
began his presentation. Mr. Gompert died on March 25, the day after the 
conference he organized.

At the conference, Huber's talk was highly technical, yet he had 
easy command of voluminous technical detail. For many, it must have 
sounded like an alien language as he spun out the esoteric terms: 
zwitterion, desorbtion, translocation, rhizosphere, meristemic, 
speudomanads, microbiocidae, bradyrhizobium, shikimate, and more.

Huber spoke about a range of key factors involved in plant 
growth, including sunlight, water, temperature, genetics, and nutrients 
taken up from the soil. "Any change in any of these factors impacts all 
the factors," he said. "No one element acts alone, but all are part of a
 system...When you change one thing," he said, "everything else in the 
web of life changes in relationship."

That brought him to the subject of glyphosate, the most widely 
used herbicide, most commonly recognized in the product named RoundupÂ®. 
Because it is so widely used, Huber said, it is having a profound impact
 upon mega millions of farm acres around the world. More than 155 
million acres of cropland were treated with glyphosate during the 2008 
growing season, and even more by now. Subsequently, Huber said, this 
chemical is having a sweeping impact on the food chain.





For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

After trucking across the high plains for five hours, and casting
 my eyes over perhaps 100,000 acres or more of winter's still deathly 
gray industrial farmland, I came face to face with the newly famous Dr. 
Don M. Huber in the cave-dark meeting room of the Black Horse Inn just 
outside the American Heartland village of Creighton, Nebraska.
On the morning of March 24, along with about 80 farmers and 
Extension agents, I listened as Huber discoursed with erudition and 
eloquence upon industrial farming practices that may be impacting nearly
 every morsel of food produced on the planet, and that subsequently may 
also be having staggeringly serious health consequences for plants, 
animals, and human beings.
Huber is emeritus soil scientist of Purdue University, and a 
retired U.S. Army Colonel who served as an intelligence analyst, for 41 
years, active and reserves. In Nebraska, he stood ramrod straight for 
three hours with no notes and spoke with an astonishing depth and range 
of knowledge on crucial, controversial matters of soil science, genetic 
engineering, and the profound impact of the widely used herbicide 
glyphosate upon soil and plants, and ultimately upon the health of 
animals and human beings.
Dressed in a conservative dark suit and tie, Huber set the stage 
for his presentation by observing that he has been married for 52 years,
 and has 11 children, 36 grandchildren, and a great-grandchild on the 
way. He then began his formal talk framed by a PowerPoint slide bearing a
 Biblical quote: "All flesh is grass." - Isaiah 4:6. With this he 
emphasized the foundational reality that the biotech grains we eat, as 
well as the biotech grains eaten by cows, hogs, and chickens, are grown 
in vast herbicide-treated fields.
For the domineering giants of industrial agriculture - 
multinational corporations, universities, and governments - Huber's 
assertions about the impact of glyphosate, and the mounting scientific 
questions about GMO crops, may be as significant and disrupting as 
Martin Luther's "heretical" act in 1517. That's when Luther nailed his 
95 theses to the door of the Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany to 
challenge the systemic problems in the almighty institutions of his era.
Luther disputed the claim that spiritual forgiveness from sins 
could be legitimately sold for money. Huber and other researchers say 
they are accumulating evidence that - along with the 2010 report
 of the U.S. President's Cancer panel which bluntly blames chemicals for
 the staggering prevalence of cancers - raises profoundly challenging 
questions about the chemical and genetic-engineering practices of 
industrial agriculture. The challenge, if it holds up, has implications 
not just for agricultural institutions, but also for the primary food 
chain serving the Earth's population.
Not an altogether new controversy, the complex matters of 
industrial agriculture, genetic engineering and the far-flung use of 
herbicides has been ominously and exponentially accentuated in the last 
year by virtue of its ominous context: last summer's epic oil 
catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, the nation-ripping 9.0 earthquake in 
Japan earlier this month, with its subsequent tsunami and nuclear 
meltdown which is contaminating the nation's water and food chain, in 
combination with the statistical reality that on our planet of nearly 
seven billion people, over a billion human beings - one of every six of us - is hungry.
All of this was brought into prominent public focus - both sharp 
and fuzzy - in January of this year by the unlikely matter of alfalfa.

Challenges to the Web of LifeThe seminar with Dr. Huber, sponsored by Knox County Extension 
and the Center for Rural Affairs, commenced on a somber note. The 
moderator announced that Terry Gompert, 66, a veteran Extension educator
 and respected advocate for sustainable agriculture, and a man who had 
played a key role in organizing the conference, had just suffered a 
massive heart attack. A moment of silence followed before Dr. Huber 
began his presentation. Mr. Gompert died on March 25, the day after the 
conference he organized.
At the conference, Huber's talk was highly technical, yet he had 
easy command of voluminous technical detail. For many, it must have 
sounded like an alien language as he spun out the esoteric terms: 
zwitterion, desorbtion, translocation, rhizosphere, meristemic, 
speudomanads, microbiocidae, bradyrhizobium, shikimate, and more.
Huber spoke about a range of key factors involved in plant 
growth, including sunlight, water, temperature, genetics, and nutrients 
taken up from the soil. "Any change in any of these factors impacts all 
the factors," he said. "No one element acts alone, but all are part of a
 system...When you change one thing," he said, "everything else in the 
web of life changes in relationship."
That brought him to the subject of glyphosate, the most widely 
used herbicide, most commonly recognized in the product named RoundupÂ®. 
Because it is so widely used, Huber said, it is having a profound impact
 upon mega millions of farm acres around the world. More than 155 
million acres of cropland were treated with glyphosate during the 2008 
growing season, and even more by now. Subsequently, Huber said, this 
chemical is having a sweeping impact on the food chain.


  






Document Number: 2536 

Genetically Modified Cows Produce 'Human' Milk

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	The scientists have successfully introduced human genes into 300 dairy cows to produce milk with the same properties as human breast milk.

	Human milk contains high quantities of key nutrients that can help to boost the immune system of babies and reduce the risk of infections.

	The scientists behind the research believe milk from herds of genetically modified cows could provide an alternative to human breast milk and formula milk for babies, which is often criticised as being an inferior substitute.

	They hope genetically modified dairy products from herds of similar cows could be sold in supermarkets. The research has the backing of a major biotechnology company.

	The work is likely to inflame opposition to GM foods. Critics of the technology and animal welfare groups reacted angrily to the research, questioning the safety of milk from genetically modified animals and its effect on the cattle's health. 

  






Document Number: 2080 

OCA Organizes Rallies Across U.S. to Demand Biotech Labels

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Food activists in Washington state added their voice to a chorus of others across the country March 26 to support requiring labels on genetically modified foods.

	The Organic Consumers Association, a nonprofit organization based in Minnesota, coordinated dozens of the rallies.

	Michaele Blakely, an organic crop and livestock farmer near Carnation, Wash., helped organize the rally near Seattle's Pike Place Market.

	"It wasn't as big as I expected, probably because of the short notice," she said. "There were about 100 to 150 people there."

	The event was primarily to pass along information and gather signatures on petitions. The activists want the USDA to set require labels on products that have GMO ingredients.

	"The people who feel GMOs aren't a good thing are pretty passionate," Blakely said. "There was a lot of positive response. There were some signs, and people were passing out brochures."

	Kia Armstrong, manager of Nash's Organic Produce in Sequim, said more than a hundred people gathered at the downtown rally in her town.

  






Document Number: 8416 

Monsanto Uses Latest Food Crisis to Push Transgenic Corn in Mexico

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	At a press conference, the transnational's Latin American President JosÃ© Manuel Maduro went even further by blaming restrictions on GM corn production in the country for the high level of post-NAFTA imports of the staple. "Mexico's decisiÃ³n to not move forward [on transgenics] has led to the importation of 10 million tons of corn, a situation that demands a swift response."

	That Monsanto would use the boogeyman of food dependency to scare Mexico into accepting GM corn shows the company's immense cynicism. Now according to Monsanto, the reasons that Mexico lost corn self-sufficiency and start importing millions of tons annually had nothing to do with agricultural policies that support transnationals, or an unjust free trade model that favors imports and has abandoned the majority of national producers. Instead, it's because the country has not embraced the commercial use of transgenic corn.

	As the food crisis looms, the real danger - for the nourishment, health and culture of the country - is in choosing the Monsanto agenda over strengthening national agriculture. The cultivation of transgenics will accelerate the loss of Mexico's food sovereignty and contaminate vital native strains of corn. 

  






Document Number: 3966 

Monsanto's GMO Crops Killing off Monarch Butterflies

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Environment and Climate Resource page.

As recently as a decade ago, farms in the Midwest were commonly marred - at least as a farmer would view it - by unruly patches of milkweed amid the neat rows of emerging corn or soybeans. 

Not anymore. Fields are now planted with genetically modified corn and soybeans resistant to the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to spray the chemical to eradicate weeds, including milkweed.

And while that sounds like good news for the farmers, a growing number of scientists fear it is imperiling the monarch butterfly, whose spectacular migrations make it one of the most beloved of insects - "the Bambi of the insect world," as an entomologist once put it.

Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed, and their larvae eat it. While the evidence is still preliminary and disputed, experts like Chip Taylor say the growing use of genetically modified crops is threatening the orange-and-black butterfly by depriving it of habitat.

"This milkweed has disappeared from at least 100 million acres of these row crops," said Dr. Taylor, an insect ecologist at the University of Kansas and director of the research and conservation program Monarch Watch. "Your milkweed is virtually gone." 

  






Document Number: 1949 

Farmers and Seed Producers Launch Preemptive Strike against Monsanto

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Cloning, Patenting, Biopiracy, and Nanotechnology page.

	NEW York: On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed.

	Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.

	A copy of the lawsuit can be found at: (http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf)

	The case, Organic Seed Growers  Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

	"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients." 

  






Document Number: 1581 

Organic Farmers Sue Monsanto over Genetic Contamination

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our All About Organics page.

	The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed the suit on behalf of more than 50 organizations challenging the agricultural giant's patents on its genetically modified seeds. The group is seeking a ruling that would prohibit Monsanto from suing the farmers or dealers if their organic seed becomes contaminated with Monsanto's patented biotech seed germplasm.

	Monsanto is known for its zealous defense of its patents on a range of genetically altered crops. Its patented "Roundup Ready" soybeans, corn and cotton are favorites of U.S. farmers because of their ability to withstand herbicide treatments.

	But Monsanto has filed scores of lawsuits and won judgments against farmers they claimed made use of their seed without paying required royalties.

	Many farmers have claimed that their fields were inadvertently contaminated without their knowledge, and the issue has been a topic of concern for not only farmers, but also companies that clean and handle seed.

	"This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's genetically modified seed should land on their property," said Dan Ravicher, executive director of PUBPAT, a nonprofit legal services organization, which filed the suit in federal court in the southern district of New York. 

  






Document Number: 3739 

The Battle for Biodiversity: Monsanto and Farmers Clash

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions against Monsanto page.

	Two weeks ago, Monsanto announced the latest genetically engineered crop it hopes to bring to market: a soybean rejiggered to resist the herbicide dicamba. The new product, says Monsanto, will aid in weed control and "deliver peace of mind for growers."

	Meanwhile, half a world away, La Via Campesina, a farmers' movement of 150 organizations from 70 countries, had a slightly different idea about what would bring peace of mind to its millions of members: protecting biodiversity. In its statement to those gathered in Bali for the United Nations treaty on plant genetics, the organization urged treaty drafters to reevaluate the legal framework that allows seed patenting and the spread of genetically engineered crops, like those Monsanto soybeans. These genetically modified crops and the international patent regime, La Via Campesina said, block farmers' ability to save and share seeds, threatening biodiversity and food security. 

	Monsanto and La Via Campesina represent two distinct worldviews. According to Monsanto and other chemical and seed giants like Syngenta, BASF, and Dupont, corporate control of seeds and relaxed laws for biotech promotion spur innovation and productivity.

	That may sound good, but La Via Campesina and many other groups around the world look at the real-world effects of 20 years of patent approvals and the spread of biotech crops. These critics argue that corporate power over seeds has actually undermined biodiversity and food-system resilience. 

  






Document Number: 1937 

Protesters in Salem, Oregon Denounce Influence of Monsanto Corporation

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Geneticly Engineered page, Millions Against Monsanto Resource page, and our Oregon News page.

	Opponents of genetically modified organisms rallied Saturday before the Oregon State Capitol in Salem to discuss Monsanto's control over national agricultural business, its influence on politics through lobbying and the proliferation of GMOs in farming practices.

	The "Rally for the Right to Know" was held in conjunction with rallies in other state capitols and Washington, D.C., as part of the Organic Consumers Association's "Millions Against Monsanto" campaign.

	Event organizer Sabrina Siegel, a Eugene resident, became involved with "Millions Against Monsanto" after learning about the possible health effects of GMOs.

	"As a mother I became very nervous and disturbed about the whole thing," Siegel said. "I just became worried as a parent to help all children, not just my children. It motivated me to teach people about the issue."

	Rally participants spoke of the importance of supporting legislation to require food producers to list what ingredients are genetically modified.

	The Food and Drug Administration has approved GMOs for consumption, but controversy remains because of Monsanto's close political ties with government regulating agencies. One current issue is the Obama administration's appointment of Michael Taylor, a former Monsanto lawyer who served as the corporation's vice president of public policy. 

  






Document Number: 4280 

Rally at Nashville Farmers' Market Calls for Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Geneticly Engineered page, Millions Against Monsanto Resource page, and our Tennessee News page.

	"What's GMO stand for?" a driver yelled at Flo Oakes and her group outside the Nashville Farmers' Market on Saturday morning.

	"Genetically modified organisms," they hollered back.

	A few dozen people held banners and shouted slogans here as part of a nationwide rally demanding action to help consumers identify from where food comes.

	Genetically modified organisms have had changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering techniques. The changes make them resistant to viruses and chemicals. Typical plants and products include soybeans, corn and canola and cotton seed oil.

	"I'm not a biologist, not a scientist,"Oakes said. "I feel like we're being guinea pigs. We have never put genes together like this and then put them in the environment without proper scrutiny and testing."

	Activists want genetically modified foods labeled and they want limits on how closely such plants can be grown to organic agriculture to prevent cross-contamination. They also want more research on the safety of genetically modified organisms. 

  






Document Number: 7045 

GM Soy Making its Way into the UK Food Chain Through Animal Feed

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Geneticly Engineered page, and our Millions Against Monsanto Resource page.

	Labeling laws throughout the European Union (EU) require that all food containing genetically-modified (GM) ingredients be properly labeled. But a new report from The Telegraph explains that many big-name food brands in the UK that sell meat, dairy, and other animal products are sourcing from animals fed GMOs, but selling the final product without a proper GMO label.

	The problem of GMOs sneaking in the back door through animal feed is not limited to the EU, as many other countries that require mandatory GMO labeling are experiencing similar scenarios. A recent NaturalNews report highlighted GMO contamination problems with Fonterra, a New Zealand-based cooperative that is the world's largest exporter of dairy products, as well (http://www.naturalnews.com/031776_d...).

	Some experts insist that animals fed GM feed do not end up producing GM-contaminated meat and dairy. But others say that GM traits are, indeed, passed on through animal feed into the animal itself, contaminating milk and meat with GM materials. They also say that the growing prevalence of GM feed -- particularly GM soy -- is destroying rainforests, introducing extreme amounts of new pesticides into the environment, and damaging animal and human health (http://www.naturalnews.com/030390_G...).



	

  






Document Number: 6130 

Americans Stage Protest over Genetically Modified Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	The movement for labeling genetically modified foods is growing as was illustrated in protests held in at least 20 cities throughout the US this past Saturday. Here in Washington, protesters gathered outside the White House to vocalize their demand for the right to know if the foods they purchase are genetically modified.

	Genetically modified organisms, or GMOs as they are often known, are food products that have been altered at the genetic level. Scientists say GMOs are necessary, because the increased food production that comes with it is needed for the rising human population. And even though no large-scale study has shown any negative effects of GMOs on people, many are still concerned about possible long-term adverse health affects.

	According to the Food and Drug Administration, genetically modified foods are considered safe and therefore not requiring labeling. They are extensively researched and regulated, and in 1992 the FDA decided that GMOs were no different from conventional foods. But according to these protesters, a growing body of evidence shows that this is not the case.

	One corporation that has fought hard to keep GMO labels from being placed on food products is Monsanto. A very powerful agricultural biotechnology corporation, Monsanto patents and sells genetically modified seeds. According to its website, "Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients." 

  






Document Number: 7697 

GE Food Policy Protest at White House and in 33 Cities Across the US

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Beyond the fence line of the North Lawn of the White House on Saturday afternoon, a group of worried citizens gathered for the Rally For the Right to Know. A call for action against genetically modified/genetically engineered food, the event was organized by the Organic Consumers Association, as part of its Millions Against Monsanto campaign. 

	The protesters--including kids--carried placards decrying GE foods, as well as a big red banner that read GMO's *Don't Buy Them *Don't Sell Them *Don't Grow Them. US Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH-10) sent a letter for rally leaders to read aloud at the White House, as well as at nineteen simultaneous rallies planned for cities from coast to coast.

	"We are all participating in one very big experiment every time we consume GE food," Kucinich wrote in his letter.

	Whether or not that is true, a February poll conducted by MSNB.com had 96.1% of 43,439 respondents answering "yes" when asked if GE foods should be labeled as such--not due to safety concerns, but because it's an "ethical issue." The poll came at the end of a story that aired activists' concerns over the dangers of GE foods. 

  






Document Number: 9668 

Genetically Modified Crops Get Boost Over Organics With Recent USDA Rulings

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, USDA Watch page, and our Health Issues page.

----------------

Web Note: It is a ridiculous assertion to say that there is no debate over the health hazards of GMOs; when in fact mounting scientific evidence indicates that GMOs harm animal and human health and damage soil fertility.--------
At the supermarket, most shoppers are oblivious to a battle raging within U.S. agriculture and the Obama administrationâ€™s role in it. Two thriving but opposing sectors â€” organics and genetically engineered crops â€” have been warring on the farm, in the courts and in Washington.

	
	Organic growers say that, without safeguards, their foods will be contaminated by genetically modified crops growing nearby. The genetic engineering industry argues that its way of farming is safe and should not be restricted in order to protect organic competitors.

	
	Into that conflict comes Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, who for two years has been promising something revolutionary: finding a way for organic farms to coexist alongside the modified plants.

	
	But in recent weeks, the administration has announced a trio of decisions that have clouded the future of organics and boosted the position of genetically engineered (GE) crops. Vilsack approved genetically modified alfalfa and a modified corn to be made into ethanol, and he gave limited approval to GE sugar beets.

  






Document Number: 6717 

India Says Monsanto Covertly, Illegally Conducted GM Corn Trials Without Approval

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Recent reports out of India say that multinational biotechnology giant Monsanto has once against skirted the law by clandestinely planting its genetically-modified (GM) corn without receiving approval to do so. Nitish Kumar, chief minister of the Indian state of Bihar, recently wrote a letter to India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh explaining the situation. Just days earlier, Ramesh had denied Monsanto permission to plant the crops at all.

	When he discovered that Monsanto had schemed with India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) and the Indian Council for Agriculture Research (ICAR) to plant genetically-modified (GM) corn without official approval, Kumar was outraged. Kumar had previously written a letter to Ramesh reinforcing his opposition to the GM corn, and shortly thereafter Ramesh asked GEAC to block Monsanto's corn plantings that it had first approved back in December.

	But it turns out Monsanto continued to plant its GM corn at several locations in Bihar, as well is in several other Indian states, even as final approval was still pending. And GEAC and ICAR appear to have been onboard with Monsanto's agenda all along since they allowed the company to continue with its experimental plantings. 

  






Document Number: 2336 

The Worlds Largest Human Experiment: GMOs, Roundup, and the Monsanto Monstrosity

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto, and our Politics and Democracy page.

Informed consent is one of the most basic aspects of patient-physician relations, as well as subject-researcher relations in the case of research studies. This involves making the patient aware of and verifying that they understand the risks, benefits, facts, and the future implications of the procedure or test they are going to be subjected to.

In the case of genetically modified organisms we have not been made aware of the risks. In fact, the GMO industry has deliberately hidden the real dangers behind the seeds and herbicides they peddle.

The Food and Drug Administration of the United States of America has defined informed consent in the following bureaucratic jargon:

Except as provided in 50.23 and 50.24, no investigator may involve a human being as a subject in research covered by these regulations unless the investigator has obtained the legally effective informed consent of the subject or the subject's legally authorized representative. An investigator shall seek such consent only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence. The information that is given to the subject or the representative shall be in language understandable to the subject or the representative. No informed consent, whether oral or written, may include any exculpatory language through which the subject or the representative is made to waive or appear to waive any of the subject's legal rights, or releases or appears to release the investigator, the sponsor, the institution, or its agents from liability for negligence.

Under all of these definitions, including the exceptions which you can peruse at the above linked official website, what Monsanto is doing with GM crops and their Roundup products are ethically wrong and illegal.

Some might say, "So what? It doesn't matter since genetically modified products are perfectly safe! Why would I care, if it helps farmers, and it is safe, then what is wrong with doing it without informed consent?" 

  






Document Number: 3613 

Feedlot Meat Has Spurred a Soy Boom That Has a Devastating Environmental and Human Cost

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Farm Issues page, and our Factory Farms page.

	Much of South America is rapidly coming to resemble Iowa. Where one might expect to see virgin Amazon rainforest, lush grasslands or Patagonian steppe, there are now often monocultures of soybeans, extending for miles and miles. People and cultures are disappearing in the transition; small landholders and tenant farmers are being driven off their land (or pushed deeper into untouched forests or grasslands); and pasture-based cattle ranches are being replaced by feedlots. In the feedlots the cattle eat some of the soy produced on the land where they once would have grazed; but an enormous portion of the soy is never eaten in South America. Instead, it is exported, mostly to China or the EU. (The United States is the largest producer and exporter of soy in the world and is thus not a major market for South American soy.)

	The change has occurred only in the last few decades. Soybeans now occupy huge swaths of land in Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia. Together, these nations make up five of the world's top 10 soy producers. Most significant among them are Brazil and Argentina, which together produced over 105 million metric tons of soybeans in 2008. Half of Argentina's cropland is devoted to soy, and the crop makes up one-third of the country's exports. And for the most part, soy cultivation, processing and exporting took off in these countries since the year 2000. Soy is typically crushed into meal, which is fed to animals, and made into oil used for biofuels or added to many food products. 

  






Document Number: 2923 

Cracks Widen in Biotech Industry Myths

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Governments are being forced to protect farmers and citizens from genetically modified crops (GM crops) to combat biotech corporations' stranglehold over farmers, and health scares from escalating pesticide use, according to a new report by Friends of the Earth International.

	On the eve of the release of industry-sponsored figures on the adoption of GM crops globally, the research highlights how even pro-GM governments in South America and the United States have been forced to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of GM crops on farmers, citizens and the environment.

Read our report here

	In South America, the Brazilian Government has launched a GM-free soy programme to help farmers access non-GM soy seeds. In Argentina new research has exposed that the herbicide Glyphosate, used on the majority of GM crops grown worldwide, could have severe negative impacts on human health. [3] This has led to bans on spraying of the herbicide near people's homes. In Uruguay, local areas are declaring themselves GM-free.

	Friends of the Earth International Food Sovereignty coordinator Martin Drago said, "Farmers and citizens in South America are bearing the burden of ten years of GM crops with widespread health disasters and rising costs. The myths on which the biotech industry is built are crumbling.

	The havoc wreaked across South America shows that this technology is not compatible with sustainable farming. It is a wake up call for the rest of the world to move towards more ecological methods of farming." 

  






Document Number: 2363 

Roundup Ready Canola as a Resistant Weed

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, California News page,  Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

	Roundup Ready canola may be a new California crop at some point in time, but is currently one of California's newest weeds. 

Roundup Ready canola is a weed because of its ability to produce a significant percentage of secondary dormant seed when harvested under a Mediterranean climate. This secondary seed dormancy in combination with its glyphosate resistance makes canola a new difficult California weed.

	Advertisement Roundup Ready canola may be a new California crop at some point in time, but is currently one of California's newest weeds.

	Roundup Ready canola is a weed because of its ability to produce a significant percentage of secondary dormant seed when harvested under a Mediterranean climate (Lutman et al. 1998). This secondary seed dormancy in combination with its glyphosate resistance makes canola a new difficult California weed.

	Most annual crops only produce volunteer plants during the year following production; however canola is known for shattering large amounts of seed before and during harvest (Mallory-Smith  Zappiola 2008) and when buried, some seed enters a "secondary dormancy." Even if all volunteer canola is controlled before it produces seed in the first year following canola, seedlings will continue to emerge for many years from dormant seed. Most of this dormant seed emerges in the first four years four years (Lutman 2003), but some can emerge up to 10 years after burial in the soil (D'Hertefeldt et al. 2008 and Lutman 2005.

	Canola is a higher quality oil developed out of oilseed rape. Canola varieties are selections from several mustard species, but most varieties produced in the United States originated from Brassica napus, commonly called rapeseed mustard.

  






Document Number: 3072 

Genetically Altered Pigs Debate Set to Sizzle

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Not even its creators have tasted it yet.

	
Still wallowing in the bureaucratic muck of regulatory approval 
processes in Canada and the United States, the genetically modified 
"Enviropig" is likely years away from potential human consumption.

	But the battle between proponents of the cleaner-pooping pig and a large chunk of Ontario's "sustainable' farming community may already be coming to a sizzle.

	"We're trying to turn the heat up on this," says Sean McGivern, president of the National Farmers Union's Ontario branch.

	"It's a file we've been on for a long time, but we just finally felt it was the time to become more vocal about it," says McGivern, whose group represents about 2,500 small-scale farmers across the province.

	Developed 12 years ago at the University of Guelph, Enviropigs utilize the tiny splices of mouse and bacterial DNA inserted into their genomes to radically cut the water-polluting phosphorous content of their manure. 

  






Document Number: 9112 

Debunking the Stubborn Myth that Only Industrial Ag Can 'Feed the World'

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, USDA Watch page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	I've written about it once already, but I want to return to The Economist's recent special series about how industrial agriculture is the true and only way to feed the 9 billion people who will inhabit the world by 2050. The framing, I think, is extremely interesting.

	The widely revered magazine identifies two strains of thought on the food system's future: one serious and one frivolous.

	The serious one -- made up of "food companies, plant breeders, and international development agencies" -- is "concerned mainly with feeding the world's growing population," which it plans to do "through the spread of modern farming, plant research and food processing in poor countries."

	The frivolous one -- "influential among non-governmental organizations and some consumers" -- "concentrates more on the food problems of richer countries, such as concerns about animal welfare and obesity," The Economist writes. This group fixates on the question of "what should we have for dinner," but has little to say about feeding the globe's growing population. And since The Economist's special report "concentrates on the problems of feeding the 9 billion," not the trivial omnivorous dilemmas of wealthy Berkeleyites, the magazine throws its lot in with the companies, plant breeders, and international development agencies -- the Serious People Looking for Real Solutions for Feeding the World. 

  






Document Number: 7788 

Klebsiella Planticula- The Genetically Engineered Biofuel Bug That Almost Ate the World

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Environment and Climate News page.

	Elaine Ingham would never treat soil like dirt. She reveres it, as we all should, since this precious substance is the thin brown line between plenty and starvation. Given the necessity of topsoil to human survival, you'd think we'd have legions of soil biologists on the case, but Elaine is one of only a handful of serious scientists delving into this microcosmos that feeds the world and helps support life on earth.

	Until recently an associate research professor of forest science at Oregon State University, Elaine has twenty-five years of experience in microbiology, botany, plant pathology, and soil and ecology research. She founded Soil Foodweb Inc. and is currently president of the Soil Foodweb Institute in Australia and research director of Soil Foodweb in New York. She serves on the boards of several sustainability organizations and is an active member of numerous prestigious microbiology and ecology associations. She has done stints as president of the Soil Ecology Society and program chair of the Ecological Society of America and has penned over fifty peer-reviewed scientific papers.

	Elaine speaks to groups around the world on how to grow plants without the use of toxic pesticides or synthetic fertilizers while at the same time increasing soil fertility and crop production. She has led countless workshops and training sessions at which farmers are taught highly practical techniques for building soil health, using sophisticated composting methods, and enhancing microbiological communities for crop production. Unquestionably one of the world's leading specialists in soil health, she is an exceptionally creative innovator who has made major contributions to our understanding of the soil food web (as she likes to call it) and its structure and function in terrestrial ecosystems from arctic to tropical climates. 

  






Document Number: 3437 

Farmers Must Be Weaned Off Using Oil

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Organic Transitions page, and our Farm Issues page.

	
	Reducing farmers' dependence on oil will be key to feeding the world's rapidly expanding population in the face of climate change and rising fuel prices, the United Nations' special rapporteur on food said Tuesday.

	
	In an interview to coincide with the release of his report on feeding the world in the 21st century, Olivier De Schutter said promoting natural production techniques is the only sustainable way to guard against future crises and stop food prices increasing in-line with oil.

	
	"We set up our farming techniques in the 1920s when we thought there would be a never-ending supply of cheap oil," he said. "Now we are facing a situation where expensive oil and gas and the influence of climate change on yields are scaring us.

	
	"Developing farming in a way which makes it less addicted to fossil energy is much more promising. In developing countries, we may have to leapfrog the stage of industrial agriculture and find ways to produce that are less addicted to fossil fuels."

	
	Developing new ways to feed the world has become increasingly pressing in the past year as record-high global food prices have pushed an extra 44 million people into poverty, according to World Bank estimates.

	
	Fears of a crisis similar to the widespread unrest of 2007-08 have grown since the price of oil surged to highs seen 29 months ago due to violence in the Middle East.



  






Document Number: 1317 

Mexico Approves First Genetically Engineered Test Plot Corn Planting

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Mexico has approved its first pilot project to grow genetically-modified (GM) maize, a move expected to draw fire from environmental groups who fear its impact on treasured local corn.

	The Agriculture Ministry said in a statement Tuesday that it had approved the project to grow GM yellow corn developed by the US biotech giant Monsanto on one hectare (2.5 acres) of land in the northern Tamaulipas state.

	"It is the first permit to be issued for the pilot phase," the ministry said, adding that it had rejected three other similar requests.

	The government has granted 67 permits for projects to grow genetically modified corn at the experimental stage, prior to the pilot stage, on more than 70 hectares (173 acres) of land in the north of the country since 2009.

	The ministry said the pilot project would allow it to evaluate the costs and benefits of the technology under conditions of strict bio-security.

	Greenpeace and other environmental groups have protested such projects, saying they open the door to the widespread planting of crops that could contaminate or drive out local varieties of corn.

	Many here are sensitive about meddling with maize, the cultivation of which dates back to pre-Hispanic times, when mythologies held that people were created from corn.



  






Document Number: 5492 


Provide Feedback

On January 27, 2011 the USDA announced its approval to allow the completely unregulated release of Monsanto’s genetically engineered "RoundUp Ready" Alfalfa (RRA), even after being made aware of compelling initial research indicating serious threats to animal, environmental and human health. Aside from health consequences, this will significantly impact rural economies across the country as the genetic contamination of non-RoundUp Ready (RR) crops (also referred to as GMO and transgenic crops) will result in the loss of organic and biodynamic certification and lost markets even for non-GMO conventional growers. It is also feared that this will inflict irreparable damage to the remaining honeybee population. Once broadly released it will be impossible to contain or remove from the environment.
Currently, there are no requirements to label GMO ingredients in the United States.


This easy-to-use map lets you report your position on this matter. If you are a concerned organic or non-GMO conventional grower, an eater, a parent, an organic dairy farmer, Oprah, an environmentalist, a veterinarian, a pet owner... please get on the map! Tell your friends. Together, we are smarter and stronger. Visualize public opinion with us. MORE BACKGROUNDCreative Commons - Attribution + Noncommercial + ShareAlike (by-nc-sa)





Document Number: 821 

Organic Advocates Voice Concern for 'Natural' Food

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Myth of Natural page, All About Organics page, and our Iowa News page.


	
	An organics watchdog group's criticism of a cereal company that describes its products as "all natural" is the latest in the debate about whether the term is being used to confuse consumers or simply give them more information.

	
	The Wisconsin-based Cornucopia Institute recently filed a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission against Hearthside Food Solutions, makers of Peace Cereal. It claims the Eugene, Ore.-based company promotes its cereals as being made with pesticide free ingredients when they're not.

	
	Cornucopia and others argue it's an example of the way some food manufacturers try to attract customers who may think buying natural means they're buying organic. The organization was especially critical of Hearthside because the company previously sold organic cereal before switching to conventional ingredients.

	
	"The sleight-of-hand of Peace Cereal, switching from organic to conventional ingredients, in a stealth-like manner, needs to be exposed." said Mark Kastel, co-founder of Cornucopia.



  






Document Number: 9518 

Engineering An Environmental Disaster

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, Farm Issues, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

America's supermarkets are awash in genetically modified foods. Over the past decade, biotech companies like Monsanto have dominated dinner tables with crops like corn, soybeans and canola modified to survive lethal doses of herbicides, resulting in increased herbicide use, a surge in herbicide-resistant weeds, and the contamination of organic and conventional crops. According to the Center for Food Safety, more than half of all processed food in U.S. grocery stores-items like cereals, corn dogs and cookies-contain genetically engineered (GE) ingredients.

"This technology is a one-trick pony," says George Kimbrell, an attorney at the Center for Food Safety. "They don't help us feed the world, they don't fight climate change, and they don't help us better the environment. They just increase pesticides and herbicides. That's what they do." (Listen to an interview with George Kimbrell.)

Currently, 85 percent of GE crops are designed to resist herbicides. Companies like Syngenta, Bayer and Dow have all created their own herbicide tolerant seeds, modified to withstand the company's corresponding herbicide treatment. But it's Monsanto, the world leader in GE seed production, that has benefited the most from biotechnology by packaging its Roundup Ready line of GE seeds with its Roundup herbicide. Monsanto, whose roots began in creating toxic chemical concoctions like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and DDT, is now the world's leading producer of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide. (See Monsanto's chemical history timeline.)

But what's good for Monsanto's business isn't so great for people or the environment. That's why in 2007, Earthjustice, together with the Center for Food Safety, challenged the U.S. Department of Agriculture's decision to allow Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets on the market, arguing that the agency failed to adequately assess both its environmental and economic impacts. 

  






Document Number: 32 

Genetically Altered Salmon Spook Northwest Lawmakers

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Alaska News page, and our Washington News page.

	Fearing for the wild salmon industry in the Northwest, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington state wants to stop the Food and Drug Administration from making a quick decision on whether to approve genetically modified Atlantic salmon for human consumption.

	Republican Rep. Don Young of Alaska says that Congress can't allow "these alien fish to infect our stocks."

	Murray and Young are part of a growing bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill that's out to stop a Massachusetts biotechnology company from winning federal approval to sell its fast-growing fish, which critics are calling "Frankenfish."

	"I'm very concerned this is being rushed through with massive potential for negative ramifications," Murray said.

	Two pieces of legislation have been introduced in Congress: The first would ban the fish outright, while the second would require it to be labeled as transgenic if the FDA approves it.

	So far, the legislation has the backing of 64 environmental and other organizations, including fishing associations, retailers and the Center for Food Safety, an advocacy group.

	Andrew Kimbrell, the center's executive director, said Congress "has to step in to correct the failures of the Obama administration," which he criticized for allowing the FDA to proceed.

	"FDA's decision to go ahead with this approval process is misguided and dangerous for consumers, the environment and our economy," he said.

	But the fish are not without their fans. 

  






Document Number: 7269 

The Myth of Doubling Food Production by 2050

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Have you heard that we need to double food production by 2050 in order to feed a population of 9 billion people? I have. I've heard it ad nauseum. Today, I was reading through some transcripts from the 2009 Borlaug Dialogues, and nearly every speaker noted that we need to double food production by 2050 but no one cited their source. It was just a given, something everyone already knew.

	I started Googling and ended up emailing colleagues for the original source of this figure. And, to the best of my knowledge (I haven't given up yet), THERE ISN'T ONE. That's right. No source. There IS a claim by Jacques Diouf, Director-General of the FAO from January 2009 - but no source. Where did he get his information? What were the assumptions used to calculate it?

	UPDATE: I've done some more checking on this. The FAO, the source cited for saying we must double food production, says we need to increase it by 70 percent. Not double.

More below. 

Jill Richardson :: Doubling Food Production by 2050 

Emails began coming back from people far more knowledgeable and experienced in this area than I, first pointing me to a 2006 FAO report that says a lot of things, but doesn't say we need to double food production. The same email contained a link to an article about the UK's Soil Association calling out the "double food production" claim as B.S. From their own report, they found that the supposed source (the FAO report) never says "double food production," and its numbers actually call for increasing food production by 70 percent by 2050. 

  






Document Number: 5729 

Associated Press: Modified Foods Found Everywhere

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Genetic Engineering Page.

	You may not want to eat genetically engineered foods. Chances are, you are eating them anyway.

	Genetically modified plants grown from seeds engineered in labs now provide much of the food we eat. Most corn, soybean and cotton crops grown in the United States have been genetically modified to resist pesticides or insects, and corn and soy are common food ingredients.

	The U.S. Agriculture Department has approved three more genetically engineered crops in the past month, and the Food and Drug Administration could approve fast-growing genetically modified salmon for human consumption this year.

	Agribusiness and the seed companies say their products help boost crop production, lower prices at the grocery store and feed the world, particularly in developing countries. The FDA and USDA say the engineered foods they've approved are safe - so safe, they don't even need to be labeled as such - and can't be significantly distinguished from conventional varieties.

	Organic food companies, chefs and consumer groups have stepped up their efforts - so far, unsuccessfully - to get the government to exercise more oversight of engineered foods, arguing the seeds are floating from field to field and contaminating pure crops. The groups have been bolstered by a growing network of consumers who are wary of processed and modified foods. 

  






Document Number: 2493 

Moratorium on Genetically Modified Alfalfa Proposed in Canada

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Canada News page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Genetic Engineering Page.

	Yesterday, Liberal members of the House of Commons Agriculture Committee tabled a motion calling for a moratorium on the approval of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa in Canada.

	"I'm pleased to see Members of Parliament have listened and are prepared to take action to protect farmers" said Arnold Taylor, a Saskatchewan organic grain farmer who spoke before the Committee on February 17th on behalf of the Canadian Organic Growers. "I hope that the Committee will vote for this moratorium and make it a reality so we don't end up with the same kind of contamination in alfalfa that hit organic canola farmers and damaged Canadian flax export markets."

	Maggie Mumm, an organic alfalfa seed producer and co-owner of Mumm's Sprouting Seeds said, "Farmers don't want or need Monsanto's herbicide tolerant alfalfa. Conventional and organic alfalfa growers agree that GM alfalfa would be a disaster for our markets."

	In addition to export markets for processed alfalfa products, alfalfa is used as a forage crop in pastures and as hay for high-protein feed for dairy cows, beef cattle, lambs, and pigs. It is also a natural source of nitrogen to fertilize the soil, making it particularly important for organic farming. Alfalfa is pollinated by bees and other insects, making it easy for contamination to spread. Alfalfa is also a perennial which means that each new GM alfalfa plant can grow and produce viable seed for several years. 

  






Document Number: 1711 

After 20 Years, Nearly Everyone Still Wants GM Food To Be Labeled

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

At this MSNBC poll, over 40,000 people have voted strongly in favor of labeling genetically modified foods: 96% of all respondents.

	But, a review of several polls going back to 1994 reveals that the numbers have always been high - the vast majority of people have always wanted GM labels. That biotech foods have remained unlabeled for nearly 20 years in the US reveals a deliberate and willful refusal by regulatory agencies to serve the will of the people, instead opting to abet industry profits through public deception.

	The 96% rating from MSNBC's casual survey does represent a jump from a scientific poll conducted in 2003 by University of Maine and The Ohio State University (and partly funded by the US Dept. of Agriculture), where 85% of respondents said they wanted GM foods labeled. Researchers also noted:

	"Polls have emphasized that a majority of consumers in the United States (US) desire GMFs to be labeled (Pew Initiative on Food and Biotechnology, 2001), and legislation has been entered at both the federal and state levels. For example, HR 3377 and S 2080-the "Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Acts"-were introduced into the US House of Representatives and Senate, respectively. In addition, at least seven states have debated labeling and marketing requirements for GM foods (Pollack, 2001). Further, the current lack of harmonization of policies across countries also makes GM food labeling an international trade issue." 

  






Document Number: 3948 


Visit the Mercola Video Library
How Did GM Alfalfa Get Approved Despite Such Strong Opposition?
Organic Consumers Associations: "We've Been Betrayed"
Organic Consumers Association on the De-Regulation of GM Alfalfa
White House Influenced USDA Decision to Give Monsanto Carte Blanche
Jeffrey Smith Weighs In
Whole Foods Responds
Organic Valley Speaks Out
Why GM Alfalfa in Particular Threatens Organics
Alfalfa is the Perfect Choice if You Want to Contaminate a Wide Variety of Organic Foods!
The Revolving Door between Monsanto and High-Level Government is Destroying the Future of Organic Food
The Importance of the Non-GMO Project
GMO Labeling is Becoming a Must. Here's How You Can Help Bring it About
What You Can Do


View Comments (187)


                    Reply to this thread

                    Edit Your Comment
                
Puppy Past Bedtime
Organic consumers and producers in the U.S. are facing betrayal. A self-appointed group of "Organic Elites", including Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, are surrendering to Monsanto.Top executives from these companies publicly stated several weeks ago that they support the so-called "coexistence" of organics with genetically modified (GM) crops. The Organic Consumers Association has asserted that Whole Foods sent a misleading e-mail to its customers on Jan. 21in which they gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. However, after sharp criticisms from the OCA and their customers, and in the wake of USDA's unrestricted approval of GE alfalfa and sugar beets, the leaders of the organic industry seem to have changed their tune, issuing strong statements against the USDA approval last week. According to the Organic Consumers Association:"The main reason ... why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that two-thirds of [Whole Food's] $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called 'natural' processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs." The Organic Consumers Association is also helping people who want to organize or coordinate Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaigns in their local community, through this web site: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/Update: Whole Foods Market has offered this response to the Organic Consumers Association:"We have seen a few comments about the OCA's misleading letter about our company. Once again, the OCA has it all wrong. We have done more than any other retailer to educate and advocate on genetically engineered food, and we are deeply committed to preserving our ability to sell non-GE food. Perhaps OCA did not understand our position. We do not have anything to do with big biotech companies' agenda!"As tried and true pioneers of organic, we at Whole Foods Market support the preservation of seed purity, organic integrity and we are advocates of clearly labeling GMOs so that our shoppers can make informed decisions. There are still many unanswered questions about genetic engineering and there is no mandatory labeling and little government oversight of GMOs. That's why we have spent the last couple of decades working to find a solution to offer non-GMO foods to our shoppers. We do NOT advocate for the USDA to allow the well-funded biotech industry to monitor itself carte blanche without ongoing government oversight. Unfortunately, the USDA presented our industry with two options: total deregulation of GE alfalfa, or deregulation with some conditions to facilitate coexistence and protection of non-GE farmers. We supported a path of coexistence, not because it's a perfect path, but because it's the only viable path that would ensure our ongoing ability to provide non-GMO foods. Given the prevalence of GMO crops in the U.S. -- 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn, 93 percent of cotton and 93 percent of canola seed planted were genetically engineered in the US in 2010 -- we did not believe that a complete ban of GE alfalfa or any crop is an option that the USDA would even consider supporting, nor was it even an option. We favor protecting organic and non-GE agriculture's property rights, and the USDA's regulatory authority is the best way to meet this goal. Our options were to have a seat at the table (and support coexistence) or to not be represented at all. We chose deregulation with restrictions so that we could represent our company, the organic food community and our shoppers. This does not mean that we have anything to do with big biotech or that we support their agenda." Further Updates: The news keeps pouring in on this controversial issue. Phil Bereano, a co-founder of AGRA watch, argues that by deregulating the planting of GM alfalfa, the USDA appears to be in direct contravention to its obligations under law and court decisions. A 2007 trial judge found that alfalfa farmers had established a reasonable probability that their conventional alfalfa crops would be contaminated with the engineered Roundup Ready geneif deregulation occurred.Writing on the Community Alliance for Global Justice Website, he notes:"There have been about 200 incidents of GE crops contaminating non-GE produce, resulting in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in damages; contamination is a real risk and one of very significant magnitude ... Thus, the Department cannot dismiss it as insignificant or rest on Monsanto's assurances that its practices render contamination unlikely ... The Department suggests that consumers will forgive unintentional contamination, but intention is irrelevant to the National Organic Standards and to the protection of human health." Meanwhile, Tom Philpott, writing in Grist Magazine, suggests that the White House may have pressured the USDA to deregulate. In the past, USDA chief Tom Vilsack has acknowledged the dangers of cross-contamination, calling it "a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad."According toGrist:"A USDA chief had publicly declared his willingness to defy the industry, and then was seemingly forced by political pressure from above to cravenly abandon that defiance ...Unhappily, the decision falls into line with other Obama administration gestures of fealty to the agrichemical lobby." As you've probably heard by now, the USDA recently approved planting of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa, the fourth-largest crop in the USA, without restriction.As you can see, this has created quite the controversy, so rather than go with the original story posted by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA), I decided to weigh in with all the participants and delay the story until I had a chance to interview all of them. Here, I will present several sides, including that of:Scathing articles by major media have questioned how this approval got squeezed through, despite the evidence showing that GM alfalfa could be a disaster. Articles in The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have suggested the decision was the result of political wrangling, as opposed to evaluation of the evidence.Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Bill Tomson and Scott Kilman, both of whom are veteran agricultural policy reporters, tie the troublesome decision to the White House:"The Obama administration Thursday abandoned a proposal to restrict planting of genetically engineered alfalfa, the latest rule-making proposal shelved as part of the administration's review of "burdensome" regulation." However, this issue is far more important than trying to rid the system of regulation that is "burdensome" to business, which makes it all the more disturbing.You probably don't realize it but alfalfa is the fourth most grown crop in the US. Farmers plant millions of acres of alfalfa to produce forage seed and hay to feed cows and other livestock. It really is shocking that Monsanto pushed so hard for GMO alfalfa approval and received it, because over 93 percent of the current alfalfa crop is NOT being treated with herbicides, so there's really no need to make it Round Up resistant.Alfalfa is also a major pollinator, which means that the likelihood of it cross-pollinating and transferring genetic material is very high, if not guaranteed. It's also a natural forage for pastured (organically-raised grass-fed) animals. Contamination would be disastrous for organic dairy- and cattle farmers as federal organic standards forbid them from using GM crops, and organic food manufacturers will reject a food ingredient if found to be contaminated with GM material -- not to mention Monsanto's history of suing both conventional and organic farmers for patent infringement should their crops be cross-contaminated.USDA chief Tom Vilsack acknowledged these concerns in an "Open Letter to Stakeholders" on December 30, 2010, stating that the USDA's environmental impact statement "acknowledges the potential of cross-fertilization to non-GE alfalfa from GE alfalfa," adding that cross-fertilization is "a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad." Adding heat to the controversy is the appearance of betrayal from some of our most trusted organic businesses, such as Whole Foods and Organic Valley. The third interview in the video above is with Ronnie Cummins, one of the founders and the Executive Director of the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) -- an organization that has been instrumental in promoting organics around the world -- about why he feels the organic industry leaders have betrayed us all.Prior to Cummins' interview are the perspectives from both Whole Foods and Organic Valley, as the situation is not necessarily as cut and dry as it may seem on the surface.In December of last year, the Organic Consumers Association revealed that "the USDA had approached members of the organic community and wanted them to stop filing lawsuits against genetically engineered crops and see if they could reach some kind of position on co-existence," Cummins says."Then, on January 21, Whole Foods sent out an email to all of its customers and friends on Facebook describing this compromise they had reached with the USDA in positive terms as being "the best we can get from the USDA," Cummins explains. "The best we can get, according to this compromise, was allowing Monsanto to go forward and plant genetically engineered alfalfa plants across the country. The USDA Secretary Vilsack promised the organic industry representatives that if they would agree to stop opposing the approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa, the USDA was willing to set up a system where non-GMO crop growers could get some financial compensation when there is contamination, and that there would be some geographical restrictions on where these genetically engineered alfalfa plants could be cultivated." But members of the Organic Consumer Association started raising a number of concerns.That's what prompted Cummins to write The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto, What Next?, which ignited the current debate. "Unfortunately, right after my essay was published, in fact within an hour, the word came that the USDA was approving Monsanto's genetically engineered alfalfa with absolutely no restrictions whatsoever," Cummins says. In other words, the USDA reneged on all their promises to the organic industry leaders, AND they ignored the public comments from some 250,000 concerned citizens!"Subsequently, it has come out that the White House directly intervened with the USDA and told them in no uncertain terms that "we don't want any restrictions on Monsanto's alfalfa. We want them to build a plant anywhere they want with no consideration as to contamination of adjoining crops," Cummins says."I guess this whole notion of coexistence is a moot point now. The U.S. has gone ahead despite rulings by federal courts, and despite warnings by scientists over the last four years that these genetically engineered alfalfa plants should not be planted ."You might be wondering how this is possible. Well it's because Monsanto has infiltrated the US Federal Regulatory agencies like the FDA and US Department of Agriculture (USDA) with their previous employees who are still very loyal to Monsanto. You can review the names of these individuals further down in this article.Another interesting article on Uruknet by Mike Ludwig, titled "Why Monsanto Always Wins," sheds even more light on the shady approval process of GM crops. According to Ludwig, there's evidence of "cooperation" between federal regulators and the biotech industry that crosses the line of acceptable involvement during the regulatory review. He also cites Bill Freese, a policy analyst with CFS, who told Truthout that "the approval process for controversial GE (genetically engineered) crops like Roundup Ready alfalfa is basically a "sham" designed to increase consumer confidence in the controversial GE crops," and that in his years of battling against biotech, "he can't remember a single case when regulators failed to eventually grant approval of a GE crop."For more of the inside scoop, please read Ludwig's article. It is interesting to note that Jeffrey Smith, founder of the Institute for Responsible Technology and one of the world's leading experts on genetically modified foods does not agree with Cummins' accusations against Whole Foods and Organic Valley, both of which are members of the Non-GMO project."There's been some high voltage opinions darting about the blogosphere about the Non-GMO Project, which is the new third-party verifying organization for companies making Non-GMO claims. I have been watching and working with this organization for many years and I want to weigh in," Smith writes in a recent article. "I have unqualified support of the mission, tactics, and integrity of the organization. In fact, last year we made the requirement that for any product to be listed as non-GMO in our Non-GMO Shopping Guide or iPhone app ShopNoGMO, it had to be enrolled in the Non-GMO Project."According to Smith, Whole Foods has "definitely been a leader in converting their store brands to non-GMO. In fact, it is their enrollment of all their store brand products into the Project, at a cost of millions, which has opened the way for the rest of the industry.I think it's time for all of us to become united on this issue and use our collective power, to mobilize millions of consumers and the entire natural foods industry, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of GMOs and force them out of the market." The first interview above is with Michael Besancon, a senior representative from Whole Foods, in which he discusses their involvement in the process, and their position on the recent approval of the GM alfalfa. "[W]e worked with a number of other companies in the industry, as well as other retailers, to do what we could to influence the Department of Agriculture to not approve the unlimited use of the GMO-modified alfalfa," Besancon says. "As we got down to the very end, we discovered that there were going to be only two options. One was 100 percent deregulation, or what I think was probably erroneously referred to as a 'coexistence policy' where GMO alfalfa would be grown as well as conventional or organic alfalfa.… We did our best to get the lesser of the two evils, which was some protection for seed; some protection for conventional and organic farmers. In the end, that was fruitless. We were unable to move the machinery to get what we thought was a last ditch effort and the best case that we could with what was presented to us."Unfortunately, even the Non-GMO project admits that it's almost impossible to completely exclude genetically modified ingredients from all products, simply because the GM crops already out there. This is an industry fact that holds true for all organic retailers. GM corn, canola and soy are ubiquitous. They're in nearly everything. GM alfalfa will make matters even worse. "We were founding members of the Non-GMO Project with the intent of labeling products as containing no more than 0.9 percent GMO, because there is the pollen drift that is contaminating everything," Besancon says.However, it's become abundantly clear that we can't win this war by focusing on the regulation, because of Monsanto's infiltration into the very agencies making the regulatory decisions. The organic industry leaders have strong motivation and drive to protect organic foods, but even with their combined clout they were no match for the biotech giant Monsanto. When you take the far-reaching power of Monsanto into account, then the failure of the organic industry leaders to keep GM alfalfa off the market becomes quite understandable.Personally, I think both parties -- Whole Foods and the Organic Consumers Association -- are well-intentioned, and when seen from an overview, both sides appear to have the same end goal. Therefore, I would urge everyone to focus on working together to achieve that goal. Remember, we're up against a formidable enemy: the biotech industry, led by Monsanto. And the organic industry leaders, while "giant" compared to small, privately owned organic farms, are still David's in this fight against Goliath.So what's the answer? How do we stop GM crops from overtaking and contaminating the world's food supply? How do we protect ourselves from GM contaminated foods?We do it by joining forces. In the end, it's a numbers game. As consumers get wise to this issue and begin to vote with their pocketbooks, we still have a chance to turn it all around.Besancon explains that Whole Foods is still hoping for the same chain of events to occur with non-GMO labeling as happened with non-rBST labeling. "[W]hen the consumers didn't want the product and didn't buy it, in California for instance, the predominant milk is now without rBST," he says. "That's because the consumers voted and the market controlled that ingredient, controlled that process. What we're hoping is that with the Non-GMO Project, with the certification of ingredients in a product being non-GMO, that the consumers will vote. That the consumers will make their voices known both with their pocketbooks and their purchase, and also by speaking to their representatives, wherever they may be… [W]e have committed to the Non-GMO project with our private label product. And we are committed to encouraging everyone in the industry that sells natural or organic products to label their products through the Non-GMO Project as certified non-GMO."For more information about Whole Foods' policies on GM ingredients and what they're doing to promote non-GMO, please listen to the interview or read through the transcript.Second in the interview lineup you will hear from George Siemon, one of the founding farmers and current CEO of Organic Valley, which is an organic farmer cooperative. Founded in 1988, the co-op now consists of close to 1,700 independently owned farms in about 30 US states. They specialize in organic dairy products, but also produce organic soy, meat, eggs, juice, and fresh produce."[W]e've been a major participant in all the lawsuits trying to stop GE products," Siemon says. "Alfalfa was the first time with The Center for Food Safety in the lead. We provided a lot of funding as well as legal support and farmer support to actually stop this onslaught of GM products. As you know, we actually had to bring it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Out of that, the Department of Agriculture, for the first time, said they're going to introduce something more than deregulation. They put forward a proposal to deregulate with conditions, which was still deregulating, and still not a happy result.But because they were willing to consider, finally, some limitations, they invited a group of people that were involved in lawsuits in all sides of the fence to get together, and proposed that, maybe, there was some need for limitations on a deregulation. I was invited to that. I was part a working group that tried to see what limitations could be put on if alfalfa was to be deregulated; what limitations could be put on to protect the seeds, and to reimburse farmers for damage. So from the beginning it was a compromise decision where they were making it clear that it was going to be deregulated…"In hindsight, it seems like it was merely a token gesture, because in the end the Department of Agriculture ignored the discussions with the organic industry leaders and capitulated to Monsanto's wishes."You got to understand how influential Monsanto and the biotechnology community is in DC," Siemon says. "They basically own the city. Secretary Vilsack was sincere in his efforts. But the powers that be were never going to allow him to enact that, so yes, in the long run it was meaningful in that we tried to widen the crack… but in the long run the political power of the biotechnology community is definitely very powerful." "The interesting thing about the way alfalfa has been grown up until now is that, according to Michael Pollan and other experts, 93 percent of the alfalfa grown in the United States right now is not sprayed with herbicides... alfalfa is pretty much an herbicide free crop!" Cummins says. "Now, what's going to happen is that Monsanto is going to sell their alfalfa seeds all over the country which make this alfalfa roundup resistant. This means they're going to spray the heck out of these 23 million acres of alfalfa fields." How can anyone justify the planting of Roundup-resistant alfalfa when there's apparently no need for it, and when emerging evidence shows that weeds are rapidly becoming increasingly resistant to Roundup as well, creating superweeds that are near impossible to get rid of? That seemingly nonsensical decision becomes clearer if you look at alfalfa's role on a much grander scale, and helps explain why Monsanto appears to have pulled out all the stops to get it approved, despite the fervent opposition of the organic industry and hundreds of thousands of vocal consumers.Alfalfa is a perennial crop, meaning it comes back year after year. In the case of alfalfa, farmers only need to re-seed about every seventh year. And as stated earlier, it's a powerful pollinator."Basically, any organic alfalfa or non-genetically engineered alfalfa within a five mile radius will immediately get contaminated," Cummins says."Given the fact that alfalfa is a major food source for dairy cows across the United States, and organic alfalfa is a major food source for organic dairy cows, we're going to see widespread contamination getting worse every year… by this GM alfalfa. So this is outrageous. It totally flies in the face of campaign promises that Obama made in 2008 when he was running for president. It totally flies in the face of what Hillary Clinton, who was also running for president at the time, made, which was that they would support mandatory labeling and safety testing of GMOs. They have gone back on their word… [and] they are allowing Monsanto to proceed with absolutely no restrictions on this, what we call "Earth raping and climate destabilizing" crop." I think Cummins has his hand on the pulse of Monsanto when he says:"I believe that this is an act of premeditated genetic pollution of the gene pool of alfalfa and related plants by Monsanto. They know exactly what they're doing. They understand is that if you pollute enough alfalfa across the country to where it becomes impossible to grow organic alfalfa that isn't contaminated, perhaps then the organic community will weaken and allow genetically engineered animal feed under the rules of organic production. This is what Monsanto tried to do back in 1998 when they pushed hard with the Farm Bureau and corporate agribusiness to say that GMOs should be allowed in organic. It was only because of a campaign that Organic Consumer Association and others lead that we were able to keep GMOs out of organic standards, and we've been able to keep them out now for 12 years. I think Monsanto wants to go in the backdoor now. They want these companies to accept the sort of "peaceful coexistence" with GMOs to soften us up. But then they want to create such a contamination level across the country in organic dairy feed that they believe the organic industry will have to capitulate." I've often stated that Monsanto is the most evil corporation on the planet. They're also very clever and sophisticated. They have been able to infiltrate the government to the point where the US is fast becoming a fascist state where corporations and government have merged. It is this type of infiltration that has allowed GM alfalfa to be allowed without any restrictions at all.But just how did they do it?Cummins explains:"To start with, one of the members of the Supreme Court -- the infamous Clarence Thomas who did not withdraw himself from a Supreme Court decision on genetically engineered alfalfa last year -- used to be the general counsel for Monsanto. Tom Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa who is currently the U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary, was a long time supporter and confidante of Monsanto. He rode around on Monsanto's corporate jet during some of his electoral campaigns in Iowa. Tom Vilsack was named "The Biotech Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization. Others in the Obama administration include Michael Taylor, who was formerly the vice president of Monsanto. He is now the Food and Drug Administration Deputy Commissioner for Foods. Michael Taylor was in charge of FDA labeling practices in 1993 when the FDA first approved, against overwhelming opposition from the public.Michael Taylor was instrumental in preventing bovine growth hormone and other genetically engineered foods from having to be labeled. He has gone in and out working for Monsanto and the FDA ever since. Another member of the Obama Administration is Roger Beachy, the former director of the Monsanto funded Danforth Plant Science Center in Saint Louis. He is now the director of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Other appointees: Islam Siddiqui was vice president of Monsanto and Dupont's funded pesticide-promotion group CropLife. He is now the agricultural negotiator for the U.S. Trade Representative. In other words, he is the enforcer for U.S. foreign policy that countries have to accept our genetically engineered exports. Another appointee, Rajiv Shah, is the former Agricultural Development Director for the pro-biotech Gates Foundation, who are frequently partnering with Monsanto. He served as Obama's USDA undersecretary for Research, Education and Economics. Elena Kagan has served as President Obama's Solicitor General. She took Monsanto's side against organic farmers on the roundup ready alfalfa case. Ramona Ramiro, corporate counsel to Dupont, another biotech bully, has been nominated by President Obama to serve as general counsel for the USDA. We must point that it's not just the Obama Administration that has served as a revolving door for Monsanto. We saw the same situation under Bush Jr., Clinton and Bush Sr. We have a corporation Monsanto that is not only out of control, but that places its people in high positions; that donates large sums of money to members of congress; and that basically gets its way every time there is a policy decision made in Washington." Is it any wonder then that we get these kinds of decisions, despite public outcry and opposition? Clearly, "co-existence" with a biotech bully like Monsanto is impossible. Instead, we need to increase our efforts to educate the public about the dangers of GM foods, oppose genetically modified crops completely, push for reform, insist on labeling, and, even more importantly, take full advantage of the resources the organic industry has already begun putting into place -- such as the Non-GMO Projects "Non-GMO Certified" labels. Besancon says:"As we ramp up, and the Non-GMO Project is supported by other packaged food producers, then there will be more auditors. And that process can be expedited. We're in the beginning stages of this. We're looking for support from the manufacturers. Honestly, we're looking for support from your readers to buy those products that have been certified."I agree. The subscribers of Mercola.com are probably one of the largest groups in the United States with respect to being informed consumers. I urge all of you to make this group even larger by sharing this information with as many people as you can, in order to help us reach the needed tipping point.Given Monsanto's overwhelming power over our regulatory agencies and processes, the approach presented by the organic industry certainly sounds reasonable. Of course, getting everyone onboard with the Non-GMO Project doesn't happen overnight. It's going to take some time, but we're moving in the right direction, which is to give consumers the power they need to make an educated choice. In this way, we can shift the situation around and duplicate the success we've seen in Europe, where consumers basically voted GM foods off the market, simply by refusing to spend their money on it.On this point, all parties interviewed here seem to agree. You can help further this end goal by actively looking for, asking for, and purchasing Non-GMO Certified foods. "I think the bottom line is that natural food stores need to look at the percentage of the their sales that are certified organic that truly are GMO-free, and make a pledge to double that percentage," Cummins says. Keep in mind, of course that the foods that are candidates for labeling are those that actually contain GM ingredients, i.e. anything with corn, soy, canola, and now sugar beet sweeteners. Foods that do NOT contain any of these ingredients will obviously not need to be labeled as Non-GMO.… We have a good chance. I believe that people will stand up for their rights," Cummins says. If we could get the retailers… to make a pledge to get the GMOs out, and in the meantime to truthfully label that they are there, consumers will do the same thing they have done in Europe, which is vote with their pocketbook." It seems quite clear that the Federal government has been overtaken by corporate America and will not do anything without approval from the biotech industry. But I have to keep stressing that this does not mean we have completely lost. Our leverage and power lies on the local retail level, at first. This is where we all must apply pressure -- NOW!It is important that all interested in healthy food recognize that the enemy is Monsanto, not Whole Foods, Organic Valley, or any other organic food company. We need to work together and not become divisive. If we vote with our pocketbooks and purchase only non GMO foods we can and will change the industry just like they did in Europe.

So how do we do that?The most practical option you have it to choose organically certified varieties -- the gold standard of which is the USDA 100% Organic label -- as the only GM ingredients allowed in them are those produced by contamination, which is well below one percent.Additionally you can participate in Jeffrey Smith's Non-GMO Tipping Point Network on a number of levels, depending on whether you're a consumer, a retailer, or a food manufacturer The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) has also created a variety of tools that makes it easier for you to choose non-GM foods, and this is the way to eradicate GMO's from your local store. Remember, if no one wants to buy them, stores can't sell them, and will simply stop ordering them. Food manufacturers will have to adjust and quickly change their ingredients or risk losing their business.Here is a list of Action Items you can pick and choose from:Distribute widely the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to help you identify and avoid foods with GMOs. Remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. Download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. You can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Guide in bulk and give it to your family and friends. Join the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network, where you can connect with Local and National Non-GMO Action Groups to learn more and help get the word out about GMOs to others. Bring the film Hidden Dangers in Kid's Meals to your local access TV station, or perhaps your child's school, along with some educational material specifically designed for teachers and educators. Share Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No!, and Jeffrey's lecture, Everything You Have to Know About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods with everyone you know. Post them to your Facebook page, or email the links to your network of friends and family. Send a letter simultaneously to dozens of food companies, dairies, and supermarkets, telling them you're one of the millions of non-GMO eaters and urge them to prevent GM alfalfa from entering their supply chain, and to take steps to remove all GMOs. To sign and send these letters automatically, see this link. Join the Institute for Responsible Technologies Facebook page, or follow them on Twitter. Also support the Non-GMO Project by urging your local food retailers to join the Non-GMO Project's Supporting Retailer Program, and food manufacturers to join and become Non-GMO Project Verified. This is currently the best way for manufacturers to get around the fact that there's no GM-labeling system. 



Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.&#8224;The World's #1 Natural Health Website claim is based upon Alexa Natural Health Website rankings.Privacy Policy  | Terms of Use
Disclaimer: The entire contents of this website are based upon the opinions of Dr. Mercola, unless otherwise noted. Individual articles are based upon the opinions of the respective author, who retains copyright as marked. The information on this website is not intended to replace a one-on-one relationship with a qualified health care professional and is not intended as medical advice. It is intended as a sharing of knowledge and information from the research and experience of Dr. Mercola and his community. Dr. Mercola encourages you to make your own health care decisions based upon your research and in partnership with a qualified health care professional.&#8224;The World's #1 Natural Health Website claim is based upon Alexa Natural Health Website rankings.If you want to use this article on your site please click here. This content may be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required. © Copyright 1997-2011 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.





Document Number: 6161 

Not Monsanto's Fault! Ever.

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Monsanto has an interesting clause in its seed contract. The Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement has a waiver that shifts all liability from any incidental, direct, indirect consequences from its seeds from the company to the farmer.

	Apparently, Monsanto is so sure that their seeds are problem-free that they refuse to take responsibility for them...

	Want to plant Monsanto's GMO seeds? Here is your cross to bear:

	GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

	That means if your seed contaminates an organic field and the farmer sues you for ruining their certification, you can't blame Monsanto. 

  






Document Number: 2370 

Results with 1,169 short comments
Total of 45,367 votes - click on the "Display Comments" bar below to sort comments
GM foods proven to alter the genetics of intestinal bacteria. Pollen pollution spreads the GMO alterations to nearby crops and weeds.By the time we know of all side effects, our health and may be even lives have been impacted.  Why mess with nature?I think our ramant obesity problem is in part caused by GE food, fat people sure look much different than they did 20 years ago. tABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! And we are supposed to trust the goverment...just because THEY say it's safe! Baloney! It's all about Monsanto & profitsHow dare they play God with our food, endanger our health, our food supply, and then decide it doesn't need labeled!!! It's insane!Corn makes you fat.  That's why they give it to livestock before killing them.Everyone should watch the documentary "Food Inc"
If you have netflix it is free on demand.I react to corn here in the US, but I can eat corn in Mexico, Guatamala.  I feel fatigued and headachy.
GE Corn toxic to bees too.I react to corn here in the US, but I can eat corn in Mexico, Guatamala.  I feel fatigued and headachy.
GE Corn toxic to bees too.It should be illegal for the FDA to allow large AGRI companies to GM ANY of our food. SHAME on them. They should all be fired. ORGANICNotice how they limit the responses you can give? Any GMO is BS. I DO NOT WANT IT.....Period.  Just say no to GMO!We're in the Information age. Of course we want to be informed! Anyone that says otherwise is in the "Ignorance is bliss" category.I don't know if there's anything wrong at all with genetically modified foods, but people have the right to choose what they want to eat.I have a family of sensitive individuals who do not need any more problems.  We're starting to grow our own this spring.Informed consent. Tell me exactly what you want to feed me in the name of profit, so I can decide whether to let you.It's is Dangerous, and you CAN NOT TRUST the FDA or USDA anymore!!! NO GMO, GOVERNMENT!! DO YOU LISTEN "WE THE PEOPLE" or to CORPORATIONS?Monsanto needs to be stopped. Watch the movie Food Inc for your own families protection! They are destroying the farming/food industry!They did so well with allowing antibiotics in animal food, so that now we have superbugs our best drugs can't kill. This is gross arroganceThe government is getting out of hand when they decided on what is best for me. I want to know what the heck they are putting in something.There is also the issue of making farmers economically dependent on the companies who sponsor the growing of such products.As a person struggling with digestive problems, I would like to know.....what is happening to this nation?look up super weeds, no longer roundup resistant so GMO crops are worthless. You are what you eat,  know your farmer know your food.While I haven't followed this issue very closely I happened to come across this today:This seems to be very troubling.  Are there any biologists or crop scientists looking at this discussion that could weigh in?Yes there are, and we are for GMO.  Nothing troubling when you look at the research.  Here's a few sources to get you started:These are not PR or marketing pieces put out by agribusiness companies, these are actual reports from our governing agencies or peer reviewed scientific journal articles, and many offer both sides of the argument in order for you to get all the facts and decide for yourself.  I agree.  I grew on a farm, and no one I know has a problem with them.  They allow more food to be grown with less pesticides needed.  It's safer for people in my family because they don't have to deal with as many chemicals, and it's better for the consumer for the same reason.  I appreciate the "green" lifestyle, but when people eat organic I remind them their food came from under-utilized land which could be used to prevent more people from starving by using more GMOs.It's not really a question of whether you think it's safe, it's a question of whether consumers have the right to know what they're eating.  Personally I think they should have that right.  It's pretty hard to argue that we shouldn't tell people what they're eating, unless you make money by growing/selling it or you're a federal bureaucrat taking donations from those who do. I see what you are saying checkerbattery, but why not make the same demands for other factors.  For example, should we label every bread baked with what kind of (non GMO) wheat strain was used to grow it?  Every pesticide that could have been used on it?   What year the it was originally harvested in?  Do you think most people could even tell me what kind of grain their bread is made of?  If not, why is this different?  It's not for safety.  Religious reasons?At the end of the day, I suppose I don't have a problem with labeling GMO foods.  But at the same time, it really hurts to hear that people don't want it without having any reason why.  By demanding non-GMO foods you are asking America's farmers to go back to exposing themselves to a chemical cocktail of pesticides that usually ends up giving them severe health consequences down the road, not to mention starving people who could have benefited from better land usage.Starving people? Give them access to growing their own foods and once they see what GMO's do to a body they will choose heirloom/natural any day.Kerry you are so terribly misinformed on this topic it really hurts replying to you, but I feel I need to in hopes that it benefits others (since your mind clearly cannot be changed).  I urge you to look at one or two of the references I posted.  As I said most are not biased references, they present both sides of the argument.  Please read #8 by Gaskell and #24 by Whitman, those are great places to start.  HA HA HA. You see, if people know better they seek the truth that quackery tries to slide of hand.Sorry,no customer here to gmo.The GM companies are responsible for testing and reporting their own results to the FDA. It is a farce.  There are more people with cancer than ever before... certainly there is some connection in this whole cycle.Those of you who are FOR GMO's obviously have no freeking clue what you are talking about.The tests on animals PROVE they are different, and potentially deadly.  There is so much proof out there that the US public doesn't hear it's staggering.Most of Europe have banned these foods and in the countries that don't ban it, they at least label the products so consumers know what they are eating.Do yourself a favor and read Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception by Jeffrey Smith.  Watch 'The world according to Monsanto'.As for being a sustainable crop, that is also false.  There are superweeds that are now roundup ready and can't be killed.  The Roundup is destroying the land and making 'dead zones' that nothing grows in anymore.Monsanto (aka the FDA) should all be tried for crimes against humanity.This is a travesty of our food system and it's getting worse.This is what happens when our government is owned by corporations with lobbyists and in the case of the FDA, most of the superiors are in fact former Monsanto employees.  This is a serious conflict of interest with YOU paying the price with your health.Welcome to corporate greed that is backed by the US government.And btw, GMO corn is registered as an herbicide.  It makes BT Toxins and those genes responsible for that CAN transfer to YOUR gut bacteria making your gut produce an herbicide inside you.Then people wonder why they are sick.Wake up....You can side-step most of their shenanigans immediately without the government banning GMO items. It's easy:I will tell you that most farmers are already farming with their testicles in a vice. They're leveraged and mortgaged and overloaned so deep that the only way to keep on from year to year is to continue to buy HYBRID GMO seed grains plus all the PETROLEUM related inputs needed to force the crop to grow. I have personally seen the DEAD soils in my area of the mid-west. Terrifying.With the new Food Safety Bill that was just passed, growing a garden is now much harder and for organic farmers, it creates a massive amount of government BS they must go through to remain in business.Make no mistake, this was done on purpose for that reason alone.  When the FDA is subsidiary of Monsanto, small farmers lose.Now they want GMO Alfalfa out on the market, despite a federal judges order not to.  Why?  MONEY.  Alfalfa is a crop that doesn't need herbicides or pesticides to grow so why GMO it?  Another attack on organics.  Now to get organic meat you will have to be very careful since alfalfa grows wild and will easily contaminate the fields of organic farms.People need to SCREAM for the FDA to stop this madness before ALL your food will create sickness and chronic illness.YOU ARE WHAT YOU EATHere is a video EVERYONE should watch.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5559950370092458530hl=en#docid=3015279868041217732Organics are en excellent source of e-coli, salmonella and other food borne pathogens. If you enjoy diarrhea and other enjoyable side effects of food poisoning then organics are your best bet. All these holier-than-thous really get old trying to demand that everyone convert to their enlightened ways, eat what your comfortable with and let everyone else do the same.checkerberry from 1.3 above - In my grandma's day it was standard practice to brag about EXACTLY what corn one was buying when they bought a can of corn.The canning company was proud to let us know that we were buying say, "White Shoepeg" type sweet corn.This sort of labeling would inspire consumers. I for one would like to see it come back. How hard would it be to add a couple of lines of text to a bag of frozen peas so we would know they were "Little Marvel" peas. Or a bag of frozen green beans might say "Kentucky Wonder."Too difficult? Guess so . . .The only way to know what I'm about to eat is to BUY FROM A LOCAL GROWER OR EVEN BETTER, GROW MY GARDEN AGAIN THIS SPRING."Many of these opponents acknowledge that there is not much solid evidence showing genetically modified foods are somehow dangerous or unhealthy. It just doesn't seem right, they say. It's an ethical issue."
Everything that we've eaten since getting off of 'mother's milk' has been 'Genetically Modified' through a process of artificial selection, including corn, watermelon, lamb and beef. It just took a lot longer using the old fashioned methods (thousands of years).Gee, I wonder if the 'organic foods' industry has a vested interest in scaring the public with no evidence whatsoever?I do agree, however, that the public has a right to know about our food supply, so they can make 'informed decisions' on whether they want to spend a lot more money on 'organic' foods."Kerry-257967Starving  people? Give them access to growing their own foods and once they see  what GMO's do to a body they will choose heirloom/natural any day."The way I see it, you will have 3 choices.. Eat the GM food. Pay more for the non-GM food, since it costs more to grow and is, probably, less healthy. Grow your ownPuddleduck....even if you grow your own, which is an admirable thing to do, chances are, you're buying seed stock that's still owned and GM'd by Monsanto. Unless of course you're lucky enough to find some really good heirloom seeds. They have a virtual lock on a hell of a lot more than people think, which makes it more scary for the consumer.I'm not a huge activist and I'll continue to eat it until I die, because it is cheap and I'm well aware that I'm going to die from something someday.   But I would have a hard time convincing someone that it is safe when their products have been banned in Canada, Germany, Australia, France, New Zealand.......http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,618913,00.htmlWell, I was going to post news articles on it, but there are too many to choose from.   I'll give you the wiki link who convienently list tons of articles for me :Phttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MonsantoIt's already been referenced, but go to: seedsofdeception.com.  The book itself, Seeds of Deception, will scare the potty water out of you.Yes, our foods have been naturally modified over the years.  However, what these folks fail to tell you is that the mutations - and that is exactly what they are creating - rarely survive in nature.  GMO's are mutations and the method by which they are created is hardly the surgical procedure the Monsanto's of the world would like you to believe.  One doesn't just take a scalpel and carefully insert a gene.  For Pete's sake, genes are virtually invisible.  The mods are blasted into the DNA.  Please read about this and make your decision.How about this little tidbit?  A modified grain produces its own insecticide.  Isn't that great?  Consider this.  Is it a food or an insecticide?  There's an argument about that right now.  Who regulates it?How about this?  Starlink corn.  Go look it up.  On one hand these noble GMO folks tell us there's no worry.  Hey, this stuff doesn't cross pollinate.  Really?  Just what is Mother Nature's mechanism?  Just asking.  Maybe the answer can be found in the fact that these GMO's manage to find their way into the food supply.  No cross-pollination?  Really?Try this baby in a search engine: Corn + Monarch butterfly.Finally, consider this.  Homo sapiens are not butterflies.  We are not chimps, trees, horses, dolphins, or radishes - but we share a great number of genes.  This is the essence of our being.  It's great to make the noble case that this is about saving mankind!  Really?  We don't even know how or when life began, but these guys sure know how to end it.  Saving mankind or making money?  It's your life that's at stake.ROY WILSON-336103You are confused.What you're referring to is the genetic selection used in the long, slow development of many crops such as wheat, which originally began as a grass but was shaped generation after generation through the selection of larger seeds, ultimately leading to modern-day wheat.This stands in stark contrast to genetic engineering, which is theartificial inserting of genetic code (often from animal species, by the way)into the DNA of a plant. This is a completely artificial, interventionist"engineering" of the DNA of a plant that wildly differs from meregenetic "selection."GMO poison pushers attempt to confuse people with these terms by claiming that"lots of foods are genetically modified," thereby blurring the distinction between genetic selection versus genetic engineering. I've even heard top-level scientists attempt to use this false argument, hoping that no one will notice.The simple truth is that genetic selection works in harmony with naturalprocesses of gene variation within a species. If you grow corn, and you savethe seeds from your best-tasting corn to plant the next generation of corn, youare engaged in genetic selection. This is natural.Organics are en excellent source of e-coli, salmonella and other food borne pathogens. If you enjoy diarrhea and other enjoyable side effects of food poisoning then organics are your best bet.Huh?  Says who?  I happen to eat nothing but organic and suffer from none of the things you list.  How is it exactly that you propose organics are more susceptible to these pathogens than "conventional" (i.e., GMO and poisoned) crops?There seem to be some confused people here who contend that use of GMO seed results in less use of poisons.  In fact, the opposite occurs because the GMO crops (many produced by Monstanto) can withstand Round-Up (also produced by Monsanto -- very convenient...one-stop shopping!); therefore, you can dump a hell of a lot more Round-Up on your crops to take out more weeds (that is, before the weeds adapt to the poison and become "superweeds") without harming the Frankenfood plants.  More GMO = more herbicides.Also, it's my understanding that the gene modifications in GMO crops are unstable; they mutate in unexpected ways from one generation to the next.  (See the Jeffrey Smith book referenced above.)I agree with Hope.  Opt out of the insanity.  Yes, it may take more time and more work to find, buy, or grow organic.  Sometimes it takes a little bit more money.  Cut back on something else.  Make health your priority.  The government has already been bought, so we aren't going to find any help there.  Vote with your wallet.  That's the only way we can turn this around.  If we don't buy it, they won't grow it.  If others want to play Russian roulette with their genes (and perhaps wind up harboring pesticide-generating critters in their guts, as mentioned above -- I've read about that, too, by the way), so be it.Back in the "old days" when farms weren't 1000's of acres, people used to cultivated (dig up the soil between rows of crop) and "walk beans" where you had a crew of usually teenagers and took 4 rows at a time and either pulled or chopped off weeds with hoes. Somehow people are thinking that that uses more chemicals?Maybe farms need to get smaller so that the farmers can actually take care of their crops. The way things stand now, these big corporations are buying up all the land (at prices that are unimaginable). Then they look for ways of screwing the workers that care for it and the consumers that buy it. The last few years, i have never seen so much corn left standing in the fields because the owner didn't have time to harvest it. Then they can write it off as a loss because it didn't produce as well as it should have.Ha ha haThats corny.This issue doesn't have anything to do with whether or not GM foods are safe, it has EVERYTHING to do with giving consumer's full disclosure or withholding it from them.  I believe consumers have a right to know as much as they want to about the merchandise they buy.  I have yet to find a valid arguement in favor of withholding information from consumers about the products they buy.There is a mis-conception that there is a difference between the natural selection process and the gene-splicing techniques used to give the characteristics of one organism to another.  A lot of this has to do with confusion with selective breeding.Selective breeding is where a husband of a plant or animal selects a particular characteristic and then reinforces it generation after generation.  Look at dogs -- the process of selective breeding is on-going.  Plants have been bred and hybridized for all sorts of characteristics for thousands of years.  This is just natural evolution and guided selection.But natural selection does not always work like selective breeding.  Very often pieces of random genetic material are snipped from one organism and implanted in another organism.  The most common way this is done is by viruses.  This is how viruses cause cancer.  This is how the flu virus mutates as it passes from bird to pig to man.  And this is a major way that organisms mutate naturally.The most common UNNATURAL way of modifying plants and animals is hybridization.  Hybrid plants (like hybrid corns) cannot produce fertile corn.  This is a very desirable trait if you sell seed corn.  A jack and a jenny make a mule.  A mule is sterile, so the only way you can make one is by hybridization. But genetic modification is plants and potentially animals is much more similar to genetic naturally genetic mutation by viruses than it is to either selective breeding or hybridization.  And it is considerably more "natural" than hybridization which produces fatally flawed plants and critters.The idea if taking a desirable gene and inserting it into a plant is not new and is patterned after nature.  In fact, in some instances, viruses are used to move the genetic material just as in nature.  I do believe that people have a right to know what they are eating, but there are much more serious issues afoot than than genetic engineering.  Massive imports of food from other countries bring with it banned pesticides and insecticides and herbicides and fungicides that are extremely dangerous and the FDA is insufficiently manned to stop it.  The imported foods bring in insects and diseases to which local plants and animals have no resistance.  This causes more and insecticides and pesticides to be used.  So-called "organic" foods are defined in such a way that over 90% of insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, pesticides , fertilizers, and other chemicals are approved for use and still call the food "organic."  (This is because any chemical derived from a naturally occurring plant compound is okay.  Virtually all such chemicals are created by mimicking a naturally occurring plant protein, so they are all okay.  Especially if they don't tell you.)  And because food production is not keeping up with population growth, people are starving.It is not genetic modification that I see is a problem.  It is not telling people so they can choose.  It is misleading the public that is wrong.  It is allowing corporate control of the food supply so that corporate greed becomes the driving force and commoditization becomes the method that is wrong.We have people in this world to feed and genetic modification, if properly used and scientifically vetted, is just one tool than can help.  But leaving our food in the hands of corporations is not the way.  Already, if you eat anything containing corn or products made from corn (including high fructose corn syrup), or soybeans or anything made from soybeans (which is even a longer list) you are already eating genetically modified food and have no choice.  You gave up your right to choose when you put ADM and ConAgra in charge of your food.I'm a farm boy and can grown most of my own food (and do grow a lot).  But it is shocking how little people know about how food is grown, how seeds are produced and sold, how selective breeding and hybridization work and where food comes from.All they see is the word "genetic" and it scares them because they have no idea what is being discussed.  And then they see the word "organic" and think everything of all right again.  Both views are equally wrong.It is absolutely VITAL that BigAgra (read Monsanto) tell us what they are doing with our food!! At the very least, we can protect ourselves by understanding the barcodes for produce. Here's what they mean:Organic produce has a five-digit number beginning with a 9. Organic bananas, for example, would be given the designation of 94011.Conventional produce has a four-digit number beginning with a 3 or 4. Therefore, the number on conventionally grown bananas would be 4011.Genetically engineered produce also has a five-digit number on the label and begins with an 8. Again, the number on genetically altered bananas would be 84011.Print this out and put it on your refrigerator.more info at this website: http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/organics/labeling.htmChris 749391There are many false things in your post. Hybridization of two corn varieties does not result in infertile corn. not at all, if it did corn would of died out long long ago as it is a HEAVY outcrossing plant.In actual reality if you crossed a red earred corn to a blue one lets say, youd end up with a "hybrid" of those two varieties. If you used the same parents for each side(the male is the pollen donor and the female the one you take the pollinated seed from) you would end up with traits from both parents. you would get the SAME hybrid every time you crosses them in the same way.If you grow out the seeds from there you will start seeing all the variation present in both parents. Including sometimes new or unnoticed recessives or mutations, and also you can over time use this to select out and recombine the desirable traits that were the reason you crossed both of those varieties......Also the way viruses become part of the genetics of an organism is nothing remotely like the genetic splicing in question. It sounded good to one of the industries propagandists, and it stuck thats all. The processes are vastly different and relate with different types of genetic transfer...... Let us not forget these things have not been fully tested. in the ONLY tests done outside of the industry, they have proven completely unsafe. Several of the mainstays actually. Heck the GM cotton even messes with farmers who grow it, let alone drops yields greatly and having more pest issues.Roy wilson....Whether you realize it or not, everything you said was completely false. Gms have NEVER been fully tested. The small sets of tests we do have show them completely unsafe. These are not considered conclusive yet, well because the industry pulled strings and made most of them go away actually. Many lost their jobs... If you actually dig into it, I promise you without a shadow of doubt you would change your tune.Unniversity of Chicago student.Perhaps you should study the topic OUTSIDE of the info put out by those making billions and buying governments around the world to force themselves into and over markets....Yields have NOT gone up with GMs. Not at all. Pesticide usage has went up drastically though. It is a cold hard fact that they try real hard to bury, but the truth is still there to be seen if you look.As a plant breeder I can tell you without a shadow of doubt, GM style breeding within the same genus alone which actually WOULD be no or little different then conventional breeding, COULD greatly enhance yield and enable us amazing avenues of production. I could go on for hours actually.This is not remotely the goal. It is exceedingly clear. There are standard varieties that blow them away, and solid indication if yield was the goal it could be greatly enhanced.Years AFTER releasing these things they made those claims, not before. Because of course it is not true nor was the goal. It was a tactic by a PR agent, and apparently it even works on college students....So all you fellow lab rats out there, keep in mind these things have NOT undergone actual long term tests!!! The few tests not performed by the industry make it very clear there is major issues. Including being nearly 100 sterile in the 3rd generation of mice eating GM soy..... Oh yeah we arent likely to get to many more studies anytime soon, because to grow them you have to sign a contract that says you wont share or grow or save those seeds. the companies refuse to share with researchers so much of it is being studied on YOU. Of course since it is not labeled no one would be able to pinpoint that they are causing issues anyway....These agreements the farmers sign on the seeds also attempt to leave the farmers not the companies accountable for any issues the seeds create.... gee i wonder why non GM seed doesn't need such a signing agreement?Check your sources, MmmMmmBeer...(thanks for the list, though...interesting reading).   I mean...any one who stands to profit from genetic engineering will obviously be for GMOs.Just looking at them briefly, many are from GE companies, BioTech journals or Big Food lobbyist group-funded websites (National Center for Food and Agriculture Policy is funded by Kellogg's...says so on their website).    Other references are outdated.   Super weeds, etc were after some of those reports were written.   These are probably the same sources that were fed to the USDA for the recent Alfalfa fiasco.   GE is inevitable with our corporate food industry (as scary as that is...), but the consumer should be allowed to know where their food comes from.     The more we diverge from nature the less likely she will be there to support us when necessarySo tearing down a forest to put up a shopping mall isn't "diverging from nature"?  how about selectively breeding cattle, rice, and corn over the past thousand years?  Humans have been changing, modifying, and destroying nature since the day we evolved those abilities.  GM foods can actually help feed our ever-expanding population, and use less land so that we can keep building more shopping malls!There are plenty of places on this earth that does not call for deforestation to growfood. It comes down to what are you willing to do to work for your food.There are plenty of places in the world that all it take s is better husbandry and the earth will sustain more people then we currently have on this planet.read post #17, real facts from a real grower.  But you're right, we have tons of space to grow crops once we adopt GM.  That's because GM seeds can be designed to grow in marginal lands, arid lands, swampy land, and even in salt water!  Still fake crap. You can have it I will not buy it. That is why I grow heirloom seeds for my produce. And yes I can tell the difference.No one is forcing you to buy GM foods. When you go to the grocery store, just don't buy corn or soybeans. It's just that simple.Puddle....no, it's not that simple because it's more than just corn or soybeans. It's almost any crop a farmer plants, and you buy, from alfalfa to asperagus, beans to bananas. Bananas by the way, grown commercially, are ALL clones. They can't even reproduce anymore because "GMO is the way to go" bs we've adopted.chuck---- this has always been true of banannas!!! that is just the type of plant it is. all those apples and pears and peaches in the store are clonal as well. We spread the desirable varieties through cuttings and grafting...MmmMmmbeer- conventional breeding does all those things as well first of all. Second the GM guys arent trying to do more then a small fraction of what they could in that regard. Their salt tolerant crops though bring up a new issue. those were designed not for naturally saltier soils, they were made for OUR farmlands drenched in synthetic ferts. which build up salt over decades. Slowly these lands WILL shut down.... They literally are all ready starting to. So instead of fixing the problem they are breeding a bandaid in salt tolerant crops. this will ensure another generation before the soil is possibly unsalvagable.I understand I am saying this well ahead of the curve. But trust me in 10-30 years, what i am saying here about the salts will be more common knowledge as the farms start shutting down.Do all of you folks realize organics can be CHEAPER!!! Farmers now rely on all outside inputs. I could go at length explaining how the fallacy of synthetic ferts was built AND why the current shape of the organic movement is rather pathetic..... but basically it boils down to the fact you CAN manage fertility on site, by better utilizing KNOWN things. a forest does not loose fertility, and nether does a prairie. We can replicate WHY those do not loose fertility in our farms... Indeed both of those things generally build fertility, as soil is slowly built another process we can purposely pursue.the vast majority of approved GM crops have NOTHING to do with growing in dry climates, or salt water.  NONE of them.  the union of concerned scientists actually state that conventional breeding out performs GE hands down.over 95% of GE crops are made to withstand toxic herbicides or contain an insecticide. I think we should be informed before eating "frankenfood".  With food prices on the rise, I think genetically altered food would cost more to make.It's actually the exact opposite, GM food costs less to make and distribute, but consumers will often pay a premium for "organic" label.  I agree we should be informed before eating any food or taking any medication.  The news is not an educational source.  Try googlescholar, or if you have access, pubmed.  It does not make a difference if it is cheaper. If it tastes crappy, causes nausea or regurgitation, or un-healthy side effects it is not needed. It comes down to who you rely on, nature or man. I chose nature any day.Huh that's funny, because the end product is equivalent in every way.  Don't know where you keep getting your misinformation and these asinine notions, but PLEASE of the love of god stop spewing ignorance.  Every post I have read from you has no factual basis, although it is your belief and you are entitled to that.  As I said above, try googlescholar or pubmed if you have access.  It may not change your mind, but should shed light on the ignorance you have been spouting off.Sorry it is my choice and my right to ignore your pseudoscience propaganda. I do need your elitism or skewed science to know better.If there is no difference between your GMO and Natural, why is it there? All it is is a money maker for you because you can not patent or push anything Natural.Gmo's are like a person exercising on a stationarybike, they can peddle all they want but they still do not go anywhere. I prefere to walk or run on my own. I do not need you.Kerry, the incidents of E. coli and salmonella are much higher in organics, if weight loss is your goal then go for it, but exercise is far more enjoyable, although slower than the organic trots."Kerry-257967It  does not make a difference if it is cheaper. If it tastes crappy,  causes nausea or regurgitation, or un-healthy side effects it is not  needed. It comes down to who you rely on, nature or man. I chose nature  any day."According to the article, you have already been eating "frankenfood". Did your food taste crappy or did you get sick from eating it, before you found out that you were eating GM food?Yes I can tell the difference. The majority of foods in the store are altered. Why do you think they are labeled.I do check labels or see where something is made. Didn't always because there was no need until after so many people/myself were suffering from food poisening.(Manufactured) Why do you think I am against them now? I have had the crap and have been affected by it so I go natural when I can or in some cases go without because I would rather do with out if that is all that is available.I do not eat out, I have almost eliminated home cooked meats to because of all the bacteriophage's and other various additive in the meats. But I do fish and raise my own chickens so my need of the bs out there is very limited.MmmMmmbeer--- Your wrong here as well. Subsidies from MANY levels keep GMs "cheaper" the farmers are subsidized, the oil and such used to make the ferts etc are subsidized.So lets see, seeds that cost multiples of standard seed(sane farmers could save a ton saving their own seed but this was brainwashed out of them)The inputs cost multiples more...... the work involved the same..... mmm nope not cheaper...where you may be confused is, the modern organic movement is ALSO a joke. It grew out of some california market garden. They ALSO relied on all outside inputs. then you have certification on top of it.... In all reality using what we know today and taking it back to older systems will make it clear organic is the way to go for cheaper food. Let alone all the related issues. This type of talk we have here isnt congruent to me making my case, but it is rather clear breaking down all the variables, to simple non emotional math problems....I'd rather rely on a smaller food supplier (farm/ranch, etc) with ethics and a sense of liability to their consumers than trust that the massive assembly-line corporate food chains have practiced safe food handling.   Their solution:  treat the meat in Ammonia to deal with the issue.  Um...no thanks.   I did read that organic produce will grow bacteria more quickly than conventional produce due to the speed of delivery and flash-freezing, etc.   If you're buying locally every weekend, though, it probably isn't an issue.Anyone that regularly eats all natural, hormone free, grass fed beef at home and then has a burger at their neighbor's chock full of fillers, hormones, etc. will testify to the vast difference in taste.    I bought some blueberries the other day that were damn near inedible because they tasted like stems (studies of GM soy and corn found a higher level of lignin - the woody component in trees and plants).    I'm not saying this is undeniable proof by any means, but it's just interesting that the GM blueberries tasted woody...If you can't taste the difference between fresh, natural produce and GMOs then you have probably been desensitized by the massive amounts of sweeteners in everything you eat (this is not an insult, but a rising problem that I think is really sad).  Chain restaurants put sugar water on lettuce to keep it fresh longer, concentrated sweeteners in coffees (4 pumps, really?),  Splenda, and all the HFCS in EVERYTHING.The worlds population continues to grow and without GM food a lot of people would go hungry.  Like it  or not GM crops are  the greatest production boon since the invention of chemical fertilizers.  We keep making more people while at the same time destroying good farmland to build houses.  Something has to give.I'd like to see the population "give" first and formost.Were I to strike a huge lottery I'd hire production of a GMO cereal grain which, when eaten, would cause humans to not get pregnant. Now that would be a useful GMO crop.Look at the naturalnews.com website. There is an article now that deals with just that topic. Not by a lay person but the person directly involved. It is being put to the FDA to be wary of this GMO food. But just like all the other deadly crap the FDA approves this deadly grain will be approved.Were I to strike a huge lottery I'd hire production of a GMO cereal grain which, when eaten, would cause humans to not get pregnant. Now that would be a useful GMO crop.Well, it seems we're someone beat you to the punch...just have some GMO soy. Be sure to feed it to your kids, too, and in a couple of generations...poof! Sterility! Either that or just really high infant mortality."In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink. In mice, young sperm cells were altered. Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy."More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeks before they were mated."After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled."After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179)." (www.pccnaturalmarkets.com/issues/gmconcerns/reproductive.html)Article cites the following:  A worm that eats GMO corn dies. Why would you want to eat something that kills ?You can spray weed killer on corn stalk it wont kill stalk. It just makes the weeds around it grow stronger and more resitant to the weed killer. So Farmer has to add more stronger weed killer.A visious cycle leading to crop falure.I feel GMO crops kill honey bees.Has anyone noticed that GMO 100% cotton bath towels dont dry you like your old 100% bath towels used to.?Not to mention rats that were put in front of GMO corn vs. non gmo corn and the rats ignored the gmo corn.How about the deadly potato?I have a dog that will not eat certain meat products. Obviously cloned or gmo.Kerry, your saying your GMOd dog can sense GMOd food?Kerry, could you get your dog to tell me the winning lottery numbers???  Please?"Say NO GMOA worm that eats GMO corn dies. Why would you want to eat something that kills ?"Hard liquor kills worms, also, but that doesn't stop you, does it?Kerry, I'm still waiting for that savant dog of yours to share those numbers with the rest of us, that dog's got a talent that needs to shared.Are you all stupid ? Dogs  can SMELL cancer and tumors in people.  Dogs AND cats can smell when someone is going to die.  So why the hell wouldn't they be able to smell genetically altered food ?  They have the most highly sensitive sense of smell in the world.  WTF planet are you from ... URANUS ? I happen to work in genetic research for a major seed company...People have been manipulating our food genetics for thousands of years...selectively breeding animals and plants...MOST of the science we use just speeds up this process using genes already in plants...we just find them and put them into selected germplasm...People must remember that for the number of humans today, we need to maximize the amount of food we can producing from a shrinking number of acres...What you say may be true...and I would agree we need to continue to improve our food productivity, but don't be blind. The issue is 'he who controls the patents, controls the food chain'.  The reason Monsanto sues others is to put them out of business and acquire the market share for themselves.  The number of former Monsanto executives now in decision points in the US government is absurd and through their decisions clearly shows a prejudice against those who compete against Monsanto.  You clearly have some great skills which benefit us all, its just sad to hear you fail to acknowledge the real issue with the seed industry, not to mention the other forms of agriculture now being genetically modified and controlled.There is a difference between hybridizing a plant and altering it with round up or some other chemical that was NEVER intented to be part of that plant or animal species.How many horns or mutated genes do you want in your food supply?Actually Idiot, Monsanto lost the majority of corn market to Syngenta.  So stop bitching about them pressuring/suing their way to the top.  Their law suits were valid since the grower was contracted to use Monsanto seeds and then didn't.  Breach of contract.  No conspiracy.  Kerry- the amount of modified genetic material is determined to be insignificant compared to the amount of natural genetic information that remains by regulatory bodies and experts in genetics, environmental science, etc.  The only difference between hybridization and GM is the time it takes.  Corn would still be an inedible seed without human intervention.  Those genes were mutated, by us, through cross breeding.  Now we are using technology to finish what we started generations ago.   Some technology, forcing a farmer to only buy your corn or whatever plant because they were bread to be infertile to produce offspring and they have to exclusively buy from you the manipulator/monopolizer.Not to mention if a farmers crop is infected by a GMOcrop within the vicinity, the farmer gets sued because the crappy pollen infects a farmers crop.....Give me a break. GMO is crap.Kerry, try mixing more common sense and education into your diet and less emotion, and at the same time if you chose keep buying organics there are a lot of good farmers out there growing organics who need your support.Trouble, you got that right mixing common sense with starfish genes and shark cartlige to inject into corn to alter cattle feed that alters the human system....No thank you you have mixed it up enough.The only difference between hybridization and GM is the time it takes.Without GM technology, how long do you anticipate it would have taken us to actually convince a tomato and a fish to breed with one another so that the tomato offspring could have a fish gene in it??? Remember the fish-gene tomato?"Get a Clue People": RE:People have been manipulating our food genetics for thousands of  years...selectively breeding animals and plants...MOST of the science we  use just speeds up this process using genes already in plants...we just  find them and put them into selected germplasm...People must remember that for the number of humans today, we need to  maximize the amount of food we can producing from a shrinking number of  acres...The science that "you" use is not speeding up the selective breeding that that humans have been doing all this time. Transgenic genetic engineering is not natural. Combining species genes would not happen in nature in the way that the your seed companies create new organisms. There's a big difference between selective breeding and transgenic genetic engineering.See: ﻿"Animal-human transgenic combinations represent a booming aspect of biotechnology. Here are several examples:Pig organs can be used for human transplants.Who died and left the "major seed companies" God?And what will these seed companies resort to when the Earth's population reaches 30 billion? 40 billion? This planet does have a carrying capacity, do you think we have reached it yet?I can see that anyone that argues FOR Transgenic organisms must be protecting their livelyhood or investment. There is no other reason to allow it.  paulchefurka.ca/Population.htmlThis was cut from my first comment:  actionbioscience.org/biotech/glenn.htmlKerry, try mixing more common sense and education into your diet and less emotion.We're in Trouble, please mind # 1 of the Code of Honor in the future.Above all else, respect others. Address issues and arguments and refrain from making personal attacks.Montsanto has not only destroyed our farming/food, they are suing farmers who's crops have been altered by the spread of their altered seeds. They go after anyone who disagrees with them. They sue farmers who try to use seeds they've gathered from their own farming because their seeds have been contaminated by drift of their patented engineered seeds. It is crazy! Thankfully I have nothing they can take from me. I hope more people spread the word.The real issue here is 'he who controls the patents, controls the food chain".  The power Monsanto has over the global food chain, and suing anyone who's crop is contaminated by their wind/bird/insect plants is absurd. Further, the consolidation of the US food producers, including grains, poultry, beef and other livestock, in the US should make everyone stop and think.  Make your voice and vote loud and clear -- buy locally from small farmers. Say no to GMO and hit these corporations closest to where they can hear it...in their wallet...the only way to force them to change is to not buy what they have to sell.Why dont you ask a starving man if he will eat GE food. We have a lot of those on earth and more every day. GE food is our best shot at increasing the food supply.And five minutes later see him puke his guts out. If you have to rely on someone to grow your food you deserve any side effects their fake food causes.Yeah......one things for sure......if that starving man works for Monsanto.....he'd know better than to eat that "secret-sauce" corn.I'd be happier if mankind stopped fornicating and producing more people than the world needs !! If we were all to "weed" out the greed from our own minds, critical mass would one day be achieved and hence no need for all this "invention" of mankind. For Monsanto ? Read "Highly refined Slavery/Colonialism". Heck Yes! GMO products off the market! No one enjoys a side of Bacillus Thuringiensis with their corn. F&*( Monsanto! Monsanto, thanks for killing all the bees!And Bayer Phamaceuticals/Petrochemicals. With all of the idiots in here pushing GMO, it does not matter if all your propaganda being pushed, if I do not want ANYTHING  GMO I have the right to grow, eat or sell anything not natural.So no matter the rational for the frankenfoods I can disregard all the spin and pseudoscience crap and choose what I want to.The answer to the planets food problems can not be solved by GMO. it is the growth of Natural Foods that offer the solution. Why else do you think so many Countries reject the GM foods?All you have to do is do your own research on the deadly affects of GMO's (Not the propaganda they are tauting) and you too will reject their BS. If you choose to be suckered into their deception, do not limit my access to real foods not polluted by GMO.Nothing in the above statement sounds educated or even makes much sense.  Misperception of risk...this article states pretty clearly there is no scientific evidence against GMO, it "just doesn't seem right" to folks like you.  And in truth, it's perfectly natural to be scared of new things you do not understand.  Just don't ruin it for the rest of the world by spreading ignorance :)  Thanks, good day!Sorry GMO byproduct,I have had 5 greenhouses and currently actively use 2. I have done the comparing to natural vs. GMO and I prefer to grow natural.I do not need to look to "science" if what I am doing suits me just fine. Investigation shows that all science does is cause dangerous side effects and one has to accept those dangers just because science says so.If I do not need GMO science why do I need to listen to pusher like you? I am perfectly happy and fine with what I know. You can not offer me anything more natural then what I have.I have to agree with Beer.  I grow GMO corn and have for some time.  The resistant weeds have to do with a farmer trying to cheat and not use the recomended rates and that is whay many have resistant weeds and not using a product with a different mode of action.  If you would try and grow organic food the production of the millions of acres of US corn would drop in half.  The US uses almost all of our corn domestically and we need 5 billion bushels just for feed use.  We only grew 12 billion last year.  Half is only 6.  tell me that producing half as much grain organically is better than trying to help solve the world problems.  Look to the middle east to see the potential results of growing too little food.I prefer giving an angels share for natural or foods not GMO then to have 90+ returns on GMO. That which is not abl;e to grow can be tilled back into the ground for natural fertilizer. (No GMO needed) There are too many instances of people's health being affected and taste by GMO's. So a product you loose to nature or a product you loose your health to? I choose to grow my own. I do not need science to tel me how grow what I choose to.I recall asking one of my rancher/farmer relatives out in Colorado about 30 years ago "Why don't you quit with the industrial farming methods?" He said he had to keep up with neighbors. The way it looked to me it was all about yield. He failed to see, or factor in, that the energy it took to get the yield negated a lot of the result.So great - you grow 200 bushel acres of corn but at WHAT cost?? Say it costs you 700 per acre to make 800 by the time you buy GMO seed, organo-phosphate insect (and bird and mammal) killer, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizer - most of which are PETROLEUM based, then load up all these into your oil burning farm machinery. Each input in huge. My view was to retreat from expensive inputs and settle for less yield.So you get 50 bushel acres of corn but consider the benefits of CLEAN land and another benefit of higher corn prices simply because there is LESS of it. Suddenly you're "only" growing 50 bushels per acre but YOUR INPUT IS ABOUT ZERO! And the price of corn goes up to where you could maybe make a few HONEST bucks. (Don't get me started about gov't farm subsidies  . . . )Fear prevents it. That's where they get our farmers. GROW GROW GROW is the tendency. Maximize yield. Trouble with that is when EVERYONE does it the price per bushel falls to BELOW THE COST TO GROW. This is an absolute FACT. I've seen it first hand where I live. The only ones getting rich are the suppliers to the farmers. Seed grains and petroleum.The horse has already left the barn and farmers, being such completely independent types, any union or true cooperation toward improvement of the dire farm situation/environmental situation in this country won't happen in my lifetime I am afraid.I know a guy who's been trying to grow organically.  I haven't ever really seen a crop in his fields.  There are 1000 times the weeds in his fields as anybody elses.  And what do weeds grow, more weeds.  The guy has been on the verge of going broke for years.  Its only a matter of time. On the fossil fuel use.  I would have to make more trips over my fields doing a process that uses 3 to 4 times the fuel to achieve desirable results.  I don't have that many hours in a day.  Its just not possible.  And we still wouldn't be able to feed those of us in the USYou also need to look at the so called weeds on just about any given field. A lot of those weeds are actually herbs that grow there NATURALLY. Some plants are noxious but those weeds are also a natural composting material that aids plant growth.You can grow your GMO but everyone has the right to know what seed you use, chemicals and the process used to pollute the food supply. I will wager if you put a real, organic, heirloom tomato(Or any other crop) up against a GMO tomato and all the chemicals used to grow that tomato and the majority would choose the real one. It actually probably wouldn't hurt to this country to grow less corn.  We have more of the stuff than we know what to do with!  Sure, we make a ton of it into high fructose corn syrup and sometimes even polenta or a tortilla or something.  But it's in EVERYTHING.  We burn it for fuel.  We make batteries out of it.  We feed it to livestock whose bodies never evolved to be able to use it properly.  And still there's more and more and more...MOUNTAINS of corn.  So, please, tell us what would be so terrible about growing less corn.You mean other than the fact that were are at the lowest inventory levels in at least 10 years.  By the time harvest starts in the US (late August) we will have less than a months suppy of corn available for any use, feed, ethanol, export, human consumption.  By the way there is less than a handful of corn in your corn cereals.You mean other than the fact that were are at the lowest inventory levels in at least 10 years. By the time harvest starts in the US (late August) we will have less than a months suppy of corn available for any use, feed, ethanol, export, human consumption.Well, maybe it's time we (1) let animals feed on pasture, (2) consider alternate energy sources (we've had the techology for hydrogen-fueled vehicles for decades but have chosen not to employ it), and (3) plant something else for human consumption. We didn't evolve to ONLY eat corn in the myriad ways we've learned to prepare it. As for exports, nobody wants our GMO crap anyway...that is, nobody who's not already under our thumb.By the way there is less than a handful of corn in your corn cereals.Not in my corn cereals. I don't eat corn cereals.Sadly the "Corn Lobby" in the US is so powerful ... and the product so overwhelming, that prospective "free trade" partners are "FORCED" into buying your excess High Fructose Corn Syrup before your country will sign any deal ... if this is not Colonialism, I don't know anything. Talk about exporting obesity !From the makers of such great products as:AGENT ORANGEBOVINE GROWTH HORMONEWe bring you your corn! Eat it up suckers!At least we have this ﻿ ﻿......so we can regrow our food supply.....after we get wiped out like the bees....... ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svalbard_Global_Seed_VaultWhat kinds of seeds do you think are in that vault.  I know someone who put some there and there not all nonGMOI agree, Monsanto, and the government don't care if we get cancer or anything else from eating this unnatural crap.Good business for the pharmaceutical companies!I am far less concerned about people eating genetically modified corn than I am by people eating the crap at fast food outlets and the vast majority of restaurants.Um......don't forget about the oils and other ingredients derived from Corn and other GMO products......the fast food outlets are definitely not looking out for our health.Rob - It's fast food which probably contains the most GMO sourced items. So the people who choose to eat that stuff are getting a double whammy of dis-ease.Not to mention why you have to feel sick after eating fast food or gmo products just to have something in your belly? Why do you think there are so many allergies and side effects of GMO? The combinations or manor the GMO/fast foods are MANufactured is the main reason people are so ill. http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods/HealthRisksBrochure/index.cfmBuy  certified organicYou do realize that "organic" was a marketing ploy right?  The sole purpose of creating the "organic" label was to net growers more profit, since they already operate on razor thin margins.  The product is identical to every other produce on the shelf.  Simple analytical tests have shown this time and time again.Now if you want to go down to your local farmer's market, go right ahead and spend a little more, if it makes you feel good inside.  But I guarantee that the "organic" tomato sitting next to the standard shelf tomato at your friendly neighborhood supermarket is the exact same.  Keely - absolutely!Buy or grow your own. There are heirloom seed saver organizations sprouting up all over the place. Search the internet and find a reliable source for your spring garden seeds. And support your local small grower of good organic fruit and veg. Don't forget the CSA growers. CSA = community supported agriculture. This is a cool and slow movement quietly going on and growing.What MMM is saying is if you want to buy someone else's food other then it's GMO go ahead. Because the more people buy foods that are not GMO it affects their bottom line. So in other words.....buy only natural foods, the more you may pay is still better then round up ready crops any day.Organic is not just a marketing ploy, in order to label your products as such, the producer has to be certified. Organic is non GMO and uses no pesticides. I choose organic because I know what I am feeding my family. I have a son with ADHD and recent studies have shown much higher levels of certain pesticides in ADHD kids. This doesn't mean the pesticieds caused the ADHD, but may have contributed to it, The research is ongoing. Also, research also indicates that preservatives, food colorings and additives may exacerbate symptoms of ADHD. Organic foods don't contain these ingredients.You also need to be aware that the FDA allows a certain percent of fake or GMO in organics. So yes it would do you good to know where your organic food comes from. Make sure it is 100% organic.By the way, even organic plants have naturally occurring pesticides in them.  About half of these naturally occurring chemicals that have been tested (not many in the grand scheme of things) have been shown to be carcinogenic.   Bon appetit!About half of these naturally occurring chemicals that have been tested (not many in the grand scheme of things) have been shown to be carcinogenic.Proof?Sorry, I should have backed that up in my first post. I originally came across this info in the book RISK: Why We Fear The Things We Shouldn't - And Put Ourselves in Greater Danger by Dan Gardner, but if you Google "naturally occurring pesticides vegetables" you'll find some info. That specific study is referenced in the agairupdate.com article that shows up in the search results. I don't think any of this suggests that we should be terrified of vegetables, I just think it's good to have perspective. I think if anything, it suggests that just because something tests as a carcinogen in a lab environment (often extremely high doses given to rats), it doesn't necessarily mean it's that big a deal in the real world. In the Gardner book, he claims that some cancer researchers are beginning to question the value of these types of tests. It's the dose that makes the poison, as they say.Thank you.So what... Marigolds are the source of Pyrithrens which are used as natural insecticides. But guess what ? Marigolds are also SAFE TO EAT and are even fed to chickens to give their meat to add color to their meat.  Guess what else... PEPPERMINT OIL...the stuff you flavor food with is also used as an insecticide. It'll kill a cockroach in about 15 seconds because it acts as a nerve toxin but it's PERFECTLY safe for consumption by humans and animals.  This is no different than the fact that grapes, apple seeds and potato skins are toxic to dogs but not humans. Or that Tea Tree oil is toxic to cats but not dogs or humans.Some of the arguments I hear against "natural" foods are completely asinine.HEMLOCK and ARSENIC are natural but only an imbecile would consume them. Use some frigging common sense people.Or don't be a consumer.  I am proud to say I grow the majority of my own all-heirloom produce right in my own back yard...in a small city lot.  If we went back to victory gardens and weren't so far removed from our food sources, would commercial yields really be an issue?http://www.faqs.org/nutrition/Ome-Pop/Organic-Foods.html Been planting "engineered" soybeans, corn, and cotton since the 1960's. Would you like to see the spreadsheets on my yield increase over that span of time. Most of you weren't even alive then, so what do you know about the "old foods' and "old cotton"? All you know about is what you read on the "carved in stone" internet. This is not new science people.I really hope some of the ignorant posters on here read this, I wish I could click "like" button a thousand times.  Although not like they will believe science or facts....How could you ever convince consumers that a gene from a banana belongs in a salmon? Or a gene from a salmon could somehow work its way into a banana?These sorts of modifications are so out of the natural realm the food created by such interference deserves the title "Frankenfood."Amen to Hope.Selective breeding is completely different than genetic engineering. Genetic engineering involves taking genetic material from another organism say bacteria or insect and inserting it into the genes of plant material. This is not natural and would never happen in nature.No, it is not new science; and generational condescension isn't new either. What's new are cancer rates among children and young adults. What's new is a drastic loss of critical thinking within the populace, specifically since the 1970's. What's new are autism rates, youth disorders (ADD/ADHD, etc.) and an explosion of auto-immune disorders. What's new is a complacent public that sits in stark contrast to the last generation raised on wholesome food - The Baby Boomers - and look what's happened to them since the '70's. They've become the very thing they were rebelling against. Do you even realize that the question was not whether or not these foods are good for us but whether or not we should HAVE THE CHOICE? What citizen of "free nation" in their right mind defends not having a choice? Look at society and tell me we don't have a massive, long-term study on the effects of manufactured foods and medicines: The U.S. is the only nation that has been living this way for the last 40 years. How are our graduation rates looking? How's our health report looking? How's our economic standing looking? How's our creativity and ingenuity looking? Maybe if you weren't so distracted by your own spreadsheets and instead were doing some research, you would have a broader perspective. If the internet isn't for you where research is concerned, the library is still open; at least until the states cut funding for them. You better hurry.@justwatching:You wrote this:"Been planting "engineered" soybeans, corn, and cotton since the 1960's."According the wikipedia, whatever you were planting was not what you apparently imagine it to have been, since the first genetically modified ("GM") food approved by the FDA for humans did not appear until 1994 (specifically, the "Flavr Savr" tomato) . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_biotechnologyIn fairness, you were very specific in referring to "engineered" plants, which when referring to what one might call "classical plant husbandry" is not the least bit unnatural, strange, or bizarre . . .On the other hand, you wrote this:"Most of you weren't even alive then, so what do you know about the "old  foods' and "old cotton"? All you know about is what you read on the  "carved in stone" internet. This is not new science people."And while a lot of younger folks were not alive in the 1960s, I was, and the fact of the matter is that this is new science, and it is sufficiently new that it did not exist in the 1960s and several decades thereafter . . .So, while anyone with a computer, web connection, and the ability to compose English sentences can write just about anything, typing words into a computer does not make the words true . . .It might be wonderful to imagine that you were planting genetically engineered ("GE") and genetically modified ("GM") soybeans, corn, and cotton in the 1960s, but you might want to refresh your memory in that respect with a bit of factual information, really . . .Really! @FreeNation?:  WOOO HOOOOO!!!!!  YOU ROCK!!!!!!  Thanks for posting. :)Time to tune out the Pro-GMO Propagandists.  Their tired Monsanto talking points are boring the s h i t out of me and it scares me to death that they actually believe this crap.  I for one hope each and every one of them have some kind of personal health tragedy or financial disaster that is frankenfood related.These people have no conscience or ethics and sure as hell don't care about you, me or the devastation they're doing to the planet, its inhabitants or its resources. All they care about is MONEY.  Well you GREEDY bastards.... YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU !They didnt exist AT ALL then, and not commercially until the 90s. It actually IS new. I am a plant breeder by the way, though an amateur I do read much on the subject. It is 100 percent clear that this is about money and money alone. If they wanted to build better crops through the potentials of GMs it could easily be done, but getting folks to rely on high priced seed and ALL outside inputs ensures a solid profit margin for the seed company. Heck if you know half of what you claim you would know yields did not go up. Pesticides usage did NOT go down as was claimed and keep in mind we are talking about a company that subverting laws and governments across the globe including our own.There were NO GMOs manufactured during the 1960s! The first one was in 1973.GMO Foods are unnecessary and unsafe. The only purpose is to be a Cash Cow for the useless and untalented Corporate Executives. We need to fight this harder than our Ancestors fought the Hybrids. At least the Hybrids do not spread in the Natural Environment.yes I know this, gmos means the bug killer is built in the seed.  meaning you are eating poison! and have been for a long time and so are your kids. alzheimers, adhd, autism, add and all the rest anyone???its shelf live and corporate profits and you are a lab rat.All of our vegetablrs and animals we eat have been genetically or altered to icrease growth output or other needed results for centuries our ancestors and native indians were doing it. It is no big deal we wouldn't even have corn if it wasn't for that it was to small to even mess with before. Get A Grip Worry about something that matters.pissed - not quite true. What went on was SELECTION. This is quite different from whitecoats gene splicing stuff from say, a banana plant into say, a salmon.Our ancestors simply SELECTED the plants which performed best for their needs. This is how the natural world works. "Products" which are useful which appear in the "market of nature" mostly remain. Products which serve no use generally disappear.The quickest way we can get away from GMO nonsense is to simply STOP buying it. If enough of us feel it serves no useful function it WILL disappear.The headline here was SHOULD IT BE LABELED? Emphatically YES it needs to be labeled. Why are they fighting it if everything is so very hunkydory? Because people want to be able to choose NOT to purchase it.I hope they DO label it... w/a skull and crossbones just like all other toxic substances.Frankenfood is patently evil, and there is nothing natural about inserting strange stuff into the genetic algorithms of native grains, vegetables, fruit, roots, animals, and so forth and so on!If it is so safe, then why does the Frankenfood industry fight so vehemently to keep it off food labels?The Frankenfood industry knows what happens when their patently evil concoctions are listed prominently and clearly in food labels, and what the Frankenfood industry, as well as the FDA and USDA, knows is that consumers will avoid such products like the plagues they are . . .Consider high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), which did not exist on this planet prior to the late-1950s when it was concocted in an American chemical laboratory and then nearly two decades later was made commercially viable by demented Japanese chemists, which soon led to high-fructose corn syrup replacing sugar in nearly every beverage and processed food product in our great nation, other than certain baked goods and candy that simply cannot be made with anything other than pure cane sugar . . .Since high-fructose corn syrup was introduced to the food supply of our great nation in the early-1980s, childhood obesity and diabetes have skyrocketed, as has childhood asthma and other problems . . .This also was around the same time that DuPont, DOW Chemical, Montsanto, Aventis CropScience, and so forth and so on began adulterating and toxifying every grain, vegetable, fruit, and root, as well as creating terribly toxic insecticides and pesticides . . .With its somewhat recent acquisition of Semenis, Monsanto now is focused on contaminating and toxifying every native strain of corn and maize in Mexico, and soon there will be no more natural grain in Mexico or anywhere in the world . . .As the MSNBC.com article clearly indicated (although in not so much detail), corn, wheat, rice, and soy are forever contaminated and toxified by a combination of aerial drift and out of control "experimental" GE/GMO "research" projects, which is what happened with LL601 rice and Starlink corn, which over a decade ago led to every Taco Bell tortilla and corn chip, as well as Kellogg's Corn Flakes and other products being pulled from grocery store and fast-food restaurants for months, because Starlink corn never was approved by the USDA and FDA for human consumption . . .I used to enjoy a big bag of Frito-Lay Doritos with homemade guacamole dip every few days, but I cannot tolerate the corn anymore, which started about a decade ago . . .Something in the "Round-up Ready" and BT corn is so alien that it makes corn chips stay in my stomach for hours and hours, so I stopped eating corn chips . . .This stuff is patently evil, and the science is beyond goofy . . .I want to know where it is grown, what is in it, and so forth and so on, and when that information is not provided, I avoid it like the plague . . .If a product only says "Distributed by" but does not state where it was grown and manufactured, as well as by whom, then my view is that something sneaky was done to such an egregious level that the seller does not want anyone to know, hence they do not provide any more information than "Distributed by" . . .There are plenty of websites that have detailed information on which grains, vegetables, roots, fruits, dairy products, and so forth and so on have been contaminated and tainted with toxic substances, and as the MSNBC.com article indicated there is not very much in a typical grocery store that is not contaminated with a virtual festival of unnatural chemicals, toxins, and poisons by the Frankenfood industry . . .In the 1950s, there might have been one obese child, one child with diabetes, and one child with asthma in a typical elementary school, but today it is more likely that there will be only one apparently healthy child, and the primary change over the past half century has been the promotion of Frankenfood in our great nation to such an extent that for all practical purposes nearly everything sold in most grocery stores is Frankenfood, with none of it being clearly identified in food labels . . .There are a few clues, but recognizing them requires doing diligent research and learning all the secret "code words" that make it possible to detect sneaky weaseling . . .The Frankenscientists like to proclaim that their "science" is remarkably precise, but when you do a bit of research what you quickly discover is that all the "gene splicing" and so forth is considerably less precise than one might imagine . . .For a while, this imprecision was dismissed as being due to "noncoding DNA" or "junk DNA", which Frankenscientists conveniently proclaimed was inconsequential, but new research has revealed that "noncoding DNA" actually does something, and the consequences of toggling a relatively obscure snippet of DNA can have dramatically adverse affects on humans, which makes Frankenfood a patently evil experiment that is being conducted on a largely unaware and naive population of humans toward an evil goal that no reasonable and gracious person can imagine . . .Summarizing, if Frankenfood is so wonderful, then ask yourself WHY the Frankenfood industry, USDA, and FDA so vehemently oppose clear and easily understood full-disclosure product labeling?If recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is so wonderful, then put it on the label . . .If Monsanto "Round-up Ready" GE/GMO corn, wheat, soy, and so forth are so great, then put it on the food product label and let consumers decide for themselves whether they want to eat it!If dairy, meat, and fish produced by somatic nuclear cell transfer GE/GMO Frankencloning techniques are so wonderful, then put it on the label and let consumers decide whether they want to eat it!Basically, the "smoking gun" is the simple fact that the Frankenfood industry, as well as the FDA and USDA, go to extraordinary lengths to prevent consumers from knowing the extent to which the food supply has been contaminated by toxins, poisons, and a virtual festival of strange and bizarre chemical and biological entities, none of which existed on the planet prior to the past century, with most of it not existing on this planet until the past half century, and in many instances not until the last decade, for sure . . .For sure!Well written. May I cut and paste into my files?Becasue obesity and diabetic children don't have anything to do with the fact that most kids dont do anything but play video games anymore.  They forgotten what its like to play outside.  My kids, that live on a farm where we grow GMO corn are healthy and fit.  They love to play outside.  I think the exercise quotent to this equation is not given enough weight.@Hope:Sure! :)The somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) stuff is particularly gnarly, although it takes a bit of reading and studying to discover the facts . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somatic_cell_nuclear_transferBasically, the idea is to extract the nucleus of one cell and then to insert the extracted nucleus into another very different cell that has had its original nucleus extracted, which might appear to be a straightforward bit of biology, except that it is not the least bit straightforward, because it is imprecise . . .There is a bit of extra stuff that tags along with the extracted donor cell nucleus, and there is a bit of stuff that remains when the nucleus is removed from the host cell, and it is the bits of extra stuff that do things that typically results in a large percentage of the resulting clones either never becoming viable or becoming so horribly wrong that they do not live very long and have such profound problems that it is patently evil for anyone to do this . . .The Frankencloners never mention the failure rates and the horrible things they create, and they certainly do not want anyone to know the dark and terrible secrets of this patently evil Frankenscience . . .This is the link to the wikipedia overview of "noncoding DNA", and it is useful to know that there are other types of "noncoding" genetic information . . .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noncoding_DNAAnd it is important to understand that the "noncoding" aspect is an misnomer, because it actually is "coding" but current science simply does not know enough about genetic algorithms to have much of a clue regarding what everything does . . .For example, the genetic biology folks like to proclaim that they have "sequenced" the human genome, but when you do a bit of reading and studying, what you discover is that for the most part they have "sequenced" the genome of one man and then "sequenced" the genome of perhaps as many as 500 other people, which then is mapped using questionable mathematics to everyone on the planet, which a bit like the story of the three blind men examining different parts of an elephant and reaching three disparate conclusions regarding what it is . . ."It has been informally reported, and is well known in the genomics community, that much of the DNA for the public HGP came from a single anonymous male donor from Buffalo, New York (code name RP11)."[SOURCE:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genome_project#Genome_donors ]Great!  So, based (a) on some dude from Buffalo spanking his monkey into a biological sample jar and (b) on examining what effectively are discarded tampons,  Frankenscience makes another huge leap into the future . . . The FDA and USDA already have given their approvals for meat and dairy products produced from the progeny of Frankenclones, and none of it is required to be revealed clearly on food labels . . .For some FUN facts on dairy and meat cloning, you can visit the CyClone website, which has all the information anyone really needs to know, for sure . . .http://www.cyclonedairy.com/For sure!  And if you have any problems, you can visit the Future PHARMS, Inc. website for exciting information on one of the breakthroughs in modern medicine, where "Elle" and "Guy" share their experiences, really . . .http://www.havidol.com/http://www.havidol.com/testimonials.htmlReally!And this is a link to the CNN/Money report on the 2008 FDA designation that "food products derived from cloned cattle, swine, goats, sheep and their offspring are safe enough to enter the U.S. food supply":http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/15/technology/simons_clones.fortune/index.htmHow comforting it is to know that "safe enough" is the gold standard at the FDA, for sure . . .For sure!  :(It's EXTREMELY simple to avoid GMO foods.1. Buy ORGANIC only.2. If you can't buy organic, only by products that are certified by the NON-GMO Project or that are clearly marked NON-GMO or DOES NOT CONTAIN BIOLOGICALLY ENGINEERED /GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS.3. Grow your own.Works for me. If it's not clearly marked... ASSUME IT IS GMO and AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE.http://www.nongmoproject.comhttp://www.centerforfoodsafety.comhttp://www.organicconsumers.orghttp://www.cornucopia.orgWatch these documentaries: Almost all can be viewed free online via YouTube, Hulu, NetFlix or the movie's official website.Food,Inc.Food MattersThe World According to MonsantoThe Future of FoodKing CornThe Real Dirt on Farmer JohnFood FightDirt: The MovieFreshThe GardenAs We SowDiet for a New AmericaWe Feed The WorldWhat's On Your Plate?Chow DownYou might also take the time to read : The Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan Please watch the YouTube video  of Canadian Organic Canola Farmer Percy Schmeiser  who was  sued by Monsanto for patent infringement after THEIR rogue canola seeds contaminated Percy's  crops. A true David Vs. Goliath story. Let's keep it simiple since all the big excutives of these GMO companies swear it ia all ok ... Then if we discover that it is harmfull we go after these executives of the company @  conficate all their assets, homes , bank accounts 401K Plans EVERYTHING. to compensate for thier lack of foresight.  See if theysay its ok then. Let them put their OWN $ where their mouth is...  The trouble is is it all goes bad the company is liable  they Have no penalty themselves.. Lets make them personaly liable....





Document Number: 1570 

A Growing Debate: How To Define 'Organic' Food

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Safeguard Organic Standards page, and our Whole Foods and the Myth of Natural page.

	Just over a month ago, the Department of Agriculture announced that it will allow American farmers to plant genetically engineered alfalfa, which is widely used as feed for dairy cows and horses.

	Organic food producers opposed the USDA's decision - some more fiercely than others. That split has provoked angry debates within the organics community, with some activists accusing organic businesses of "surrendering" to the biotech company Monsanto. And it has reopened some old arguments about what's most important in the label "organic."

	The cause of this dispute is not easily visible, at first, in the rolling pastures of an organic dairy operated by Horizon Organic near Kennedyville, in eastern Maryland. During the summer, the farm's cows graze on hundreds of acres of pasture.

	But the grass doesn't grow in wintertime, so on this February day, the cows are eating inside. Farm manager Dudley McHenry explains that the animals eat a mixture of corn silage, clover, alfalfa, corn, soybeans and a grass called triticale. And there's a tiny bit of something in that feed - mainly in the corn - that's provoking the current disagreements among people who all describe themselves as defenders of organic farming. 
	 
  






Document Number: 1013 

Major Farm Animal Cloning Project Cancelled Due to Disease and Deaths

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Cloning Information page.

	After 13 years of studying how to prevent abnormalities in cloned animals, AgResearch has ended its cloning project because too many of the animals died.

	AgResearch is a New Zealand based company that has spent more than a decade trying to perfect the cloning of animals for use in scientific and medical research.

	Their cloning trials tried to create: animals that produced a type of "super milk", sheep that were resistant to eczema, pregnant sheep that wanted to eat more food, and special proteins to be used in human medications.

	But on Monday the company released a report that said "only 10 percent of the cloned animals survived through the research trials" and because of the" unnecessary suffering" of the animals they had stopped their cloning projects.

	The majority of animals died as a result of spontaneous abortions and hydrops - where a cow's uterus fills with water, leading to euthanasia of the fetus and mother. Sixteen calves from mid gestation and beyond aborted or "died in the neonatal period last year." Another 10 fetuses or calves were euthanized along with 14 adult cows.

	The report also stated that cloned cattle, sheet and goats suffered from medical conditions such as chronic arthritis, pneumonia, lameness and blood poisoning. 

  






Document Number: 6650 

Wait, Did the USDA Just Deregulate All New Genetically Modified Crops?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

It's a hoary bureaucratic trick, making a controversial announcement on the Friday afternoon before a long weekend, when most people are daydreaming about what beer to buy on the way home from work, or are checking movie times online. But that's precisely what the US Department of Agriculture pulled last Friday.

In an innocuous-sounding press release titled "USDA Responds to Regulation Requests Regarding Kentucky Bluegrass," agency officials announced their decision not to regulate a "Roundup Ready" strain of Kentucky bluegrass-that is, a strain genetically engineered to withstand glyphosate, Monsanto's widely used herbicide, which we know as Roundup. The maker of the novel grass seed, Scotts Miracle Gro, is now free to sell it far and wide. So you'll no doubt be seeing Roundup Ready bluegrass blanketing lawns and golf courses near you-and watching anal neighbors and groundskeepers literally dousing the grass in weed killer without fear of harming a single precious blade.

Which is worrisome enough. But even more worrisome is the way this particular product was approved. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists' Food and Environment Program, the documents released by the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) along with the announcement portend a major change in how the feds will deal with genetically modified crops.

Notably, given the already-lax regulatory regime governing GMOs (genetically modified organisms, click here for a primer), APHIS seems to be ramping down oversight to the point where it is essentially meaningless. The new regime corresponding with the bluegrass announcement would "drastically weaken USDA's regulation," Gurian-Sherman told me. "This is perhaps the most serious change in US regs for [genetically modified] crops for many years." 

  






Document Number: 1238 

Monsanto Wins Reversal of Order to Destroy Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Environment and Climate Resource page.

	* Sugar beet stecklings can stay in the ground

	* Ruling involves only "thin slice" of larger case

	* Likelihood of irreparable injury not found

	*(adds details of ruling, background, Monsanto comment)

	SAN FRANCISCO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - In a partial win for global biotech seed maker Monsanto Co (MON.N), a U.S. appeals court reversed a lower court's order that called for the destruction of young genetically modified sugar beet plants, according to a ruling released on Friday.

	The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found permits issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for juvenile biotech sugar beet "stecklings" should be given "full force and effect" and the plants need not be destroyed as a federal judge in San Francisco had ordered late last year.

	Broader issues about the legality of broad commercialization of biotech sugarbeets are still undecided as the USDA works to complete a court-ordered environmental impact assessment of the crop.

	But the 9th Circuit held in its decision Friday the young seedlings that were planted in September do not pose an imminent risk. The stecklings are designed to produce seed that ultimately might be made available for root crop growers in the 2012 season, or for breeding purposes.

	But the ultimate use will be tied to the outcome of the arguments over commercialization of the crop. In its ruling Friday, the 9th Circuit said this issue was but a "thin slice of a larger litigation." 

  






Document Number: 1918 

Seed-Companies Put up Barriers to Independent Research on Genetically Modified Crops

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

	Soybeans, corn, cotton and canola -- most of the acres planted in these crops in the United States are genetically altered. "Transgenic" seeds reduce the use of some insecticides. But herbicide use is higher, and respected experts argue that some genetically engineered crops may also pose serious health and environmental risks. The benefits of genetically engineered crops may be overstated.

	We don't have the complete picture. That's no accident. Multibillion-dollar agricultural corporations, including Monsanto and Syngenta, have restricted independent research on their genetically engineered crops. They have often refused to provide independent scientists with seeds, or they've set restrictive conditions that severely limit research options.

	This is legal. Under U.S. law, genetically engineered crops are patentable inventions. Companies have broad power over the use of any patented product, including who can study it and how.

	Agricultural companies defend their stonewalling by saying that unrestricted research could make them vulnerable to lawsuits if an experiment somehow leads to harm, or that it could give competitors unfair insight into their products. But it's likely that the companies fear something else as well: An experiment could reveal that a genetically engineered product is hazardous or doesn't perform as promised.



  






Document Number: 9406 

USDA Approves Ethanol Corn

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Million Against Monsanto page.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has cleared the way for farming corn that is genetically modified to produce Î±-amylase, an enzyme that rapidly breaks down starch into sugar. The decision-denounced by environmental groups-marks the first U.S. approval of a crop designed for ethanol production.

	Syngenta will sell corn seed with the amylase trait under the name Enogen. The company has shown that the trait can boost ethanol production efficiency at a 50 million-gal-per-year facility by about 10%, providing "producers with a proven means to generate more gallons of ethanol from their existing facilities," says Davor Pisk, Syngenta's chief operating officer.

	Syngenta first asked USDA for approval of the seed in 2005. On the basis of environmental and plant pest risk assessments conducted since then, USDA's Animal  Plant Health Inspection Service has concluded that this line of corn "should no longer be subject to regulation," says Michael C. Gregoire, deputy administrator for APHIS's biotechnology regulatory services.

	Grain millers and food manufacturers, however, worry that the amylase trait will escape from Enogen crops and comingle with corn intended for human consumption. The groups say it will affect the quality and shelf life of processed foods containing corn, such as breakfast cereals, snack foods, and battered products. 

  






Document Number: 7764 

Monsanto Shifts ALL Liability to Farmers

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Farm Issues page.

	Farmers like genetically modified (GM) crops because they can plant them, spray them with herbicide and then there is very little maintenance until harvest. Farmers who plant Monsanto's GM crops probably don't realize what they bargain for when they sign the Monsanto Technology Stewardship Agreement contract. One farmer reportedly 'went crazy' when he discovered the scope of the contract because it transfers ALL liability to the farmer or grower.

	Here is the paragraph that defines Monsanto's limit of liability that shifts it to the farmer:

	"GROWER'S EXCLUSIVE LIMITED REMEDY: THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDY OF THE GROWER AND THE LIMIT OF THE LIABILITY OF MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER FOR ANY AND ALL LOSSES, INJURY OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE USE OR HANDLING OF SEED (INCLUDING CLAIMS BASED IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, PRODUCT LIABILITY, STRICT LIABILITY, TORT, OR OTHERWISE) SHALL BE THE PRICE PAID BY THE GROWER FOR THE QUANTITY OF THE SEED INVOLVED OR, AT THE ELECTION OF MONSANTO OR THE SEED SELLER, THE REPLACEMENT OF THE SEED. IN NO EVENT SHALL MONSANTO OR ANY SELLER BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES." 

  






Document Number: 6678 

EU Farmers Ditch GM Crops, Industry Figures Show Drop in Cultivation

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.




	BRUSSELS - February 22 - Industry data released on Tuesday is expected to confirm that farmers are abandoning GM crops in Europe, following a trend of increasing public rejection in the EU, said Greenpeace. The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), a biotech industry-funded body, will publish its annual report on the acreage of land planted with GM crops, showing continued decline in GM cultivation in Europe.

	Official figures from the European Union show that in 2010, the GM maize cultivation acreage in the EU declined by 13% compared to the previous year. [1] ISAAA figures that will be released later today are expected to closely mirror this decline. The sharpest decline took place in Romania (-75% compared to 2009) and the Czech Republic (-28% compared to 2009). In 2009, the ISAAA had also reported a 12% EU-wide decline compared to 2008. [2]

	The cultivation of Monsanto's GM maize MON810 is currently banned in seven EU countries due to environmental and health risks. [3] Cultivation of Amflora, BASF's antibiotic-resistant GM potato, the only other crop authorised in Europe since March last year, is restricted to only 268 hectares (or the equivalent of 375 football pitches) in Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic, with cultivation expected to decline to under 20 hectares in 2011. [4] Meanwhile, public rejection of GM crops in Europe has increased to 61%, according to EU polls. [5]

	Greenpeace EU agriculture policy adviser Stefanie Hundsdorfer said: "Today's European data shows that GM crops are failing in the field and on the market. Farmers and consumers are not falling for biotech industry propaganda. GM crops are not more productive and are less resistant to extreme climate conditions than normal crops. They do however present a serious risk for our environment." 

  






Document Number: 8987 

Ten Percent of World's Crops Are Genetically Engineered

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The amount of land devoted to genetically engineered crops grew 10% last year, and 7% in the year before, as farmers in major grain and soy exporting countries such as Brazil and Argentina continued to adopt the new seeds. 

	
	These so-called biotech crops, often bred with genes that allow them to tolerate weed killers or generate their own insecticides, now cover 10% of the world's farmland, up from nothing just 15 years ago.

	
	The figures are in this year's International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications report, out Tuesday. Of the four most commonly planted biotech crops, a rising percentage of the total of all plantings are biotech. In 2010, 81% of all soybeans, 64% of cotton, 29% of corn and 23% of canola globally were from biotech seeds, the ISAAA says.

	
	The most common modification is herbicide tolerance, where plants are given a gene that allows farmers to spray them with the weed killer glyphosate, known to most home gardeners as Roundup, without harming them. Sixty-one percent of biotech crops carry this gene.

  






Document Number: 6482 

Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and Nanofibers

The NIOSH Current 
Intelligence Bulletin ("Occupational Exposure to Carbon Nanotubes and 
Nanofibers") provides some initial guidance to the potential health 
risks for workers who may be exposed to these nano-substances. The 
concern for potential adverse health effects is solely based on animal 
studies as there has been no report in the literature of human health 
effects in workers or others exposed to carbon nanotubes or carbon 
nanofibers. 

		
		When animals (mostly rodents) have been exposed to 
these materials, the findings have ranged from acute inflammatory 
changes in the lungs to interstitial fibrosis to mesothelial tumors. 
Because some of the nano-materials may have durability/persistence and 
aspect ratios similar to asbestos fibers, there have been findings 
similar to "asbestos-type pathology". However, there have also been 
acute inflammatory changes. As is stated in this report, "differences in
 results from animal studies have been attributed to differences in 
physicochemical properties, surface area, the degree of agglomeration of
 the test material, and differences in the observation period following 
termination of exposure". The differences in biological effect may also 
depend upon the presence or absence of residual metal catalysts used in 
the preparation of these substances. 

		
		Comments regarding medical surveillance (As listed in Sections 1.1, 6.6, and in Appendix B):
		
		


General Comment: The recommended medical screening and surveillance 
recommendations are not specific for possible pulmonary injuries that 
may occur from inhalation of carbon nanotubes or nanofibers. The 
recommendations appear to be generic. 
Radiographic screening and surveillance: At this time, it is 
uncertain which specific patterns of pulmonary injury may occur and when
 they may appear. As a result, it is prudent to recommend that some form
 of radiologic medical screening and surveillance be performed. However,
 there is no justification that a NIOSH-certified B-reader must 
interpret or review the chest radiographs. The presence of acute 
inflammatory changes (as noted in the aforementioned animal studies) may
 be seen as different radiographic patterns such as consolidation, 
ground-glass opacifications, interstitial edema, etc. These are not 
patterns that would be best reviewed by comparison to the standard ILO 
films. Instead, the finding of any unexplained abnormality on a chest 
radiograph as interpreted by a radiologist or pulmonologist should 
prompt further evaluation that might include the use of a 
high-resolution CT scan of the thorax. 
Respiratory Symptom Questionnaires: The presence or development of 
respiratory symptoms may also be critical to the identification of 
possible pulmonary injury from exposure to nano-materials. We recommend 
that a standardized respiratory symptom questionnaire should be used as 
part of the initial screening and follow-up surveillance examinations; 
e.g., ATS-DLD-78 or Medical Research Council Questionnaire, etc. 
Spirometry testing: It is recommended that spirometry testing be 
administered by an individual who has completed a NIOSH-approved 
training course in spirometry or other equivalent training. It should 
also be mentioned that the qualified health professional who is 
overseeing the screening and surveillance program should be expert in 
the interpretation of spirometry testing results, enabling them to 
recommend further medical evaluation if abnormal test results occur; 
e.g., more complete pulmonary function testing including lung volumes 
and diffusing capacity measurements. 
Research needs; we urge NIOSH to initiate at least one prospective 
cohort study with close follow-up of exposed individuals in order to 
determine as soon as possible whether occupational exposures are 
associated with adverse health effects and if so, what effects occur. If
 such a study is also undertaken in order to detect or characterize 
exposures, in addition to determining adverse health effects, then it is
 critical that the validity of monitoring methods be separately 
demonstrated.


  






Document Number: 4345 

Monsanto's Biotech Alfalfa Success Still Uncertain Despite Court Victory


For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

When federal regulators gave farmers the green light to plant genetically modified alfalfa, some growers of the nation's fourth-largest crop celebrated. But others - even those supportive of the technology - responded to the news with mixed feelings.

Over the past five years, the widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa, developed by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto, has been held up by a protracted court battle that made its way last year to the U.S. Supreme Court - the first case involving genetically engineered plants to land there.

But after the costly court battle, both sides concede that the government's decision last month to allow genetically modified alfalfa on American farmland may not deliver a financial blockbuster.

"Where does this go in the long term?" asked Steve Welker, who heads up Monsanto's alfalfa business. "That's a really good question."

The debate over alfalfa - the nation's fourth-largest crop after corn, soybeans and wheat - has simmered between predictable factions. On one side, Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, along with the hay, or forage, industry, which, for the most part, wants the technology in its farming arsenal; on the other, conventional and organic growers worried about genetically modified crops' cross-pollinating and contaminating their own. 

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

  






Document Number: 6523 

Even the NY Times Asks: Why Aren't GMO Foods Labeled?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

It is a question that more people should be asking, and one that even some in the mainstream media have begun to entertain: why are genetically-modified (GM) foods, which are patently (no pun intended) different from conventional and organic foods, not required to be properly labeled on food packaging? The answer, dictated directly from the public relations departments of Monsanto and friends via the U.S. government, is that GMOs are safe and identical to natural varieties, and do not require differentiation. But this notion is a flat out lie.

	No matter what those in the ivory towers of conventional academia and science often say in defense of GMOs, the simple fact remains that GMOs, also known as imitation food, has never been proven to be safe for consumption, either by animals or by humans, and the technology neither increases crops yields nor reduces the use of toxic pesticides and herbicides. In fact, it does all of the opposite, all while giving complete control of agriculture to a few multinational biotechnology companies that are rapidly eliminating all competition.

	And you surely do not have to take our word for it. A simple look into the history of GMOs and how they even gained a foothold in agriculture in the first place clearly illustrates the heavy hand of the likes of Monsanto in weaseling its way into the limelight through lobbying, lies, and deceit (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.ph...).



  






Document Number: 3633 

Join OCA in Grassroots Fight to Stop GMO Takeover

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Obama Administration's landmark decision last month to overrule the ban on genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa will likely go down in the books as one of the administration's biggest betrayals of the natural health community. But a grassroots campaign currently underway by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is seeking to essentially "overrule" the overruling on the local level, or at least put enough pressure on local and state lawmakers, as well as health food retailers like Whole Foods Market, to label GMO products so consumers can make educated decisions about the foods they buy -- and thus eventually rid the market of GMOs completely.

	Former Iowa governor and staunch biotechnology industry lapdog Tom Vilsack, who currently happens to be the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary, went against everything Obama and his mouthpieces promised concerning GMOs on the campaign trail, and conceded to Monsanto's demands to fully deregulate GM alfalfa. The decision came after many months of deliberation in court over the matter, as the USDA initially deregulated GM alfalfa without a proper Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) proving its safety.

	USDA scientists were unable to ever prove that GM alfalfa was safe, however, and what they did find actually reinforces the concerns brought forth by those opposed to GM alfalfa. The perennial plant is highly contagious, they admit, in that its pollen and other materials easily contaminate nearby crops, including those several miles away. And since alfalfa is a primary feed stuff for the nation's conventional livestock, the spread of GM alfalfa and its contamination of other crops is a very real and highly-disturbing threat. 

  






Document Number: 8799 

Biotech Industry: Consumers Don't Need to Know Whether Food is Genetically Engineered

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Activists rejoiced last week when a hard-fought battle over international standards for labeling genetically modified food came to an end - finally - after decades of debate.

But the agreement, which many say opens the door for labels to be placed on such foods, will probably have little effect on food labels in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

And that could be a good thing, some scientists said.

"The public gets bogged down on whether [crops are] genetically engineered or not. We think that's a distraction," said Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at UC Davis. "The consumer needs to know: Is it safe to eat?"

Delegates to the so-called Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body created in 1963 by the United Nations to set voluntary standards for food safety and handling, have been arguing over labels for genetically engineered food for the better part of 20 years.

Concerned that the biotech food is not adequately tested and could be unsafe for people or the environment, some countries, particularly ones in Europe, have pushed for mandatory labeling. Others, including the U.S., have argued that such labels are misleading because the genetically modified products that are on the market have been thoroughly tested and deemed safe. 

  






Document Number: 66 

The Dirty Little Secret Hidden in Soy-Based Health Foods

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Health Resource page,
Myth of Natural page, Genetic Engineering page, and
our Millions Against Monsanto
page.

In the early 1990's, soy and soy products exploded onto the supermarket scene with promises of bountiful health benefits. This "new miracle food," soy, was supposed to lower cholesterol, take the heat out of hot flashes, protect against breast and prostate cancer and offer a filling alternative to earth-loving vegetarians.

	The problem with these claims?

	Most of them are false.

	Sadly, most of what you have been led to believe by the media about soy is simply untrue. The sudden upsurge in the recommendation of soy as a health food has been nothing more than a clever marketing gimmick to further reduce the cost and nutritional content of your food.

	For you vegetarians out there staring at the screen in open-mouthed shock, fear not. There are plenty of other healthy vegetarian alternatives, which I will discuss later in this article. What was once considered a minor industrial crop back in 1913 now covers over 72 million acres of farmland. But first, let's examine the dangers and side effects of soy protein isolate and GMO foods. 

  






Document Number: 7459 

Dear Obamas: Let's Move ... On Food Policy Reform

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Breaking the Chains page , All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, and
our Farm Issues  page.

Michelle Obama recently celebrated the first anniversary of her Let's Move campaign to inspire healthier eating. But as the popular face of the Obama administration's advocacy for healthy, nutritious food, the first lady has conveniently side-stepped several critical consumer food issues like organics, genetically engineered food, fair markets for farmers and ranchers, and local and regional food economies. While Mrs. Obama has remained silent on these topics, the actions of the agencies that regulate our food under President Obama speak volumes. And progressives don't like what they are hearing.

	
	Last year, the FDA began paving the way for approval of genetically engineered (GE) salmon. The agency pressed on despite the lack of independent research to determine what the health or environmental impacts of such a product would be, and despite concerns from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the FDA's process to "fast track" GE salmon's approval. The first transgenic animal approved for human consumption, GE salmon would open the floodgates for GE cows and pigs, which biotech companies are waiting in the wings to finally commercialize after years of research and development.

	
	But Americans don't want it: A 2009 Consumer Reports poll revealed that the majority of consumers would not eat genetically engineered food, while a poll we conducted with Lake Research Partners last year showed that 78 percent of Americans were against the approval of a GE salmon for human consumption.

	
	Now, the USDA has approved the unrestricted growing of GE alfalfa, which could destroy the organic dairy industry and block farmers from the export market since many countries won't accept GE-contaminated crops. The USDA has also "partially deregulated" GE sugar beets. Soon, many candy bars in America could be produced from sugar grown with Monsanto's dangerous Roundup Ready herbicide. 

  






Document Number: 2720 

Monsanto, Dow to Begin Pushing Dangerous 2,4-D Herbicide as 'Solution' to Superweeds

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page,
and our Genetic Engineering
page.

It is something that many farmers of genetically-modified (GM) crops are already trying to do and failing to succeed in, but that the chemical companies responsible for the problem may soon be pushing as an alleged "solution." The Dow Chemical Company has sponsored a study that aims to position the 2,4-D herbicide, a popular commercial herbicide, as the solution to Roundup-resistant "superweeds." But 2,4-D-resistant "superweeds" have already begun emerging as well, which suggests that increased chemical interventions of any kind will only make the superweed problem worse, not better.

	Year after year, GM crop farmers have to battle mutant superweeds that continue to grow stronger and more resistant to the toxic pesticides and herbicides used in GM crop cultivation. But the practice is polluting the environment, contaminating the food supply, and spurring the rampant growth of harmful superweeds. 

Rather than admit they are responsible for the problem, agri-giants like Dow and Monsanto say that using different pesticides and herbicides will help solve the problem. But such a suggestion could not be further from the truth. Treating plants with increasingly higher levels and more potent concoctions of toxic chemicals is a recipe for disaster, and one that will only make the superweed problem worse.


  






Document Number: 9210 

Millions Against Monsanto Truth-in-Labeling Letter to the Editor


Feel free to copy and paste the text below and add to it to create your own letter to send to your local newspaper. Click here to contact your local paper.

Dear Editor, 

As a citizen and shopper concerned about the health, environmental, ethical, and socio-economic hazards of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and industrial-scale factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), I am writing to inform your readers about a new consumer campaign calling for Truth-in-Labeling. The campaign, sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association, is calling on conscientious grocers to implement voluntary package or shelf labeling of foods products containing GMOs and/or products coming from large factory farms or CAFOs.
Although "USDA Organic" standards and labels prohibit the use of GMOs or CAFO confinement practices, the overwhelming majority of non-organic foods in grocery stores or supermarkets today fail to reveal whether or not they likely contain GMOs or come from a factory farm supply chain. Up to 90 percent of U.S. soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets are now genetically engineered and routinely laced into foods with no labels or safety testing whatsoever. And of course hapless animals confined in CAFOs are reared on a diet of genetically engineered corn, soy, cottonseed, and drugs.
According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Biotechnology Industry Association, approximately 80 percent of current grocery food items contain GMOs; while according to U.S. Department of Agriculture records, the majority of beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs now come from CAFOs.
CAFOs breed pathogens, pollute water-sources, add tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and systematically abuse and mistreat animals. CAFOs are defined legally by the Environmental Protection Agency as containing 1000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 pigs, or 125,000 broilers or 82,000 laying hens or pullets.
Health and ethically minded consumers such as myself believe that Americans have a right to know where our meat, dairy, and eggs come from and whether or not our produce and the ingredients in processed-foods have been genetically engineered. Conscientious, consumer-friendly grocery stores should clearly identify all food products containing non-organic soy, corn, cottonseed oil, canola, sugar beets or GM growth hormones with a label or shelf sign that says "May Contain GMOs" and identify all beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs that come from CAFOs with a label or shelf sign that says "CAFO."
To sign a nationwide petition urging major grocery store chains to voluntarily adopt Truth-in-Labeling practices go to: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/action.cfm
Thank you!
(insert your name and information here)


Feel free to copy and paste the text below and add to it to create your own letter to send to your local newspaper. Click here to contact your local paper.
Dear Editor, 
As a citizen and shopper concerned about the health, environmental, ethical, and socio-economic hazards of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and industrial-scale factory farms or CAFOs (Confined Animal Feeding Operations), I am writing to inform your readers about a new consumer campaign calling for Truth-in-Labeling. The campaign, sponsored by the Organic Consumers Association, is calling on conscientious grocers to implement voluntary package or shelf labeling of foods products containing GMOs and/or products coming from large factory farms or CAFOs.Although "USDA Organic" standards and labels prohibit the use of GMOs or CAFO confinement practices, the overwhelming majority of non-organic foods in grocery stores or supermarkets today fail to reveal whether or not they likely contain GMOs or come from a factory farm supply chain. Up to 90 percent of U.S. soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets are now genetically engineered and routinely laced into foods with no labels or safety testing whatsoever. And of course hapless animals confined in CAFOs are reared on a diet of genetically engineered corn, soy, cottonseed, and drugs.According to the Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Biotechnology Industry Association, approximately 80 percent of current grocery food items contain GMOs; while according to U.S. Department of Agriculture records, the majority of beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs now come from CAFOs.CAFOs breed pathogens, pollute water-sources, add tons of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere and systematically abuse and mistreat animals. CAFOs are defined legally by the Environmental Protection Agency as containing 1000 beef cattle, 700 dairy cows, 2500 pigs, or 125,000 broilers or 82,000 laying hens or pullets.Health and ethically minded consumers such as myself believe that Americans have a right to know where our meat, dairy, and eggs come from and whether or not our produce and the ingredients in processed-foods have been genetically engineered. Conscientious, consumer-friendly grocery stores should clearly identify all food products containing non-organic soy, corn, cottonseed oil, canola, sugar beets or GM growth hormones with a label or shelf sign that says "May Contain GMOs" and identify all beef, pork, poultry, dairy, and eggs that come from CAFOs with a label or shelf sign that says "CAFO."To sign a nationwide petition urging major grocery store chains to voluntarily adopt Truth-in-Labeling practices go to: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/action.cfmThank you!(insert your name and information here)






Document Number: 2601 

Genetically Engineered Alfalfa isn't Necessary

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Million Against Monsanto
page.

Alfalfa's roots go deep in the soil and deep in history. Prized by the ancient Persians, this high-protein "Queen of Forages" is still treasured. It is the fourth-largest crop grown in the United States, primarily for feeding cattle. And it is the latest one to fall to the Empire of Monsanto. 

	Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack's recent decision to deregulate the use of Monsanto's Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA) has alarmed many in the farming community, and beyond, who expected better from this administration. I suppose the kindest thing you could say about this genetically engineered seed - developed to allow the plant to withstand applications of Roundup herbicide - is that it's unnecessary.

	Alfalfa competes well with weeds in a well-managed system. But when RRA is grown, weeds will develop resistance to Roundup, as they have with the other crops that carry the Roundup Ready gene, such as corn, soybeans and cottons (sugar beets are next). This resistance could lead to the introduction of yet more powerful transgenic remedies that, in turn, would fail.

	Polling has shown that most Americans dislike the idea of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being introduced into the food supply, which is why the agricultural lobby blocks the labeling of products containing them. And no one fears the galloping GMO trend more than farmers - organic or otherwise - who bank on selling GMO-free alfalfa hay, or meat from animals not tainted by eating RRA. 

  






Document Number: 1829 

New York Times: Why Aren't GMO Foods Labeled?

Web note: Bittman is incorrect about organically certified foods having a GMO tolerance level of 5%. GMOs aren't allowed in organic foods, and OCA aims to keep it that way.


For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and
our Millions Against Monsanto
page.

If you want to avoid sugar, aspartame, trans-fats, MSG, or just about anything else, you read the label. If you want to avoid G.M.O.'s - genetically modified organisms - you're out of luck. They're not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can't contain more than 5 percent G.M.O.'s. Now, however, even that may not work.

In the last three weeks, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has approved three new kinds of genetically engineered (G.E.) foods: alfalfa (which becomes hay), a type of corn grown to produce ethanol), and sugar beets. And the approval by the Food and Drug Administration of a super-fast-growing salmon - the first genetically modified animal to be sold in the U.S., but probably not the last - may not be far behind.

It's unlikely that these products' potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the F.D.A.and the U.S.D.A. will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don't want to "suggest or imply" that these foods are "different." (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be O.K., but that's another story.)

They are arguably different, but more important, people are leery of them. Nearly an entire continent - it's called Europe - is so wary that G.E. crops are barely grown there and there are strict bans on imports (that policy is in danger). Furthermore, most foods containing more than 0.9 percent G.M.O.'s must be labeled. 


  






Document Number: 7226 

Announcing the First Millions Against Monsanto Truth-in-Labeling Webinar!

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and
our Millions Against Monsanto
page.

Natural News' Mike Adams joins OCA director Ronnie Cummins for a live discussion on the myth of "coexistence" between organics and GMOs, and how grassroots action and truth-in-labeling can start to drive Monsanto's genetically engineered crops and foods off the market. This is the first in a series.

	
	When: February 24th, 2011, 7 p.m. Central Time

	
	Registration for this free event is limited. Please visit http://www.organicconsumers.org/art... to register.

	
	Editor's note: This will be a call-in event, and it is an action-oriented effort to help educate the public about the GMOs in foods that are being sold right now, in grocery stores and even health food stores across America (and around the world).

	
	Our goal in this campaign is to protect consumers from the genetically engineered ingredients in their foods. At the very least, consumers have a right to know when they're buying GMOs, and that's why the honest, accurate labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered ingredients is something that consumers must now demand from the food companies.


  






Document Number: 788 

CFS to Sue USDA for Deregulating GM Alfalfa

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and
our Millions Against Monsanto
page.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) recent decision to fully deregulate Monsanto's genetically-modified (GM) alfalfa, despite its own findings that doing so will contaminate non-GM and organic agriculture, is a landmark decision that illustrates just how deeply embedded Monsanto has burrowed within the U.S. government. But the Center for Food Safety (CFS), a group that has won numerous cases against GM crops, is gearing up to file a lawsuit against the USDA for this decision, and hopefully reverse it like it has many other decisions. But CFS needs your help to make that happen.

	The USDA first approved GM alfalfa back in 2005, but that decision was eventually reversed in 2007 after being challenged in a California court. The court ruled that until a proper Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was conducted, the crops could not be planted. Monsanto, of course, tried to challenge this decision, but CFS and others worked hard to prevent the ban from being lifted, and they succeeded for many years.

	CFS also played a crucial role in reversing the decision to allow GM sugar beets to be planted. CFS sued both the USDA and Monsanto over the crop, which just like GM alfalfa was not approved with a proper EIS. CFS won the case and for the first time in history, a judge actually made a ruling ordering that a GM crop be uprooted and destroyed because it was illegally planted.

	

  






Document Number: 6185 

Ag Workers Sue Monsanto in Class Action

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page,
Farm Issues page, and our Fair Trade and Social Justice
page.
	Sixteen migrant workers say in a federal class action that Monsanto did not pay them as promised and stuffed them into "unsafe, substandard and overcrowded" housing after persuading them to go to Indiana to work in the cornfields.

	The workers say Monsanto agent Ramon Cota recruited them in Arizona in June 2010. They say Monsanto promised them specified wages, an advance once they arrived in Indiana, free transportation and free housing. 

	But the workers say Monsanto and Cota put them in "unsafe, substandard and overcrowded" housing that was not "adequately furnished to meet the needs of plaintiffs." 

	The workers, who were hired to detassel corn, say "were not given all of the proper equipment to work in the rain and irrigation system," and that Monsanto and Cota did not pay their wages due or give them itemized pay statements. 

  






Document Number: 9684 

Syngenta's GE Corn Modified for Use in Ethanol, Is Approved

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and
our Millions against Monsanto page.
A type of corn that is genetically engineered to make it easier to convert into ethanol was approved for commercial growing by the Department of Agriculture. 

	The decision, announced Friday, came in the face of objections from corn millers and others in the food industry, who warned that if the industrial corn cross-pollinated with or were mixed with corn used for food, it could lead to crumbly corn chips, soggy cereal, loaves of bread with soupy centers and corn dogs with inadequate coatings.

	"If this corn is comingled with other corn, it will have significant adverse impacts on food product quality and performance," the North American Millers' Association said in a statement on Friday.

	The corn, developed by Syngenta, contains a microbial gene that causes it to produce an enzyme that breaks down corn starch into sugar, the first step toward making ethanol. Ethanol manufacturers now buy this enzyme, called alpha amylase, in liquid form and add it to the corn at the start of their production process. 

  






Document Number: 840 

White House Pact with Industry to Push Genetically Engineered Plants

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.
In an effort to boost exports, the Obama White House has entered into a joint venture with the agricultural biotechnology industry to remove barriers to the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, even on national wildlife refuges, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today, PEER sued the White House Trade Representative, Office of Management  Budget (OMB) and the State Department to force release of documents detailing their partnership with industry.

	Recent successful lawsuits brought by PEER with the Center for Food Safety have underlined the incompatibility of GE crops with refuge habitats, which has strengthened objections from GE-averse nations. The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world's biggest source of GE crops, approached the Obama White House for assistance. In late 2010, the White House formed an interagency "Agriculture Biotech Working Group" consisting of more than 35 officials from ten agencies to promote GE agriculture. This Working Group includes officials from the White House and its OMB, Office of Science  Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Trade Rep. It also has officials from State, Justice, Agriculture, EPA and FDA.

	A central task of this Working Group is to legally insulate GE crops on refuges from further litigation. Initially, it tried to pressure the U.S. Fish  Wildlife Service, which operates the National Wildlife Refuge System, to rescind its Ecological Integrity Policy, which forbids GE planting unless found to be essential to accomplishing a refuge purpose. Working with BIO, these officials then helped prepare environmental assessments to start paving a legal path for GE plantings on 75 refuges in 30 states. 


  






Document Number: 8443 

British Government Squanders Millions Conducting Secret GM Potato Trials

  






Document Number: 917 

Still Drinking Diet Soda? Don't be a Fashion Victim!

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page, and our   Millions Against Monsanto 
page.
At the just-launched Fashion Week in Manhattan, supermodels won't just be sashaying down runways in mind-boggling frocks. They'll also be accessorized with a new invention from Pepsi Co. -- the "skinny can," pictured at right, which (according to a press release) will "make its debut" in the cool palms of fashionistas during the twice-a-year blowout at Lincoln Center.

	What Pepsi is calling its "taller, sassier" new can, a "celebration of beautiful, confident women," amounts to new packaging for a very old and familiar product: Diet Pepsi. And just what is this thing called Diet Pepsi? Here's the official ingredients list:

	CARBONATED WATER, CARAMEL COLOR, ASPARTAME, PHOSPHORIC ACID, POTASSIUM BENZOATE (PRESERVES FRESHNESS), CAFFEINE, CITRIC ACID, NATURAL FLAVOR

	PHENYLKETONURICS: CONTAINS PHENYLALANINE.

	In plain English, Diet Pepsi consists of artificially blackened water tarted up with synthetic chemicals. The references to "natural flavor" and (chemical-induced) "freshness" aside, what really gives Diet Pepsi its main flavor -- that special jolt of sweetness -- is aspartame, the famous calorie-free sugar substitute.


  






Document Number: 2463 

Experts: Contamination from GM Alfalfa Certain

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page,  All About Organics page, and
our  USDA Watch page.
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Contamination of organic and traditional crops by recently deregulated, genetically modified alfalfa is inevitable, agriculture experts said, despite Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack's recent assurances the federal government would take steps to prevent such a problem.

	Many farmers had been pushing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to approve the use of genetically modified alfalfa. Monsanto developed the seed to resist the weedkiller Roundup, allowing farmers to use the two together to save time and labor on weeding. Supporters also say the use of the genetically modified seeds lets farmers grow more alfalfa on each acre and helps keep food prices low.

	Opponents, many of them organic farmers, say widespread planting of genetically modified alfalfa will result in pollen from those plants contaminating organic and traditional crops, destroying their value. While alfalfa is mostly used as hay for cattle, some consumers don't want to eat foods, such as milk or beef, from animals that have consumed genetically modified plants.

	Alfalfa is grown on about 20 million acres in almost every state in the U.S. and is the fourth largest field crop behind corn, soybeans and wheat. 

  






Document Number: 1984 

The Organic Consumers Association Was Not Invited to the Forum Where Organic Industry Leaders Agreed to Coexistence

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and
our  Millions Against Monsanto page.
"They had closed door meetings in Washington, D.C., where we were not invited. We were told, 'You are not a stakeholder.' We're the largest organic consumer organization in the U.S," says Ronnie Cummins, director of the OCA. "If we're not a stakeholder, who is?"

	
	Both Stonyfield and Organic Valley contend, however, that they have been extremely active in the fight against GE alfalfa, and had little choice but to push for the USDA's "conditional deregulation coexistence" option for the crop, or deregulation along with certain safeguards for the organic community.

	
	"As reasonable people, we just have to deal with the game plan that was laid out," says George Siemon, CEO of Organic Valley. As it became increasingly obvious that a ban on GE alfalfa was off the table, Stonyfield and Organic Valley opted to fight for whatever safeguards they could get--and they never negotiated with Monsanto. 

  






Document Number: 6674 

Raging Debate in Australia as Monsanto's GE Crops Contaminate Organic Farms

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering  page, and
our  Millions Against Monsanto page.
The West Australian Minister for Agriculture, Terry Redman, wants to redefine "organic" to accommodate genetic engineering. Well he might wish it, since the legal battle brewing there over contamination of organic crops by genetically modified ones could easily blow right back onto his turf. Far scarier, though, is the environmental blowback, which could knock all these little old floods and cyclones into a cocked hat.

	Steve Marsh is an organic farmer in Kojonup, four hours south-east of Perth. Or that's what he thought he was. So did the certifiers. Then, last December, the nightmare came true. Marsh's wheat and oats began testing 70 per cent positive for novel DNA and he was stripped of certification. A year earlier, following approval by the Gene Technology Regulator, the WA government approved commercialisation of GM, or ''Roundup Ready'', canola - although their own fact sheet at the time cited a United Nations report that "since the advent of GM canola in Canada farmers can no longer grow organic canola in western Canada."

	They also admitted that GM canola can cross-pollinate with a number of other species, and eating such resulting crops would decertify organic livestock as well. Yet they broke their promise to publish a list of GM farmers so that non-GM growers could take evasive action. Their official advice? That "farmers discuss . . . this remote possibility [of contamination] with their neighbours". 

  






Document Number: 5848 

GM and Organic Co-Existence: Why We Really Just Can't Get Along

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering  page,  Millions Against Monsanto page,
and our  All About Organics page.
Last Friday, the USDA announced the partial deregulation of genetically modified sugar beets, defying a court order to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in advance of a decision. This move follows on the heels of the full deregulation late last month of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa, the fourth most common row crop in the United States, which is most often used as feed for cattle.

	If you eat beef, or take milk and sugar in your coffee (and even if you don't), here is why you should care: The move could put organic foods at risk for contamination and make it more expensive.

	Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack has attempted to stave off further litigation and quell the mounting antagonism between farmers growing GM seed and organic farmers by proposing "co-existence" between the two.

	Part of Vilsack's plan for co-existence includes using buffers between organic and GM fields and even placing geographic restrictions on the growth of GM seeds. This is the first time such a discussion had been broached by the USDA. New York University professor and food movement leader Marion Nestle called the move a "breakthrough," and we also ran an op-ed pushing for co-existence as the lesser of two evils here on Civil Eats.

	But Vilsack's co-existence plan seemed to put President Obama's pro-business agenda at risk. In fact, David Axelrod put the kibosh on the idea with a bad pun, encouraging "everyone to 'plow forward' on a plan for genetically produced alfalfa," according to Maureen Dowd. 

  






Document Number: 5087 

Whole Foods - Major Betrayal of Organic Food Movement- Dr. Mercola Interviews Ronnie Cummins






Organic consumers and producers in the U.S. are facing betrayal. A self-appointed group of "Organic Elites", including Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, are surrendering to Monsanto.

Top executives from these companies publicly stated several weeks ago that they support the so-called "coexistence" of organics with genetically modified (GM) crops.

Whole Foods sent a misleading e-mail to its customers on Jan. 21in which they gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. However, after sharp criticisms from the OCA and their customers, and in the wake of USDA's unrestricted approval of GE alfalfa and sugar beets, the leaders of the organic industry seem to have changed their tune, issuing strong statements against the USDA approval last week.

According to the Organic Consumers Association:

 "The main reason ... why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that two-thirds of [Whole Food's] $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called 'natural' processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs."

The Organic Consumers Association is also helping people who want to organize or coordinate Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaigns in their local community, through this web site: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/

Update: Whole Foods Market has offered this response to the Organic Consumers Association:

 "We have seen a few comments about the OCA's misleading letter about our company. Once again, the OCA has it all wrong. We have done more than any other retailer to educate and advocate on genetically engineered food, and we are deeply committed to preserving our ability to sell non-GE food. Perhaps OCA did not understand our position. We do not have anything to do with big biotech companies' agenda!

 "As tried and true pioneers of organic, we at Whole Foods Market support the preservation of seed purity, organic integrity and we are advocates of clearly labeling GMOs so that our shoppers can make informed decisions.

 There are still many unanswered questions about genetic engineering and there is no mandatory labeling and little government oversight of GMOs. That's why we have spent the last couple of decades working to find a solution to offer non-GMO foods to our shoppers.

 We do NOT advocate for the USDA to allow the well-funded biotech industry to monitor itself carte blanche without ongoing government oversight. Unfortunately, the USDA presented our industry with two options: total deregulation of GE alfalfa, or deregulation with some conditions to facilitate coexistence and protection of non-GE farmers.

 We supported a path of coexistence, not because it's a perfect path, but because it's the only viable path that would ensure our ongoing ability to provide non-GMO foods.

 Given the prevalence of GMO crops in the U.S. -- 93 percent of soy, 86 percent of corn, 93 percent of cotton and 93 percent of canola seed planted were genetically engineered in the US in 2010 -- we did not believe that a complete ban of GE alfalfa or any crop is an option that the USDA would even consider supporting, nor was it even an option.

 We favor protecting organic and non-GE agriculture's property rights, and the USDA's regulatory authority is the best way to meet this goal. Our options were to have a seat at the table (and support coexistence) or to not be represented at all. We chose deregulation with restrictions so that we could represent our company, the organic food community and our shoppers.

 This does not mean that we have anything to do with big biotech or that we support their agenda."

Further Updates: The news keeps pouring in on this controversial issue. Phil Bereano, a co-founder of AGRA watch, argues that by deregulating the planting of GM alfalfa, the USDA appears to be in direct contravention to its obligations under law and court decisions. A 2007 trial judge found that alfalfa farmers had established a reasonable probability that their conventional alfalfa crops would be contaminated with the engineered Roundup Ready gene if deregulation occurred.

Writing on the Community Alliance for Global Justice Website, he notes:

 "There have been about 200 incidents of GE crops contaminating non-GE produce, resulting in hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars in damages; contamination is a real risk and one of very significant magnitude ... Thus, the Department cannot dismiss it as insignificant or rest on Monsanto's assurances that its practices render contamination unlikely ... The Department suggests that consumers will forgive unintentional contamination, but intention is irrelevant to the National Organic Standards and to the protection of human health."

 Meanwhile, Tom Philpott, writing in Grist Magazine, suggests that the White House may have pressured the USDA to deregulate. In the past, USDA chief Tom Vilsack has acknowledged the dangers of cross-contamination, calling it "a significant concern for farmers who produce for non-GE markets at home and abroad."

According to the Grist article:

 "A USDA chief had publicly declared his willingness to defy the industry, and then was seemingly forced by political pressure from above to cravenly abandon that defiance ...Unhappily, the decision falls into line with other Obama administration gestures of fealty to the agrichemical lobby."

Sources:
 Organic Consumers Association January 27, 2011
 Whole Foods Market January 28, 2011
 Grist January 27, 2011
 Grist January 31, 2011
 Organic Consumers Association February 2, 2011
 Organic Consumers Association February 3, 2011
 Organic Consumers Association February 2, 2011
 Organic Consumers Association, February 1, 2011
 Organic Consumers Association February 3, 2011
 The Atlantic January 28, 2011
 Video Transcript


Dr. Mercola's Comments:

 As you've probably heard by now, the USDA recently approved planting of genetically modified (GM) alfalfa, the fourth-largest crop in the USA, without restriction.

 Scathing articles by major media have questioned how this approval got squeezed through, despite the evidence showing that GM alfalfa could be a disaster. Articles in The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times have suggested the decision was the result of political wrangling, as opposed to evaluation of the evidence. 
		
  






Document Number: 9763 

Farmworkers Bear the Brunt of New Mexico Chile Crisis

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering  page,   Farm issues page, and our  New Mexico Resource page.

For centuries the chile trade bound together the remote Hispano villages of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado, provided the culinary glue for fall family get-togethers and gave linguistic flavor to countless conversations on the topic of chile across the state.

	In the late 20th Century, a large commercial chile industry boomed in the southern part of the state near the Mexican border, drawing in thousands of immigrant farmworkers who earned a seasonal if precarious living from hand-picking the spicy pods that delighted connoisuers everywhere.

	Nowadays, the fortunes of New Mexico's cherished chile crop are on the downside. Just ask Jose Rocha. A veteran farmworker with nearly four decades of experience in the fields of New Mexico and the US, Rocha says he once worked "first class fields" in a wide swath of the borderland chile-growing belt.

	Today's farm is very different than the one before, according to Rocha. "Sometimes the land gives, sometimes it doesn't," the Mexico-born worker says. "There are bad (chile) rows and and good rows." Nowadays, Rocha encounters slimmer pickings, job-killing machines that methodically pluck rows of ripe chile where humans once treaded and fewer dollars in his pocket. 

  






Document Number: 7565 

Honey Made Near Monsanto GM Maize May Face EU Limits

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering  page, and
our   Millions Against Monsanto 
page.
Beekeepers with hives close to fields of Monsanto Co. genetically modified maize can't sell their honey in the European Union without regulatory approval, an adviser to the EU's highest court said.

	The unintentional presence in honey "even of a minute quantity of pollen" from the maize is sufficient reason to restrict its sale, Advocate General Yves Bot of the European Court of Justice said in a non-binding opinion today.

	"Food containing material from a genetically modified plant, whether that material is included intentionally or not, must always be regarded as food produced" from modified plants, said Bot. The Luxembourg-based EU tribunal follows such advice most of the time. Rulings normally follow within six months of an opinion.

	EU rules require prior authorization before genetically modified goods can be put on the market. The bloc's 27 nations are split over the safety of food produced from genetically modified crops. This is slowing EU permission to grow them and has prompted complaints by the U.S. and other trade partners.

	Beekeepers "have a real problem," said Achim Willand, the lawyer for the group of producers that brought the case. 

  






Document Number: 1409 

Neotame Receives FDA Approval But is Not Widely Used Yet

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety page, and our  Millions Against Monsanto page.
Since 2002 an artificial sweetener called neotame has been approved for use in food and drink products around the world, although so far its use appears to be very limited.

	Neotame is a chemical derivative of aspartame, and judging by the chemicals used in its manufacturing, it appears even more toxic than aspartame, although the proponents of neotame claim that increased toxicity is not a concern, because less of it is needed to achieve the desired effect.

	Neotame is bad science brought to you by the Monsanto Company.

	If Monsano truly had nothing to fear with either of these artificial chemical sweeteners, they would have funded rigorous independent testing for safety. To date they have not, and they won't, because virtually every independent analysis of aspartame not conducted by Monsanto partners has revealed a long list of disturbing side effects, mostly neurological in nature.

	Monsanto also has now sold the NutraSweet Company to someone else, but the approval of neotame came under Monsanto's ownership, and was most likely a result of Monsanto's cozy relationship with the FDA. More about that in a minute. 

  






Document Number: 9828 

Why Does Clarence Thomas Get Away With Breaking the Law, As His Wife Shills for Wealthy Right-Wingers?

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Millions against Monsanto page,
and our  Politics and Democracy page.
When it comes to the financial and ethical improprieties of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife, Ginni, there is only bad news and worse news. That's true not only in terms of what they've done but because there's so little reason to believe they'll ever be held accountable for their active role in tainting our judiciary with the money and influence of their wealthy, conservative GOP patrons.

	The latest outrage is that Ginni Thomas is embarking on a new career: lobbyist for right-wing causes. But that's just the most recent in a string of recent news items concerning the Thomases' fast-and-loose ways with the law. It begins with a January 22 Los Angeles Times piece that reported Justice Thomas' failure to include his wife's source of income on his financial disclosure forms for the past two decades. These forms are essential to assessing whether a justice might face a potential conflict of interest when causes or individuals associated with his/her spouse come before the court. Thomas hastily amended his reports after Common Cause brought attention to the years between 2003-2007 when Ginni Thomas earned $680,000 working for the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank funded by, among others, the foundations of the Koch brothers, the Coors family and Richard Mellon Scaife. 

  






Document Number: 7775 

Genetically Modified Food Should be Labeled!

  






Document Number: 3512 

Partial Deregulation of GM Sugar Beets Appealed

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Millions against Monsanto page,
and our  Genetic Engineering page.
When you've been running the board in a San Francisco courtroom and you are on the verge of having genetically modified (GM) sugar beets torn up by their roots, do you care if USDA tries to do a little something on its own?

	Probably not all that much.

	USDA on Feb. 4 said that it was partially deregulating GM sugar beets, allowing plantings in 2011, under certain conditions. 

	"After conducting an environmental assessment, accepting and reviewing public comments and conducting a plant pest risk assessment, APHIS has determined that the Roundup Ready sugar beet root crop, when grown under APHIS imposed conditions, can be partially deregulated without posing a plant pest risk or having a significant effect on the environment," a top USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) official said.

	But that decision is just one more item for Earthjustice and the Center for Food Safety to appeal, probably in U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White's courtroom. That is the same venue where the challengers have been racking up wins.

	It is White who has ordered those GM sugar beets pulled out by the roots, an action now on its own appeal. Those plantings would provide seed for the 2012 growing season.

	Challengers to the Round-Up Ready sugar beets fear their pollen might contaminate organic and other non-GM crops. Monsanto's GM sugar beets are resistant to its own Round-Up brand of herbicide.

	Before White ordered USDA to do a full-blown environmental impact statement on Monsanto's Round-Up Ready GM sugar beets, 95 percent of the growers in the dozen states where they are planted had adopted them.

	The final EIS is not due until May 2012. USDA issued the draft last November and it included at option, requested by Monsanto, for a planting option in the interim under certain conditions. 

  






Document Number: 5971 

Wikileaks Exposes Unholy Alliance of U.S. Government, Bill Gates, And Monsanto

For related articles
and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page,
and our Millions Against Monsanto page. 

Many of us who have been fighting the wholesale introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment have known all along how the U.S. government was being influenced by the US-based transnational corporations that profit from genetic engineering and the export-oriented, agribusiness model of agriculture in general. Recently released Wikileaks cables document just how close that relationship has become, demonstrating clearly how the U.S. Department of State has become a virtual agency for brazenly promoting the private interests of Monsanto Corporation abroad. Other US government institutions, namely the FDA, the USDA and the US Trade Representative are also in lockstep and 'revolving door" with the interests of Monsanto as well as other corporations that promote the privatization of life, sell agro-chemicals and GMO and hybrid seeds essential to expand the agenda of capital-intensive agricultural industrialization across the planet.
U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks reveal the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. In 2007, then-U.S. ambassador to France Craig Stapleton was concerned about France's decision to ban cultivation of genetically modified corn produced by biotech giant Monsanto. He also warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across Europe. 


	Ambassador Stapleton goes on to write, quote, 

	"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory," he wrote. (Democracy Now, 12/28/10) 




  






Document Number: 1173 

Monsanto's Genetically Engineered Sugar Beets Get Go-Ahead From USDA

		 The Department of Agriculture said on Friday that American farmers could resume growing genetically engineered sugar beets that had been barred by a federal judge. 

The decision could allow farmers to plant the biotech seeds this spring, avoiding a possible shortage of sugar later on.

"The decision is a win for consumers," said Duane Grant, a beet farmer in Rupert, Idaho, and chairman of the farmer-owned Snake River Sugar Company. "It assures a full beet crop will be planted in 2011."

But environmental groups and organic farmers were dismayed by the decision.

The genetically engineered beets accounted for more than 90 percent of the sugar beets grown last year. They can withstand spraying by the herbicide Roundup, allowing farmers to kill weeds without harming the crop.

But in August, in response to a lawsuit filed by environmental groups and organic farmers, a federal district court judge in San Francisco revoked the approval of the beets.

The judge, Jeffrey S. White, said the Agriculture Department had to prepare an environmental impact statement assessing the effects of the biotech crop. His biggest concern was that the genetically engineered trait could spread to organic sugar beet crops or to other crops like Swiss chard and red table beets.

But some farmers said there might not be enough nonengineered seed available to satisfy demand. The government projected a possible 20 percent reduction in American sugar production.

As a result, the Agriculture Department was under pressure to allow the genetically engineered beets to be grown - and to do so in time for the spring planting season - even though it did not expect to finish the environmental impact statement until May 2012.

The solution announced Friday was an interim "partial deregulation" of the beets that will hold until the impact statement is done and a final decision made. The partial deregulation was requested by the two companies that developed the crop, Monsanto and KWS, a German seed company.

Farmer-owned sugar processing companies will enter into compliance agreements with the government covering their growers. The agreements will spell out the measures that must be taken to prevent the genetically engineered traits from spreading. Farmers' fields will be subject to inspection. 

  






Document Number: 47 

EU Parliament Backs National Bans on GM Crops

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

Euro MPs have voted to give EU member states more flexibility to restrict or ban genetically modified crops on environmental or health grounds.

The draft legislation, still to be discussed by EU governments, would enable countries to go beyond the EU-wide mechanism for regulating GM crops.

Arguments about the safety of GM foods continue in many of the EU's 27 states.

The EU Commission had proposed that the EU should decide on approvals or bans on environmental or health grounds.

Currently a type of maize called MON 810 is the only GM food cultivated commercially in the EU.

But not everywhere - it is banned in six EU states: Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg.

A report approved by MEPs on Tuesday says member states "may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs [genetically modified organisms], in all or part of their territory, on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest.

"Those measures may be based on grounds relating to environmental or other legitimate factors such as socio-economic impacts." 

  





Document Number: 2929 

Cries of Lax Regulation After U.S.D.A. Ruling on Bluegrass

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Agriculture Department has exempted a genetically engineered grass from federal regulation, a decision that some critics say could portend a loosening in oversight of biotech crops. 

The department said that an herbicide-tolerant Kentucky bluegrass being developed by Scotts Miracle-Gro was not subject to federal regulation because its creation did not entail use of any plant pests. 

The decision, issued late Friday, frees Scotts to sell the grass, which is meant for lawns, without federal approval. The company also does not need federal permits to conduct field trials, even though a different type of genetically engineered grass escaped from company test plots in the past and established itself in the wild. 

The genetically engineered bluegrass contains a gene that allows it to tolerate the widely used herbicide Roundup, also known as glyphosate. That allows the chemical to be sprayed to kill weeds without harming the grass. 


  





Document Number: 5104 

Retailers Hold the Key to Kicking GMOs Out of Our Food

  Manufacturers such as Nestle and Kraft don't use genetically engineered ingredients in products destined for European stores. Strict laws on GMOs and myriad protests when the technology was first introduced sent a pretty clear message to companies early on-"no crap in our food, please." The billions of pounds of GE corn, soy and canola produced yearly are instead reserved for shoppers everywhere else-including the U.S. While European consumers won't stand for this junk in their food, (so far) we will, and since GE ingredients are often cheaper (thanks, subsidies) there's no reason for food companies to bother with EU formulations in all products.

Because most countries haven't mobilized against GMOs, the bioengineered foods business continues to boom. Monsanto, the St. Louis, Missouri-based agricultural giant that owns most genetically modified seeds, grew its net income by 77 percent to $680 million in the third quarter according to an earnings report released by the company this week.

What would it take to slow Monsanto's roll and kick GMOs out of the U.S. food system? We certainly can't count on the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Food and Drug Administration to take a stand against genetic modification since biotech supporters are embedded in these government organizations. Even seemingly philanthropic Bill Gates has been duped by Monsanto's claim that GE crops can solve world hunger.  It's up to us, and in many ways, up to retailers to clear up confusion and incite change. 






Document Number: 7029 

Monsanto Uses 5M a Year to Lobby Government to Make You Sick

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Monsanto Company spent $1.4 million to lobby the federal government just in the first quarter of 2011, according to a recent disclosure report. That's still less than the $2.5 million Monsanto spent in a single three month period only a year earlier.

The company primarily lobbied Congress and the U.S. Department of Agriculture concerning regulations that would affect genetically engineered crops such as the company's Roundup Ready soybeans and alfalfa.

According to CNBC:

"The company also lobbied Congress and USDA on issues surrounding consolidation and antitrust law in agriculture ... The company also lobbied the U.S. Trade Representative and Department of State on issues surrounding foreign regulation and trade of biotech seeds."

Sources: CNBC June 20, 2011

Dr. Mercola's Comments:

If you've ever wondered why the United States leads the world in genetically modified (GM) crop acreage, the above lobbying statistics should give you your answer. Monsanto, the world leader in GM seeds, spends millions of dollars lobbying the U.S. government for favorable legislation that supports the spread of their toxic products. 

  






Document Number: 3645 

U.S. Government Loses 20 Year Battle to Stop GMO Food Labeling at the International Level

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Consumer rights victory as US ends opposition to GM labeling guidelines

Twenty year struggle within global food safety body ends with 'consumer rights milestone' Move clears way for greater monitoring of the effects of GM organisms

Consumers International (CI) and its member organizations celebrated victory today as regulators from more than 100 countries agreed on long overdue guidance on the labeling of genetically modified (GM) food.

The Codex Alimentarius Commission, made up of the world's food safety regulatory agencies, has been laboring for two decades to come up with consensus guidance on this topic. 

No legal opposition to GM labeling

In a striking reversal of their previous position, on Tuesday, during the annual Codex summit in Geneva, the US delegation dropped its opposition to the GM labeling guidance document, allowing it to move forward and become an official Codex text.

The new Codex agreement means that any country wishing to adopt GM food labeling will no longer face the threat of a legal challenge from the World Trade Organization (WTO). This is because national measures based on Codex guidance or standards cannot be challenged as a barrier to trade.

This will have immediate implications for consumers. Edita Vilcapoma of the Peruvian consumer group ASPEC, representing Consumers International at the Codex meeting in Geneva, said:

"Peru's recent introduction of GM food labeling faced the threat of a legal challenge from the WTO. This new Codex agreement now means that this threat has gone and the consumer right to be informed has been secured. This is major victory for the global consumer movement."

  






Document Number: 9356 

The Fine Print

	In Brazil, ranchers are opting to use Agent Orange -- one of the most toxic herbicides ever concocted, infamous for its use as a defoliant and de facto weapon during the Vietnam War -- to clear acres of rainforest. It&#39;s illegal to clear the forest, but by spraying swaths of trees with Agent Orange, deployed by helicopter, ranchers stand less chance of detection than if they cleared the land by bulldozing or cutting down trees.

	Agent Orange is all sorts of bad news. It not only destroys the trees it hits but also kills (horribly) any wildlife that happens to be hanging out in the area. It can also contaminate groundwater. In Vietnam, it caused birth defects. It&#39;s hard to clean up. The ranchers shouldn&#39;t be clearing rainforest at all, but if they&#39;re going to do it, this is the worst possible way to go about it.

	Luckily, Brazils environmental agency IBAMA (theres just something inspiring and handsome yet mildly frustrating about that name!) is on the case. Officials just unearthed a four-ton stash of Agent Orange, and fined the person responsible $1.3 million. But at least 440 acres have already been cleared with the stuff.Log in  (register) or
		Connect to CommentMonkeys go on looting spree in RioKilling weeds may kill butterfliesTop 10 American vacation spots House bill could ruinHere&#8217;s what an hour&#8217;s worth of ocean trash looks likeDon&#8217;t dam Atlantic fisheries to extinctionNorway terrorist is a climate change denierUPDATE: Tim DeChristopher gets two years in prisonGreen is the new red: environmental activists under attackHow smart growth in cities saves wilderness [VIDEO] 1999-2011 Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved.Gloom and doom with a sense of humor. 





Document Number: 7724 

Kenyans Protest Over GM Maize Imports

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Politics and Democracy page.

Hundreds of people have marched in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, against government plans to import genetically modified (GM) maize.

They were protesting at reports that Kenya would lift its restrictions on GM crops following a recent drought, leading to maize shortages.

The demonstrators said they believed a shipment had already arrived and feared it could contaminate the soil.

Kenyan millers want to import cheap GM maize to cope with the shortages.

The BBC's Odhiambo Joseph in Nairobi says the protesters included farmers and environmentalists.

"The importation of GM maize is a ploy by leading millers to kill us - the small-scale farmer," protester Gacheke Gachihi said.

The march was organised by the African Biodiversity Network and the Unga Revolution. 'Toxic product'

They said a consignment of GM maize from South Africa was in the port city of Mombasa, waiting to be off-loaded. Continue reading the main story "Start Quote

GM maize is cheaper by about 30% compared with non-GM maize"

Diamond Lalji Chairman of Kenya's Cereal Millers Association

They wanted it destroyed or sent back, the protesters said. 

  






Document Number: 4219 

Herbicide Tolerance and Monsanto's GM Crops

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The widespread and increasingly intensive use of glyphosate in association with the use of GM (genetically modified) crops poses further risks to the environment and human health.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides sold throughout the world, including the well-known formulation, Roundup. Glyphosate-based herbicides are used widely for weed control because they are non-selective; glyphosate kills all vegetation.

GM crops specifically engineered to be tolerant to glyphosate are known as 'Roundup Ready' (RR). These RR varieties allow farmers to spray the herbicide over the top of the growing crop, killing virtually all weeds without affecting the crop. The use of glyphosate on GM RR crops such as soy, maize and cotton has increased dramatically in North and South America, where they are predominantly grown.

GM crops are marketed by the US agrochemical giant Monsanto, and are associated with its own formulation of glyphosate herbicide, Roundup. Monsanto's sales pitch to farmers promised, and still does, reduced labour and financial savings by simplifying and reducing the costs of weed control. The reality is turning out to be different, with increasing health, biodiversity and environmental concerns and the development of weed resistance.

Given the problems that are now evident, no new GM glyphosate-tolerant crops should be authorized. In broader terms, GM herbicide-tolerant crops have been developed for an industrial farming model. They are therefore intrinsically linked to unsustainable farming practices that damage the basic natural resources food production is based upon, and their cultivation should be banned. 

  






Document Number: 6298 

Monsanto-Super Weeds Raising Food Prices
For decades, farmers had it relatively easy when it came to weeds infesting their soil: apply herbicides, wait for the weeds to die and grow more crops. Those salad days, alas, are coming to an end. 

A new series of studies released by Weed Science this month finds at least 21 weed species have become resistant to the popular herbicide glyphosate (sold as Monsanto's Roundup), and a growing number survive multiple herbicides, so-called "super-weeds." The same selection pressure creating bacteria resistant to multiple antibiotics is leading to the rapid evolution of plants that survive modern herbicides. If the trend continues, yields could drop and food costs climb as weeds grow more difficult to uproot. 

"The herbicide resistance issue is becoming serious," said journal editor, William K. Vencill, in a recent statement. "It is spreading out beyond where weed scientists have seen it before." More than 11 million acres, up from just 2.4 million in 2007, are now infested with Roundup-resistant varieties. The herbicide, a relatively low-impact chemical since it biodegrades quickly, has ranked among the most popular for farmers since Monsanto introduced its genetically engineered Roundup Ready crops that are unaffected by the chemical, accounting for about 90 percent of the soybeans and 70 percent of the corn and cotton grown in the United States.  
  






Document Number: 2287 

French Court Dismisses Monsanto Financial Claims. GM Crop Saboteurs Go Free in France

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.


On June 28, 2011, the court of Poitiers in central France acquitted eight defendant Volunteer Reapers (les Faucheurs Volontaires) for destroying a genetically modified field trial in 2008.


Among those acquitted were anti-globalist Jose Bove and Francois Dufour, recognized as "repeat offenders." 


The court also dismissed Monsanto's financial claims. Apart from their own legal expenses, the Reapers owe nothing for the 2008 mowing of a GM field trial of Monsanto's GM corn, Mon810 x Nk603.


The trial marked the third court victory for Volunteer Reapers. Previously, the Chartres 58 and the Orleans 49 were also acquitted, notes the Inf'OGM press release. 

  






Document Number: 9336 

Monsanto Under Investigation by SEC

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

The world's largest seed company, Monsanto, announced Wednesday that its quarterly profits surged nearly 80 percent.

	
	But the news was clouded somewhat by another announcement that the biotechnology giant was under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission for offering incentives to distributors who sell its herbicides.

	
	The company's herbicide division, which includes the flagship product, Roundup, has struggled in recent years, losing ground to cheaper, generic alternatives from China. In 2009 and 2010, Monsanto began offering incentives to customers to use Roundup in an attempt to shore up the brand.

	
	On Wednesday, Monsanto executives said the SEC had launched a probe into the incentive programs and that the agency has subpoenaed documents. 

  






Document Number: 7041 

EU Allows Unapproved GM Material in Feed Imports

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Farm Issues page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

	The European Union adopted new rules on Friday allowing traces of unapproved genetically modified (GM) material in animal feed imports, in a bid to secure grain fodder supplies to the import-dependent bloc.

	"The regulation ... addresses the current uncertainty EU operators face when placing on the market feed products imported from third countries," the Commission said in a statement.

	The EU and its trading partners -- backed by industry -- argue the 0.1 percent threshold is needed to avoid a repeat of supply disruptions in 2009, when U.S. soy shipments to Europe were blocked after unapproved GM material was found in some cargoes.

	But environmental campaigners and consumer groups have accused the EU of caving in to GM-industry lobbying by reversing its "zero-tolerance" policy on unauthorised GM crops.

	Some environmentalists argue that the effect of consuming GM crops is unknown and say these varieties have not completed the EU's safety assessment process. 

  






Document Number: 914 

Monsanto Trying to Take over World Seed Supply, Nation by Nation

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Farm Issues page and our Politics and Democracy page.

He who controls the seed controls the food supply; and he who controls the food supply controls the world. There is no question that Monsanto is on a mission to monopolize the conventional seed market. In fact, they are steadfastly working towards the goal of creating a world where 100% of all commercial seeds are genetically modified and patented- basically a world where natural seeds are extinct.(http://www.naturalnews.com/029325_M...)

	Unfortunately for the global community Monsanto is accomplishing their purpose. They currently own 90% of the world's patents for GMO seed including cotton, soybeans, corn, sugar beets and canola. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environme...)

	Yep, the creators of chemicals that will go down in history for their toxicity and horrific side effects, is attempting to take over the world's seed supply. Ask yourself- do you really want companies such as BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Syngenta, and Dow involved with your food? Sadly, to a large extent they already are. These Monsanto chemical and GMO cronies all share genetically engineered traits and create the patented herbicides and pesticides that GMO crops require to thrive.

	Monsanto is infamous for taking advantage of small farmers, and with the advent of MoU's they are doing so with governmental license. Countries like India, Pakistan, Australia, and New Zealand have all executed MoU's with Monsanto. MoU's or memorandum's of understanding permit Monsanto to use publicly owned lands to create so called demonstration farms (GMO breeding camps) which in turn -at least in the case of Rajasthan - are subsidized by the government. 

  






Document Number: 1156 

The Truth about GM Crops, Farmer to Farmer

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

I'll state straight away, I hate/loathe/despise/abhor Monsanto. They are evil, not metaphorically evil, but actually evil. And as for our politicians who should have protected us from Monsanto; well, there's a special circle of Hell reserved just for them.

	I came across this video in the twitterverse and wanted to share it because it gives you a good idea of what is involved in actually using GM seed and the (hoocoodanode!?) consequences. Farmer to Farmer.

	I ask you: What do we do to extricate ourselves from this politico-corporate nightmare? 



  






Document Number: 4348 

Roundup: Birth Defects Caused By World's Top-Selling Weedkiller, Scientists Say

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

WASHINGTON -- The chemical at the heart of the planet's most widely used herbicide -- Roundup weedkiller, used in farms and gardens across the U.S. -- is coming under more intense scrutiny following the release of a new report calling for a heightened regulatory response around its use.

	Critics have argued for decades that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup and other herbicides used around the globe, poses a serious threat to public health. Industry regulators, however, appear to have consistently overlooked their concerns.

	A comprehensive review of existing data released this month by Earth Open Source, an organization that uses open-source collaboration to advance sustainable food production, suggests that industry regulators in Europe have known for years that glyphosate, originally introduced by American agricultural biotechnology giant Monsanto in 1976, causes birth defects in the embryos of laboratory animals. 

Founded in 2009, Earth Open Source is a non-profit organisation incorporated in the U.K. but international in scope. Its three directors, specializing in business, technology and genetic engineering, work pro-bono along with a handful of young volunteers. Partnering with half a dozen international scientists and researchers, the group drew its conclusions in part from studies conducted in a number of locations, including Argentina, Brazil, France and the United States. 

  






Document Number: 8530 

NPR and Monsanto

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

National Public Radio is presently under attack by listeners critical of a May 4 Marketplace report titled "The Non-Organic Future," which featured an interview with Pedro Sanchez of Columbia University. Sanchez's views mirror the corporate strategies of Monsanto for feeding the world-i.e., rejecting organic farming and heirloom crops in favor of large-scale agribusiness: fertilizers, pesticides and GMO crops.

	Marketplace, a radio program produced by American Public Media for NPR stations, received corporate sponsorship from Monsanto for two years. APM spokesperson Bill Gray tells the Bohemian that "Monsanto has not been a sponsor of Marketplace since April of 2010."

	Yet outraged critics suspect a lingering Monsanto influence over Marketplace's seemingly pro-corporate report, which made no mention of a five-year study the United Nations published in 2009 called "The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development" (IAASTD). In the IAASTD, some 400 experts advised just the opposite for feeding the world-i.e., relying on smaller farms and old-fashioned sustainable farming practices. 

  






Document Number: 531 

Monsanto Responds to Glyphosate/Birth Defects Report

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.

1. Earth Open Source response to Monsanto 2. June 2011 Earth Open Source Report on Roundup - Monsanto response

	NOTE: Below (item 2) is Monsanto's initial response to the Earth Open Source report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?". The EOS report showed industry has known that glyphosate causes birth defects since the 1980s and EU regulators have known since the 1990s. But instead of informing the public, industry and regulators have repeatedly claimed that glyphosate and Roundup do not cause birth defects: http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5

	Earth Open Source's response to Monsanto is also below (item 1). --- --- 1. Earth Open Source response to Monsanto June 14, 2011 http://on.fb.me/machCY

	Monsanto responded to our report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" in a statement on its website.

	Monsanto said, "Regulatory authorities and independent experts around the world agree that glyphosate does not cause adverse reproductive effects in adult animals or birth defects in offspring of these adults exposed to glyphosate, even at doses far higher than relevant environmental or occupational exposures."

	However, one of the main points of our report is that regulatory authorities have indeed agreed that glyphosate does not cause birth defects - but that conclusion is directly contradicted by the evidence in industry's own studies. These industry studies, submitted by companies including Monsanto in support of glyphosate's approval in the EU, showed that glyphosate causes birth defects in experimental animals. These effects were found not only at high doses, but also at mid and lower doses. 

  






Document Number: 2085 

Defeating GMOs - The Power of the Free Market

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Health Issues page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

In 405 B.C., at the moment when Sparta captured the Hellespont, thereby controlling access to the Straits of Bosporus and the Black Sea, cutting off the supply of grain from that vital area, Athens was doomed. Indeed, it is said that, when news of this stunning development reached Athens, a wailing went up throughout the city that could be heard in Corinth They knew. Whoever controls the food supply, controls the course of destiny.

	The dangers associated with GMO foods are myriad. They include major health risks, as foreign genes from other organisms, including bacteria and viruses, are forced into the DNA of food crops. Potential human health risks identified by FDA scientists include increased allergens in the food supply, toxins, new diseases, birth defects, infertility, increased risk of cancer, nutritional deficiencies, and even damage to internal organs, particularly gastrointestinal organs. And what of the other human health risks, the health of Society, and of Freedom? Of these many dangers, the issue of food security, and of Farmer's Freedom, strikes me as being the most frightening. 

  






Document Number: 2311 

Separate Shelves for GM Foods Is Now Law in Cyprus

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page and our Genetic Engineering page.

THE HOUSE yesterday voted into law a bill making it compulsory to display genetically-modified (GM) foods on separate shelves in shops and supermarkets.

	GM foods and foods containing GM ingredients, will now be sold with a prominent sign stating clearly that these are GM foods, or food containing GM ingredients.

	The law provides for GM labelling in three languages (Greek, English and Turkish), and stipulates hefty fines for non-compliance.

	It was passed by unanimous vote, despite earlier concerns of opposition from vested interests, such as commercial quarters.

	The passage of the law was welcomed by the Green Party, which has been pushing for tighter GM regulation.

	"This caps our efforts of nine years," said Greens MP George Perdikis.

	The government bill passed yesterday was largely based on a legislative proposal drafted by Perdikis. He subsequently withdrew the legislative proposal as the government document has precedence.

	Under EU legislation each member state is free to display these foods as it sees fit. The bloc also has tough labeling standards. 

  






Document Number: 8081 

In Defense of Organic

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Health Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

As Grist readers know, "mythbusting" Scientific American blogger Christie Wilcox took on organic agriculture recently in "Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming Conventional Agriculture." Now, I do agree that there should be no sacred cows -- we should examine everything with a critical, if not jaundiced, eye. And indeed Wilcox brings up issues surrounding organic ag about which many people may not be aware. But sadly, her analysis goes quickly and seriously off the rails.

First the good points: Organic ag does use pesticides, sometimes in large quantities. This is not a new revelation: There are a set of pesticides approved for organic use, including copper and sulfur anti-fumigants and the naturally occurring Bt toxin. Copper and sulfur in particular are often overused, especially among fruit growers. While these chemicals can be used by any scale of farmer, it's a particular problem among so-called "industrial organic" farmers.

As the organic industry has taken off, many large-scale farmers have in essence adapted the industrial agriculture mindset -- with its monocropping, its focus on inputs and outputs and maximizing productivity -- if not all its techniques. Tom Philpott has written about the problematic nature of this phenomenon; for a deep dive on the subject, I recommend Sam Fromartz's excellent Organic, Inc.

Wilcox should also be commended for her point that the main criteria for allowed organic pesticides are simply that they be "naturally occurring" rather than synthetic. As she says, "just because something is natural doesn't make it non-toxic or safe." Too true.

So far so good. Next up, she knocks down health claims about organic food; this is where the problems start. While this issue is actually very much in flux, Wilcox doesn't treat it as such. Instead, she cites a 2010 review paper that concludes "any consumers who buy organic food because they believe that it contains more healthful nutrients than conventional food are wasting their money." Wow -- pretty clear cut, right? 

  






Document Number: 3683 

Salmon Surprise: House Opposes FDA Frankenfish Approval

To take action to stop Frankenfish, please click here.

The eminent fisheries writer Paul Greenberg recently gutted and filleted the rationale for a novel type of farmed salmon genetically altered to grow faster. The "improved" fish, created by a Massachusetts-based company called AquaBounty Technologies, threatens to "escape and contaminate wild populations of salmon," Greenberg wrote. And the business model AquaBounty has in mind is ecologically insane: "the fish requires much wasteful transport since it would be cloned in Canada, grown in Panama, and then flown back to the U.S. for consumption." On top of those obvious drawbacks, the GMO salmon literally offers no benefits to the environment or consumers. "It is completely unnecessary," he concludes. Its only rationale is economic -- as defined narrowly by the interests of the AquaBounty shareholders. Greenberg writes:

	
	
	"It seems to me that what the AquaBounty AquAdvantage salmon represents is the privatization of the salmon genome. Should salmon farming come to be dominated by the AquAdvantage fish, farmers could become dependent on a single company for their stock, just as soy, corn, and wheat farmers must now rely on large multinationals like Monsanto to provide seed for their fields year in and year out. AquaBounty will literally own salmon farming." 

  






Document Number: 4864 

Should We Label GMO Foods?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, All About Organics page, and our Safeguard Organic Standards page.

A hundred years ago, pretty much all of the food Americans ate was essentially organic and local - and not surprisingly, much more nutritious. But with the advent of Big Agra and industrialized food production, we moved towards a food supply heavily modified for higher yields and higher profits. First came pesticides, which U.S. farmers began using just after World War II. Then came genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. The first genetically modified food crop was introduced in 1994, and since then, the introduction of new GMO crops has accelerated at an alarming rate.

	Throughout these changes, very little consideration has been given to food labeling, and by and large, consumers have had no idea to what extent the food they buy is contaminated with pesticides or genetically modified. Ironically enough, we now label normal food as "organic" to separate it from pesticide-laden, genetically modified food, which requires no labeling at all.

	Call me silly, but shouldn't it be exactly the opposite? Shouldn't organic foods be the norm, and adulterated foods have labeling requirements? For example, how would you feel about a box of cereal labeled as "GMO Corn Flakes" sitting on the shelf at your local grocery store? Would you buy an apple with a sticker that said "Grown using pesticides"? Maybe, but probably not. The fact is, 86% of the corn grown in this country has been genetically modified, so unless that box of cereal is labeled "non-GMO," chance are, it's full of GMOs. And according to the Pesticide Action Network's What's On My Food? Guide, multiple pesticides are found in the majority of conventionally grown apples. But you certainly won't see any of these things on a label. 

  






Document Number: 7744 

The Cost-Effective Way to Feed the World

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Environment and Climate Resource page, and our Organic Transitions page.

By 2050, the world will have to feed 9 billion people, adapt to climate change, reduce agricultural pollution, and protect fresh water supplies - all at the same time. Given that formidable challenge, what are the quickest, most cost-effective ways to develop more productive, drought-, flood- and pest-resistant crops?

	Some will claim that genetically engineered (GE) crops are the solution. But when compared side-by-side, classical plant breeding bests genetic engineering. Coupled with ecologically based management methods that reduce the environmental harm of crop production, classical breeding could go a long way toward producing the food we will need by mid-century.

	Producing better crops faster certainly would help the world feed itself, but genetic engineering has no advantage on that score. Not only can classical breeding programs introduce new varieties about as fast as genetic engineering, technical improvements are making classical practices even faster.

	Early steps in the genetic engineering process avoid the multiple rounds of cross-breeding inherent in classical plant breeding by directly inserting engineered genes into the crop. But seed companies then use classical breeding to transfer engineered genes to the crop's numerous varieties for different markets and climates - and that takes time. And just as in classical breeding, new engineered varieties must be tested in the field for several years to ensure they perform as expected.



  






Document Number: 7964 

Whole Foods Includes GMOs In All Natural Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, All About Organics page, and our Myth of Natural page.

In this guest post by friend, super-sleuth, and fellow blogger Heather Dessinger of Mommypotamus, Heather reveals a disquieting truth about "all natural" product labels and the corporations that use them. She also asked that I include this disclaimer for all you Whole Foods defenders: "I still shop at Whole Foods . . . I just avoid stuff that is likely to contain GMO's. My goal in writing this post was to help other consumers do the same."

	
	Do you believe in the Whole Foods fairy?

	
	She used to be your garden variety woodland sprite, but times are hard and sorting mountains of corn and soy for Whole Foods is a sweet gig. Just sprinkle a little magical fairy dust and VOILA! The genetically modified feed separates from the conventional feed in a snap.

	
	It's a win-win, really. Whole Foods gets to charge a premium for it's GMO-free natural meats, the fairy gets a generous 401K with rollover, and the consumer gets a superior product.

	
	What, you don't believe?!?!? Tell me this then: If roughly 86% of corn and 93% of soy grown conventionally in the U.S. is genetically modified, and the "natural"chickens in Whole Foods are fed conventional corn and soy, then how are they GMO free?

	
	Whole Foods employees are terribly unhelpful in answering this question, as is The Great Oracle Google. Fortunately, though, there is an answer! In an interview with Dr. Mercola, Whole Foods' Senior Global VP, Michael Besancon, ADMITTED their foods are contaminated with GMO's. 

  






Document Number: 1623 

The Monsanto/Bill Gates Plot: Genetically Engineered Rice Threatens Asian Countries

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has approved $20 million in new monies toward the development of "golden rice" -- an untested, highly controversial GE (genetically engineered) crop that threatens biodiversity and risks bringing economic and ecological disaster to Asia's farms.

	The leader of the Golden Rice project is Gerald Barry, previously director of research at Monsanto.

	Sarojeni V. Rengam, executive director of Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (PAN AP), has called the rice a "Trojan horse." According to Rengam, the rice is "... a public relations stunt pulled by the agri-business corporations to garner acceptance of GE crops and food. The whole idea of GE seeds is to make money."

	Food Freedom reports:

	"Golden rice is a Trojan horse for pushing through GE-friendly biosafety regulations under the guise of humanitarian aid. Once in place, these regulations open the door for the biotech industry to bring in commercial, patented GE crops; USAID and Monsanto accomplished exactly this in Kenya with their sweet potato project."

	In Thailand at least, however, a little known and unpublicized agricultural policy protects Thai rice from the risks of GMO's. The Thai Ministry of Agriculture's "Rice Strategy" is a master plan committed to strengthening the nation's rice production while promoting farmers' livelihoods and consumer confidence -- which includes keeping Thai rice GMO (genetically modified organism)-free.

	Adding to the risks of GE crops is Monsanto's Roundup, the world's best-selling herbicide that is made to be partnered with GE Roundup Ready crops. According to a new report, regulators have known for years that Roundup causes birth defects.
Regulators were apparently aware as long ago as 1980 that glyphosate, the active chemical ingredient of Roundup, caused birth defects in lab animals. However, the information was not made public. Instead, regulators misled the public about glyphosate's safety.

	According to the Huffington Post:

	"... [A]s recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, the German government body dealing with the glyphosate review, told the European Commission that there was no evidence glyphosate causes birth defects ...

	Although glyphosate was originally due to be reviewed in 2012, the Commission decided late last year not to bring the review forward, instead delaying it until 2015. The chemical will not be reviewed under more stringent, up-to-date standards until 2030."

	Dr. Mercola's Comments:

	Golden rice is a strain of rice genetically modified to produce beta-carotene, which your body converts to vitamin A. It has been promoted as a way to alleviate vitamin A deficiency, which is common in developing countries where people don't have regular access to beta-carotene-rich foods, like vegetables and fruits. 

  






Document Number: 2592 

Wildlife Refuges to be Planted with GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

It is becoming increasingly difficult to find animals that haven't been force-fed GMO grain. To top it all off, even Alfalfa, which is a staple cattle feed in America, will be genetically engineered thanks to Land O' Lakes, Forage Genetics and Monsanto. But that isn't enough for this administration. Now they are going after wildlife too.

	Washington, DC - The Obama administration has endorsed genetically engineered agriculture on more than 50 National Wildlife Refuges, with more GE-refuge approvals in the works, according to Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. (PEER) 

	It is clear that we need to wean ourselves off mass-produced food and start getting serious about growing our own veggies and fruit, and raising our own animals. We are literally being surrounded with weapons of mass destruction in the form of DNA-altering GMOs (genetically modified organisms) that cause infertility, severe health problems, and premature death.

	The proposal for the Midwestern Refuges would allow more than 20,000 acres to be cultivated with no limits on how many acres could be GE crops. The public comment deadline for that plan is today [Feb. 14, 2011]. In its comments, PEER argues that the GE operations risk harm to wildlife, refuge plants and soil, while contending that there is no refuge purpose for which GE crops are essential, as required by FWS policy. 

  






Document Number: 1706 

Organic Farmers Garner More Support in Legal Battle with Monsanto

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The list of plaintiffs engaged in an ambitious lawsuit against Monsanto - the chemical company turned biotech/seed firm - just grew. The case has profound implications for farmers across the United States and the world, but you probably haven't heard about it.

	In March, the Public Patent Foundation (PubPat), a not-for-profit legal services organization dedicated to protecting the public's interest in the patenting system, filed suit against Monsanto on behalf of 60 organic farmers and a bevy of agricultural organizations seeking assurance from the biotech giant that it would not sue if their patented genes were found to have contaminated the farmers' crops.

	The case is the first of its kind and a necessary one for farmers who, without legal protections otherwise, operate under a pervasive fear that Monsanto will target them next with a patent infringement lawsuit. Monsanto has a history of suing organic or conventional farmers who have no contract with the company, and yet who've been found to unwittingly harbor crops with patented genes on their land. Yes, thanks to a 2002 Supreme Court decision, whose majority opinion was authored by ex Monsanto Lawyer Clarence Thomas, the issuing of utility patents for lifeforms has been permitted to continue unabated. That ruling was based on the landmark Diamond v. Chakrabarty Supreme Court decision of 1980 in which the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office was forced to administer exceptionally broad licensing allowances for individuals and corporations seeking to patent living organisms.



  






Document Number: 7235 

House Moves to Ban Modified Salmon

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, California News page, and our Alaska News page.

In a potential blow to the future of the biotech industry, a handful of House lawmakers voted last night to bar the Food and Drug Administration from approving any bioengineered salmon for mass consumption. 

	A terse amendment (pdf) offered by Reps. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) and Don Young (R-Alaska) would ban FDA from spending any funds on genetically engineered salmon approvals beginning in the next financial year. Less than a dozen lawmakers voted by voice to attach the amendment to an agriculture spending bill expected to pass the House this week. 

	The amendment is squarely aimed at preventing the approval of a fast-growing modified salmon developed by AquaBounty Technologies. For years, FDA has considered approving the salmon for limited cultivation in inland tanks, and last fall the agency held public meetings considering the approval, drawing broad public notice. The largely sterile salmon could be the first bioengineered animal approved for human consumption.

	"This sort of political gamesmanship undermines the science-based regulatory process," said Ronald Stotish, AquaBounty's CEO. "It is astonishing that Young and the very few representatives present during this vote -- less than the number of fingers on both hands -- would try to game the system in this way." 

  






Document Number: 8532 

New Plant Disease Linked to Monsanto's GM Crops and Pesticides

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

US scientists claim to have discovered a dangerous new plant disease linked to genetically modified crops and the pesticides used on them.

	The research, which is yet to be completed, suggests the pathogen could be the cause of recent widespread crop failure and miscarriages in livestock.

	Emeritus Professor Don Huber from Perdue University says his research shows that animals fed on GM corn or soybeans may suffer serious health problems due the pathogen.

	"They're finding anywhere from 20 per cent to as much as 55 per cent of those [animals] will miscarriage or spontaneously abort," he said.

	"It will kill a chicken embryo for instance in 24-48 hours."

	Professor Huber says it isn't clear yet whether it is the GM crops or the use of the pesticide glyphosate that causes the pathogen. But he says his research shows both the pesticide and the GM crops also reduce the ability of plants to absorb nutrients from the soil that are necessary for animal health.

	"If you have the [GM] gene present there is a reduced efficiency for the plant to use those nutrients. "When you put the glyphosate out then you have an additional factor to reduce the nutrient availability to the crop," he said.

	Professor Huber's concerns came to light in February this year after a private letter he wrote to US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary, Tom Vilsack, was leaked to the media. 

  






Document Number: 5498 

Hungary Destroys All Monsanto GMO Maize Fields

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

In an effort to rid the country of Monsanto's GMO products, Hungary has stepped up the pace. This looks like its going to be another slap in the face for Monsanto. A new regulation was introduced this March which stipulates that seeds are supposed to be checked for GMO before they are introduced to the market. Unfortunately, some GMO seeds made it to the farmers without them knowing it.

Almost 1000 acres of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said. The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added.

Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary. The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.

During their investigation, controllers have found Pioneer and Monsanto products among the seeds planted.

The free movement of goods within the EU means that authorities will not investigate how the seeds arrived in Hungary but they will check where the goods can be found, Bognar said. Regional public radio reported that the two biggest international seed producing companies are affected in the matter and GMO seeds could have been sown on up to thousands of hectares in the country. 

  






Document Number: 9720 

Big Ag Won't Feed the World

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Politics and Democracy page.

Back in March, USDA secretary Tom Vilsack spoke at an event called the Commodity Classic in Tampa, Fl. Sponsored by agribusiness giants Monsanto, BASF, Syngenta, John Deere, Dow AgroSciences, Dupont, Syngenta, and Archer Daniels Midland, among others, the event hails itself as the "premier national trade show and convention for corn, soy, wheat and sorghum farmers."

	According to an account in the trade journal Agri-Pulse, Vilsack spoke "with sometimes evangelistic fervor." He thundered against critics of corn-based ethanol, reiterated the Obama administration's goal of doubling US farm exports by 2014 by ramming open foreign markets, and praised the assembled farmers and agribusiness flacks for their record of "ensuring affordable food for US families," Agri-Pulse reported. The former governor of Iowa ended his speech on an evem more flattering note: "The farmers in this room have provided the prescription that this nation must follow to get itself back totally on its feet ... You should never ever bet against the American farmer because if you do, it's a losing bet." The audience roared its approval.

	The ag secretary was essentially promoting an agribusiness-as-usual vision of farm policy: maximum production of a few commodity crops, mainly to be used to fatten confined animals, create cheap sweeteners and fats, and fill gas tanks. He did so amid much rhetoric about "jobs," the Agri-Pulse account shows. But that's ludicrous. The modern food system lionized by Vilsack has been a massive net destroyer of jobs. And the fixation on doubling US ag exports can't be good news for farmers in the global south, who struggle to compete with their highly capitalized US peers. Ever get a threatening phone call from your ISP? You might as well be their employee, rather than the reverse. Ever get a DMCA takedown notice? Ever have a website taken down by your host in response to an unsubstantiated complaint? Welcome to "our free market system."

	Remember the Pinkertons, uniformed private thugs the bosses used to hire to bust union organizers' heads? Now Monsanto hires them to snoop around private farms, testing farmers' crops to see if they contain any genetic material from engineered seeds under patent. The Runyons, an Indiana farm family, were invaded in 2008 by Monsanto's hired goons in response to an "anonymous tip" that their farm hosted Roundup-ready soybeans. Sounds almost like - ahem - the Drug War, doesn't it? 

  






Document Number: 4761 

The Problem With Patents

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.
Kevin Drum wonders if patents really slow down innovation and growth to a degree that anyone should be all that worried:

	
	During the 80s, I remember learning that IBM held the original patents for stuff like DMA and interrupt controllers,1 which surprised me because by that time those things were like oxygen: just a standard part of every computer in the world. But hey - someone had to invent that stuff, and in the end the patents didn't really slow anyone down. Basically, the technology got incorporated into chips, the chipmakers presumably paid royalties, and everyone else just bought the chips. There was a modest cost, but it didn't prevent Steve Wozniak from designing the Apple II. The same thing happens with patent pools for things like MPEG and other standards. It's all a gigantic pain in the ass, and it can impede progress while the lawyers hash everything out, but once they do, all the little guys end up using the patented technology without having to jump through hoops.

	
	The question always becomes, without all those patents and protections of incumbent players and barriers to entry, how fast would innovation occurred? How many potential startups and innovators were shutdown by big entities like IBM, or later Microsoft or Intel, due to legal protections that reward capital over entrepreneurship?

	
	Of course, maybe it's hard to get a handle on the costs since tech has expanded so much in recent decades. What about other parts of the economy where IP law has a major impact? This is nowhere more insidious than agriculture and the world of genetically modified crops.

	
	Take it away Kevin Carson:

	
	Take, for example, "intellectual property" - a state-granted monopoly central to the corporate neoliberal order, but which has precious little to do with anything remotely resembling an actual free market. Your Internet service provider isn't a business performing a service for you - the paying customer - so much as an adjunct of the RIAA and MPAA and their lackeys in government. Your ISP spies on you on behalf of Big Content to ensure you're not downloading any big torrents.



  






Document Number: 4100 

Finding Justice for Vietnamese Victims of Monsanto's Agent Orange

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Fair Trade page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Planting Peace page.

On 10th August 1961 an event began that was to last for ten-years, and would leave a tragedy that has yet to find an end. Fifty years on, the Vietnamese people and their many friends around the world will be commemorating this special anniversary.

	Let's recall and reflect on what happened on that day of 10th August 1961, and the consequences, so horrific, it is difficult to grasp, to understand. It raises in the minds of many the questions: WHY? And what can be done to overcome the criminal legacy of Agent Orange?

	When the first planes took off from their base in South Vietnam on that fateful day, with its cargo of Agent Orange that was itself contaminated with Dioxin the world's most poisonous substance, and to begin the first spraying that was to continue for ten long years, none of the pilots or their crews were to know that they had set out on a mission that was to be repeated by others time and again resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent unborn babies, further, their actions were to cause the early deaths of many more thousands of innocent children, denying them their human rights, a right never to reach beyond their teenage years.

	The results of the use of Agent Orange/Dioxin over those years have travelled down the years with devastating results; for the magnificent forests on which the chemical was sprayed, for the people living and fighting for their country's independence within the forests, the animal life, insects, all so vital for any forest.

	For the people going about their daily lives in the fields outside the cities growing their crops, and tending to their animals, they too were to become victims of Agent Orange as were the children walking to school and who later, on returning home, were to help their parents in the fields. As the spaying continued, so the soil itself became poisoned as did the food being grown ..As did the fish in the rivers and lakes. 

  





Document Number: 5320 

Feds Mull Comments on Eastern Idaho Phosphate Mine

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Idaho News page.

More time is needed to consider public comments following the release of an environmental study on plans by Monsanto Co. to open a new phosphate mine in eastern Idaho, federal officials say.

	Officials with the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management said they need several additional months to make sure their final decision complies with the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and the Groundwater Protection Rule.

	"We're pretty close to having the information we need to make a decision, maybe a month or two," said Jeff Cundick, minerals branch chief for the phosphate program of the Caribou National Forest and the Bureau of Land Management.

	He added there are important issues that officials need to make sure were addressed appropriately in the environmental impact statement.

	Monsanto is seeking approval to open the Blackfoot Bridge Mine in the area to produce ingredients for Roundup weedkiller because its current mine is expected to be depleted within a year and a half. The impact statement was released in early March following a process that included a draft impact statement.

	Monsanto Co. officials said additional delays in opening the mine could harm the company financially and cost jobs.

	"Many of the environmental safeguards designed into the Blackfoot Bridge Mine must be constructed when the ground is not frozen, and ambient temperatures are moderate to warm," Dave Farnsworth, minerals lead for Monsanto Soda Springs, told the Idaho State Journal. "In Soda Springs, that gives us a very short window for construction. If the delay is a few weeks, we may yet be able to make progress this year. A longer delay, however, could severely compromise our timetable for transition from the old mine to the new one. That, in turn, jeopardizes the competitiveness of our business and puts jobs at risk." 

  






Document Number: 7057 

DuPont Joins $20 Million PR Campaign to Defend Biotech and Chemical Ag

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

DuPont today joined an effort to bolster the image of agriculture and enhance public trust in the U.S. food production system. The initiative is led by the U.S. Farmers  Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), a new initiative represented by more than 40 of the leading farmer- and rancher-led agricultural organizations.

	The USFRA was established in October 2010 and represents farmer and rancher organizations that reach nearly all aspects of U.S. agriculture. The Alliance will work to increase the role of U.S. farmers and ranchers as the voice of animal and crop agriculture on local, state and national food issues. It also will serve as a resource to food companies on the benefits of modern production agriculture and work with leading health, environmental and dietary organizations.

	"DuPont is proud to support the U.S. Farmers  Ranchers Alliance as they bring together an unprecedented group that crosses all boundaries in modern agriculture with a single goal of building understanding about the dependable, abundant supply of food produced by today's farmers and ranchers," said DuPont Executive Vice President James C. Borel. "There is an increased need to reinforce the importance of agricultural contributions and its value to society, and promoting the merits of a career in agriculture also are essential to recruiting tomorrow's farmers and innovators." 

  






Document Number: 6260 

Peru Approves 10 Year Ban on GM Crops

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page.

SUMMARY: "The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the opinion of the law project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents the import of Genetically Modified Organisms on the national territory for cultivation, breeding or of any transgenic production."

	Lima, jun. 07 (ANDINA). The Plenary Session of the Congress, approved the opinion of the law project that declares a moratorium of ten years that prevents the import of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) on the national territory for cultivation, breeding or of any transgenic production. It was sustained by the president of the Agrarian Commission, AnÃ­bal Huerta (PAP), who declared that in the face of the danger that can arise from the use of the biotechnology a moratorium must be approved to take care of our biodiversity. It received the endorsement of congressmen Elizabeth Leon (BPCD), Franklin Sanchez (PAP), Mauritius Mulder (PAP), Oswaldo Luizar (BPCD), Jorge of Castillo (PAP), Oswaldo de la Cruz (GPF), Luis Wilson (PAP), Yonhy Lescano (AP), Aldo Estrada (UPP), Hilda Guevara (PAP), Gloria Branches (BPDC) and Maria Sumire (GPN). From different viewpoints, they agreed in the defense of the national biodiversity due to our greater climatic diversity, but they differed with regard to the moratorium. 

  





Document Number: 8773 

Mercola on  Bayer's Genetically Modified Rice Lawsuit

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Riceland Foods is the largest rice cooperative in the U.S. The cooperative filed suit against the Bayer Corporation for damages it suffered as a result of Bayer's unapproved genetically-modified rice contaminating natural long-grain rice -- one of hundreds of similar lawsuits that have been filed against Bayer in federal and state courts.

	As a result of this contamination, countries within the European Union refused to purchase U.S. long grain rice, and rice farmers and cooperatives lost millions of dollars in sales. They also incurred substantial clean-up costs.

	According to the Jere Beasley Report:

	"Riceland alleged in its lawsuit that the presence of Bayer's Liberty Link rice caused the cooperative to lose $389 million in projected and future earnings. The jury found that Bayer caused tremendous harm to Riceland and the entire industry and awarded Riceland $11.8 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. The jury also found that Bayer was solely responsible for any damages incurred by farmers as a result of the loss of the European market."

	In related news, a new electron microscopic pathogen in the shape of a medium-sized virus has been discovered, which appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings.

	In the video below, David Murphy of Food Democracy Now interviews Dr. Don Huber regarding the discovery of a new organism and how it relates to crop disease, livestock infertility and how it threatens U.S. food and agriculture.

	Dr. Huber Explains Science Behind New Organism and Threat from Monsanto's Roundup, GMOs to Disease and Infertility from Food Democracy Now! on Vimeo.

	On January 17, 2011, Dr. Huber sent a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack alerting him to a serious problem facing U.S. agriculture -- a previously unknown pathogen. Dr. Huber's letter revealed that a top team of scientists had discovered a link between the new pathogen, the steady rise of plant diseases in genetically modified Roundup Ready corn and soybean crops, and the high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions of animal livestock. 

	Dr. Mercola's Comments:

	Riceland Foods, the largest rice cooperative in the U.S. filed suit against the Bayer Corporation after its natural long-grain rice was contaminated with Bayer's unapproved genetically-modified (GM) rice-and they won. The jury determined that Bayer caused "tremendous harm to Riceland and the entire industry," awarding Riceland $11.8 million in compensatory damages and $125 million in punitive damages. 

  






Document Number: 7169 

Report: Pesticide-Birth Defect Link Hidden From Public

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health Issues page, Farm Issues page, Appetite for a Change page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

RODALE NEWS, EMMAUS, PA-Environmental health, plant, and food experts have been sounding the alarm about health risks associated with the popular weed killer Roundup for years, saying it leads to hormone disruption and more than three dozen plant diseases. One study even found its main ingredient, glyphosate, killed human cells in the lab. A new report published this month also alleges that regulators and the pesticide industry have long known about the birth defect link-some for more than two decades-but kept the details hidden from the general public. While millions of pounds of Roundup are sprayed on food crops each year, many people still also freely spray Roundup in weedy areas of their lawn. It's been found in drinking water, and even inside our food.

	
	THE DETAILS: A group of respected scientists published the report this month as the maker of Roundup, chemical company Monsanto, pushes the European Union to allow plantings of its genetically engineered seeds that rely on heavy Roundup sprayings (something that has been done in the United States for more than a decade). The authors allege that European government agencies and the European Commission, tasked with regulating chemicals, knew about birth defects associated with the product for years and, despite that, did not place stronger restrictions on the project. (Roundup is used in farming, but commonly as a home weed killer, too.) 

  






Document Number: 5972 

Monsanto's "Superweeds" Gallop Through Midwest

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Back in the mid-'90s, Monsanto rolled out seeds genetically engineered to withstand its Roundup herbicide. To ensure huge growth potential, the company shrewdly chose the most widely planted, highly subsidized US crops to grace with its new "Roundup Ready" technology: corn, soy, and cotton.

The pitch was simple and powerful: No longer would large-scale farmers need to worry about weeds. All they would have to do was douse their fields with Roundup, which would wipe out all plant life except the desired crop. Farmers leapt at the technology. It represented a fantastic labor-saving opportunity, allowing them to manage ever-larger swaths of land without having to pay more workers.

Today, Roundup Ready crops blanket US farmland. According to USDA figures, 94 percent of soybeans and more than 70 percent of corn and cotton planted in the US contain the Roundup-resistant gene. Back-of-the envelope calculations tell me that nearly 200,000 square miles of prime farmland-a land mass about two-thirds the size of Texas-now grow crops rigged to flourish amid an annual monsoon of Roundup.

Well, in what is surely the least surprising, most-anticipated major development in the history of US agriculture, farmers are discovering that when you spend years dousing land a single herbicide, ecosystems adapt. Roundup Ready crops, meet Roundup-defying weeds. 

  






Document Number: 9654 

California Ballot Initiative Spotlights Competing Interests in Organic Food Industry

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our California News page.

Organic food advocates in California are working to put an initiative on the electoral ballot in 2012 to require labeling of genetically modified foods.

	Currently, shoppers have no way of knowing whether or not the food they purchase is genetically modified, or contains genetically modified ingredients.

	If labeling of GMOs becomes mandatory in California, it could prove to be an enormous boost for the organic food industry.

	Due to the size of the California economy and its agriculture industry, and the state's leadership on green issues, the labeling initiative is likely to spill over into other US states.

	But all is not well in the organic industry. Some conventional companies that are represented on the board of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) are protecting their interests in industrial agriculture's GMOs and factory farms, according to a short documentary released by an anonymous group called Organic Spies. 

  






Document Number: 5431 

Indian Farmers Set Fire to Monsanto's Test Plots

For related articles and
 more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

"We send today, a very clear message to all those who have invested in Monsanto in India and abroad; take your money out now, before we reduce it to ashes". Karnataka State Farmers Association, India

	
	One of the most morally dubious Claims made in Monsanto's recent _ newspaper advertising blitz was the assertion that the widespread use of food biotechnology is the only way to feed the world's poor. The corporation's argument went like this: millions of people currently go hungry in developing countries. In the future, as global population increases, this problem is set to worsen. Only high yield agriculture can possibly produce enough food to meet this increased demand. There fore, quite obviously, only "biotechnology can feed the world."

	
	Monsanto's strategy was to try to por tray its genetically modified (GM) crops as the solution to the hunger and poverty problems of the Third World. The company even tried to round up a group of 'respect ed voices' from developing countries to endorse an advert entitled 'Let The Harvest Begin', which praised biotechnology as the seed of the future", which will "feed the world in the next century." Monsanto was playing a clever game: it was trying to portray opponents of food biotechnology as selfish and insular. What right, asked the corporation, do well fed Western environ mentalists have to deny the poor farmers of the Third World access to this wonderful new technology, which could teed their families and improve their living standards dramatically in years to come? 

  






Document Number: 7851 

Monsanto Asks Argentine Farmers to Sign Seed Contracts

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our farm Issues page.

Argentina is one of the world's biggest soybean exporters and production is growing, making it a huge potential market for Monsanto's new genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready 2 Yield soy variety.

	The company, however, is wary of Argentine laws because its original Roundup Ready soy variety was never patented in the South American country -- although it became ubiquitous -- provoking years of legal wrangling with the government.

	The latest Roundup Ready seeds have been patented but Monsanto hopes to guarantee payments on their technology by signing agreements with individual Argentine farmers who are seeking to boost yields.

	"We want to sign the contracts to be sure there's a consensus ... We don't want to go with the force of law alone," Monsanto spokesman Pablo Vaquero said.

	But Monsanto's move has angered small-scale growers, who have been allowed to sow original Roundup Ready seeds harvested from their own fields without paying royalties.

	They accuse Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, of trying to monopolize production in Argentina and of effectively excluding smaller farmers from using new seed technology by demanding too much in royalty payments. 

  







Document Number: 5892 

Public Kept in the Dark on Roundup Link with Birth Defects

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, Health Issues page, and our Appetite for a Change page.

Industry and EU regulators knew as long ago as the 1980s-1990s that Roundup, the world's best selling herbicide, causes birth defects - but they failed to inform the public. This is the conclusion of a new report, "Roundup and birth defects: Is the public being kept in the dark?" co-authored by a group of international scientists and researchers and released today.

	
	The report reveals that industry's own studies (including one commissioned by Monsanto) showed as long ago as the 1980s that Roundup's active ingredient glyphosate causes birth defects in laboratory animals.

	
	The German government has known about these findings since at least the 1990s, when as the "rapporteur" member state for glyphosate, it reviewed industry's studies for the EU approval of the herbicide. The European Commission has known since at least 2002, when it signed off on glyphosate's approval.

	
	But this information was not made public. On the contrary, regulators have consistently misled the public about glyphosate's safety. As recently as last year, the German Federal Office for Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL, told the Commission there was "no evidence of teratogenicity" (ability to cause birth defects) for glyphosate.

	
	BVL made this comment in its rebuttal[2] of an independent scientific study published last year by Argentine scientists. The study showed that Roundup and glyphosate cause birth defects in frogs and chickens at concentrations much lower than those used in agricultural spraying.[3] The study was prompted by reports of high rates of birth defects and cancers in areas of South America growing genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready soy, which is engineered to tolerate being sprayed liberally with glyphosate herbicide. 

  






Document Number: 6041 

Organic Trade Association Ripe for Change

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page and our Genetic Engineering page.

The Organic Trade Association (OTA) was hit with accusations of corruption last week in a short documentary released by an anonymous group calling themselves Organic Spies. The OTA has responded to specific parts of the allegations, especially around their stance on labeling of GE foods in North America.

	
	What the OTA hasn't responded to is the broader issue of conflict-of-interest on it's board.

	
	Organic Spies and others are suggesting is that it's impossible for representatives of multi-national food companies to be free from conflict sitting as OTA board members while their parent companies earn a vast majority of their revenue from GE and conventional products. Organic Spies suggests a solution.


  






Document Number: 9444 

Protests Greet Opening of New Gates Foundation Campus

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Washington News page.


Seattle, WA - On the public opening day of the new Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation campus in Seattle, local activists called attention to the negative aspects of the Foundation's agricultural development efforts in Africa. Although farmers, activists, and civil society organizations throughout Africa and the US have pointed to fundamental problems with the programs of the Foundation and its subsidiary, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the Foundation has been non-responsive to these concerns.

	"The technologies that are promoted by the Gates Foundation in Africa are not farmer-friendly or environmentally friendly. Some of them have not been tested fully to determine their effects on the environment and consumers. African farmers are seeking food sovereignty, not imposed unhealthy foods and GMOs!" - Kenyan farmer and director of the Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK), Samuel Nderitu

	The majority of the projects funded by Gates promote high-tech industrial agricultural methods and market-driven development - privatizing seed, lobbying for genetically modified crops, increasing farmer debt alongside corporate profits, and encouraging land consolidation. The Foundation's "theory of change" acknowledges that this approach will ultimately push many small-scale African farmers off of their land, driving them into the cities to swell the numbers of unemployed and marginalized - but seems unperturbed by such consequences. Thus, the agricultural development agenda on the continent is being determined from Seattle instead of locally, and control over African food systems is being transferred from farmers to transnational corporations.

	Local activists emphasize that they support drawing on traditional and indigenous agricultural knowledge, as well as incorporating new technologies into African farming; however, those technologies need to be small-scale, not dependent upon foreign capital, and environmentally and socially sustainable - in other words, agroecological. "To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available," says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and author of a report issued two months ago. "Today's scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live - especially in unfavorable environments." De Schutter goes on to stress that agroecology is not anti-technology: "Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services." 

  






Document Number: 4195 

Open Letter to Whole Foods Market

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, All About Organics page, and our Whole Foods and the Myth of Natural page.

Dear Whole Foods,

	We really do appreciate your providing us with healthy, USDA organic, 100% grass fed, pesticide-free, gluten-free, soy free, dairy free, vegan, and whatever other types of foods consumers need to survive these days. We care deeply about the food we feed ourselves and our family and we rely on the clear and honest product labeling you provide us in order to make informed food shopping decisions. Labeling, and having the ability to make informed decisions is more important than ever, especially for those of us with food allergies, certain health conditions that require special diets, dietary decisions based on religious or ethical concerns, or those of us who simply want to feed our families the healthiest food possible.

	But where you've failed us is stopping short of allowing us to choose between non-genetically engineered (GE) products and those that contain GE ingredients. We don't trust that GE products are safe. No studies are done on these products to prove their safety and in fact we are finding animal studies to show they are dangerous to our health and the environment. GE toxins are being found in our bloodstream and those of our unborn children. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine released a policy paper in 2009 urging all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for everyone, stating that animal studies show that GE food is linked to infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, organ damage, and gastrointestinal problems. They called for a moratorium on GMOs, and mandatory labeling. Awareness of their danger is growing everyday. Already opinion polls have shown that 95% of Americans want labeling of genetically modified food. 

  






Document Number: 8960 

Genetically Engineered Salmon's Fishy Promises

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Food Safety Resource page, and our Information on Fish and Sustainability page.

For those who follow the theater of food politics, particularly the underwater portion of the drama, AquaBounty's AquAdvantage genetically engineered salmon has played something of leading role for two decades, dating back to the 1990s when the fish was first conceived. The AquAdvantage salmon, in case you haven't heard about it, is an Atlantic salmon with a (much larger) Chinook salmon growth gene inserted into its DNA. This is coupled with a promoter from a third fish, an ocean pout, that keeps that growth gene more or less permanently in the "on" position. This makes for a fish that grows faster than an unmodified salmon -- something which its creators hail as a key to providing more fish for the world and easing the crisis in overfishing.

	I have long opposed the AquAdvantage salmon, taking pretty familiar positions that any member of the local/organic/wild food community would recognize: Positions that include the fear that the fish will escape and contaminate wild populations of salmon, and that the fish requires much wasteful transport since it would be cloned in Canada, grown in Panama, and then flown back to the U.S. for consumption. But at a recent lecture when I was laying out these old chestnuts, it suddenly occurred to me that the non-fishy public might be missing one monumental fact about the AquAdvantage salmon, with all its attendant risks:

	It is completely unnecessary. 

  






Document Number: 8255 

Researcher Sacked, Others Threatened Over GM Protest

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page.

NOTE: These two pieces from the Flemish newspaper, De Morgen, give the lie to the claims made following the protest last weekend in Wetteren, in Belgium, that the destruction of a GM potato trial represents an unjustifiable attack on independent science. What emerges strongly from both pieces is a clear sense of powerful political and financial interests underlying this technology, in Wetteren just as much as St. Louis, and the way in which "independent science" is being remorselessly shaped by such interests in the field of biotechnology.

	The "translations" below were done by us with the help of Google translate, so are very far from authoritative. We hope they capture something of the spirit of these two important pieces, but they're likely to be pretty inexact. Any corrections welcome. 

	For more on what happened last weekend see: http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13201 --- --- 1.Why we protested on Sunday in Wetteren De Morgen, 3 June 1911 http://www.demorgen.be/dm/nl/2461/De-Gedachte/article/detail/1273671/2011/06/03/Waarom-wij-zondag-actie-voerden-in-Wetteren.dhtml

	In this open letter to their colleagues, a group of researchers from Wetteren, working at various academic institutions, explain why they sided with the activists. 

	Save science, not biotech

	The application of genetic engineering is strongly intertwined with its global political and economic context. Scientists can not and must not be blind to it. 

  






Document Number: 7538 

Tiny Nanoparticles Could Be a Big Problem

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Nanotechnology  Synthetic Biology page.

Nanotechnology was supposed to revolutionize the world, making us healthier and producing cleaner energy. But it's starting to look more like a nightmare.

Nanomaterials-tiny particles as little as 1/100,000 the width of a human hair-have quietly been used since the 1990s in hundreds of everyday products, everything from food to baby bottles, pills, beer cans, computer keyboards, skin creams, shampoo, and clothes.

But after years of virtually unregulated use, scientists are now starting to say the most commonly used nanoproducts could be harming our health and the environment.

One of the most widespread nanoproducts is titanium dioxide. More than 5,000 tonnes of it are produced worldwide each year for use in food, toothpaste, cosmetics, paint, and paper (as a colouring agent), in medication and vitamin capsules (as a nonmedicinal filler), and in most sunscreens (for its anti-UV properties).

In food, titanium-dioxide nanoparticles are used as a whitener and brightener in confectionary products, cheeses, and sauces. Other nanoparticles are employed in flavourings and "nutritional" additives, and to reduce fat content in "health" foods.

In the journal Cancer Research in 2009, environmental-health professor Robert Schiestl coauthored the first comprehensive study of how titanium-dioxide nanoparticles affect the genes of live animals. Mice in his study suffered DNA and chromosomal damage after drinking water with the nanoparticles for five days.

"It should be removed from food and drugs, and there's definitely no reason for it in cosmetic products," said cancer specialist Schiestl, who is also a professor of pathology and radiation oncology at UCLA's school of medicine.

"The study shows effects [from the nanoparticles] on all kinds of genetic endpoints," Schiestl told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview from his office. "All those are precursor effects of cancer. It's a wake-up call to do something." 

  






Document Number: 2304 

Three Generations of Agent Orange
24 August 2011
    c/o David F. Snively. SecretaryRef: 10 August 1961 â€“ 10 August 2011 Dear Mr Snively, Fifty years ago this August, United States Forces 
began spraying an herbicide manufactured by your company over South 
Vietnam. During the ten-year period, eighty million litres were sprayed.
 Agent Orange is the commonly known name of the herbicide.You may not be aware of the part played by your 
company in this criminal act, but there have been many protests here in 
the UK and many other countries at the use of Agent Orange on Vietnam. I
 have called in at your office in Ho Chi Minh City in the hope of 
meeting the director and inviting him to the Peace Village at Tu Du 
Hospital where he would have seen as I have seen the results of your 
product in jars containing unborn babies, a sight not many people could 
stomach seeing.I would have then taken him to see the living 
victims of Agent Orange, the children with various deformities, no eyes,
 minus one or two limbs, twisted bodies etc etc etc, due to your product
 Agent Orange. Unfortunately he used the excuse that he would be out of 
the city when I was due to arrive, a pity, because he would have had the
 opportunity to speak to the doctors and nurses who give these 
youngsters their love and care, trying to help them live a normal life. 
And if he did not grasp the point, I would have told him that the 
youngsters were born many years after the war ended in 1975.Mr Snively, you do not have to travel to Vietnam to 
see the people who have been affected by your company's product Agent 
Orange. In the US there are thousands of Vietnam Veterans suffering from
 illnesses and disabilities, as are their children, contact the various 
veterans' organisations in the US.
  






Document Number: 5880 

Monsanto: The Chronology of a Biotech Company

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

1901 â€¢ John F. Queeny founds the original Monsanto, and the company's first product is saccharine.

	1945 â€¢ Monsanto produces and markets agricultural chemicals, including 2,4D.

	1964 â€¢ Monsanto's Ramrod herbicide is introduced.

	1976 â€¢ Roundup herbicide is commercialized in the U.S.

	1981 â€¢ Monsanto establishes a molecular biology group, and biotechnology is established as the company's research focus.

	1982 â€¢ Monsanto scientists are the first to genetically modify a plant cell. â€¢ Monsanto acquires the soybean seed company Jacob Hartz Seed.

	1987 â€¢ Monsanto conducts the first U.S. field trials of plants with genetically engineered traits.

	1994 â€¢ Monsanto's Posilac bovine somatotropin for dairy cows is the company's first biotechnology product to win regulatory approval for commercial distribution.

	1996 â€¢ Monsanto acquires the plant biotechnology assets of two biotech research companies. â€¢ Roundup Ready Soybeans are introduced. â€¢ Bollgard insect-protected cotton is introduced.

	1997 â€¢ Asgrow agronomics seed business, Holden's Fountain Seeds and Corn States Hybrid Service are all purchased by Monsanto. â€¢ Monsanto spins off its industrial chemical and fibers business as Solutia Inc. â€¢ Roundup Ready canola and cotton are introduced.

	1998 â€¢ Monsanto buys DeKalb Genetics Corp. â€¢ Roundup Ready Corn, genetically engineered to tolerate glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup, is introduced to the commercial market. â€¢ Monsanto becomes the first company to introduce a stacked trait combination in corn when it introduces corn borer insect-protected trait stacked with Roundup Ready Corn. 

  






Document Number: 4762 

Obama Deregulates GMO Crops Despite Supreme Court Injunction

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Politics and Democracy page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Early this spring, while the world was distracted by Egypt's uprising, President Barack Obama pushed the Secretary of Agriculture and the U.S. Department of Agriculture to deregulate genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets in the United States. The USDA came through as he directed, totally deregulating these Monsanto-patented genes in early February.

	In so doing, Obama and the USDA have chosen to override and ignore decisions and injunctions made by the U.S. Supreme Court that banned planting of genetically engineered alfalfa and sugar beets without consideration of the Environmental Impact Assessments, which showed high risks to organic and conventional (chemical) farmers.

	So how does this affect you and me? Neither of us remembers seeing alfalfa or sugar beets on our breakfast table or even on our Seder table. Or do we?

	Sugar beets provide over 50 percent of the sugar Americans use in their coffee, cereals, and desserts. For the moment, let's not focus on the fact that sugar beets can cross-pollinate with red beets and make our borscht genetically modified.

	Alfalfa reaches our tables within milk, cream, butter, and meat, as it is used as a major animal feed in the dairy industry. It is also used to enrich soils in organic farming.

	At this time, no genetically engineered crops are permitted for sale in the European Union (though WikiLeaks has revealed that the U.S. government is exerting strong pressure on the EU to allow them). Thus this new deregulation will potentially close off present markets for organic farmers' crops. 

  






Document Number: 9836 

Family Farmers Amplify Legal Complaint Against Monsanto's GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

NEW YORK: New threats by Monsanto have led to the filing of an amended complaint by the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) in its suit on behalf of family farmers, seed businesses, and organic agricultural organizations challenging Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed.

	
	"Our clients don't want a fight with Monsanto, they merely want to be protected from the threat that they will be contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed and then accused of patent infringement," said PUBPAT Executive Director Daniel B. Ravicher. "We asked Monsanto to give our clients reassurances they wouldn't do such a thing, and in response Monsanto chose to instead reiterate the same implicit threat to organic agriculture that it has made in the past."

	
	Over the years Monsanto has sued farmers alleging they have stolen the corporation's intellectual property by saving their proprietary seed rather than purchasing new seed each year that would include a "technology fee." Because pollen, and genetics, can be spread through the wind, or by insects, farmers are vulnerable to having their crops contaminated and then subsequently being sued by Monsanto.

	
	Soon after the March filing of the lawsuit, Monsanto issued a statement saying that they would not assert their patents against farmers who suffer "trace" amounts of transgenic contamination. In response, and in the hope that the matter could be resolved out of court, PUBPAT attorneys wrote Monsanto's attorneys asking the company to make its promise legally binding. 

  






Document Number: 6216 

Rising Food Prices Increase Squeeze on Poor

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Environment and Climate Resource page, Organic Transitions page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Farm Issues page.

By 2030, the average cost of key crops could increase by between 120% and 180%, the charity forecasts.

	It is the acceleration of a trend which has already seen food prices double in the last 20 years.

	Half of the rise to come will be caused by climate change, Oxfam predicts.

	It calls on world leaders to improve regulation of food markets and invest in a global climate fund.

	"The food system must be overhauled if we are to overcome the increasingly pressing challenges of climate change, spiralling food prices and the scarcity of land, water and energy," said Barbara Stocking, Oxfam's chief executive. Women and children

	World food prices have already more than doubled since 1990, according to Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) figures, and Oxfam predicts that this trend will accelerate over the next 20 years.

	In its report, Growing a Better Future, Oxfam says predictions suggest the world's population will reach 9bn by 2050 but the average growth rate in agricultural yields has almost halved since 1990. 

  






Document Number: 5170 

Obama Gives Key Agriculture Post to Monsanto Man

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions against Monsanto page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

Dear Senator:

	
	The following 98 organizations are writing you to express our opposition to the nomination of Islam Siddiqui as Chief Agriculture Negotiator at the office of the United States Trade Representative. Our organizations- representing family farmers, farmworkers, fishers and sustainable agriculture, environmental, consumer, anti-hunger and other advocacy groups-urge you to reject Dr. Siddiqui's appointment when it comes up for a floor vote, despite the Senate Finance Committee's favorable report of his nomination on December 23, 2009.

	
	Siddiqui's record at the U.S. Department of Agriculture and his role as a former registered lobbyist for CropLife America (whose members include Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont and Dow), has revealed him to consistently favor agribusinesses' interests over the interests of consumers, the environment and public health (see attached fact sheet). We believe Siddiqui's nomination severely weakens the Obama Administration's credibility in promoting healthier and more sustainable local food systems here at home. His appointment would also send an unfortunate signal to the rest of the world that the United States plans to continue down the failed path of high-input and energy-intensive industrial agriculture by promoting toxic pesticides, inappropriate seed biotechnologies and unfair trade agreements on nations that do not want and can least afford them.

	
	The United States urgently needs a trade negotiator who understands that current trade agreements work neither for farmers nor the world's hungry. With farmers here and abroad struggling to respond to water scarcity and increasingly volatile growing conditions, we need a resilient and restorative model of agriculture that adapts to and mitigates climate change and that moves us towards energy-efficient farming.

	
	The most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture to date, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) states unequivocally that "business as usual is not an option." We need a new, sustainable model of biodiverse, ecologically-based agriculture that regenerates soil health, sequesters carbon, feeds communities, protects farmworkers and puts profits back in the hands of family farmers and rural communities. Siddiqui's track record shows that he favors none of these solutions.

	
	We call on the Senate to reject Islam Siddiqui's nomination and reorient trade policy to serve the interests of family farmers, farmworkers, consumers and the planet. 

  






Document Number: 9036 

Study Found Toxin from GM Crops is Showing up in Human Blood

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health Issues page, Organic Transitions page, Millions against Monsanto page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.

	Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

	India Today reports:

	"Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation."

	Dr. Mercola's Comments

	Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:

	93 percent of maternal blood samples 80 percent of fetal blood samples 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples

	Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:

	 "This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."

	This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations. 

  






Document Number: 8447 

Kenyan Farmers Root for Organic

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Organic Transitions page, Environment and Climate Resource Center page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

A coalition of small-scale farmers in Kenya has reignited the campaign against cultivation of genetically engineered crops while stressing that organic farming offers a sustainable path towards a food secure and ecologically healthy future.

	The farmers challenged the government to recognize organic and other agro ecological farming practices in agriculture policies. Advocates representing farmers, consumers and environmental groups fear that large scale production of genetically engineered crops will trigger health and environmental hazards while undermining Kenya's food sovereignty. 

	President Mwai Kibaki signed the Biosafety Act in 2009 to pave way for cultivation of genetically altered crops as a means to attain food security. 

	Proponents of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) hail them as the solution to food scarcity against a backdrop of rising demand from a burgeoning young population. 

	Likewise, the proponents insist that genetically engineered crops can withstand vagaries of weather, as well as attacks from pests and diseases. 

	A federation of green advocates in Kenya however, urges caution and reiterates that Kenya can achieve food security status through organic farming. 

  






Document Number: 4813 

Iowa State University Receives $500K Gift from Monsanto
Iowa State University is establishing a faculty chair in soybean 
breeding in its agriculture and life sciences college, thanks to a 
$500,000 gift from Monsanto Co.The university announced the gift on Thursday from the St. 
Louis-based company that developed Roundup resistant seeds.   Officials 
say in addition to supporting faculty breeding research, the Monsanto 
Chair will also support graduate students pursing degrees in plant 
breeding.Monsanto spokesman Sam Eathington says the company is excited to 
work with ISU to promote breeding research that can help farmers meet 
growing global demands and support the development of the industry's 
future leaders.Soybean breeding at Iowa State aimed at oil traits has resulted 
in the release of more than 180 varieties over the years and trained 
more than 80 graduate students.





Document Number: 3845 

Can a Healthy Lawn and a Healthy Liver Co-Exist?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page and our Health Issues page.

Lying amidst a well-manicured lawn and enjoying the fresh air may seem like a perfect, rejuvenating way to spend an afternoon, but it could also be poisonous to your liver. Particularly hazardous to those already managing chronic liver disease, the most popular weed-killer results in soft, uniform grass while simultaneously assaulting human liver cells. Although weed-killers are often the secret behind pristine landscaping, a liver-friendly lawn is still achieved the old-fashioned way - manual labor.

	Affecting millions of Americans, chronic liver disease is a progressive illness. Preventing liver disease from getting worse requires being aware of the potentially toxic substances one might come in contact with. This is because the liver is primarily responsible for cleansing the blood of any impurities - and a diseased liver is at a disadvantage for performing this vital function. Unfortunately, those with liver disease who have a high level of toxin exposure unintentionally cause more liver damage, a process that will worsen a chronic liver disease prognosis.

	Used in yards, farms and parks throughout the world, Roundup is the most widely used weed-killer in the world. Invented in 1976 by Monsanto, Roundup is a highly toxic herbicide that is detrimental to the environment, plant life, animal life and the human species. Originally marketed by Monsanto "As safe as table salt!" many people bought this product. Despite a 1990s ruling of a New York court forbidding Monsanto to describe the product as safe, non-toxic and as harmless as salt, many people continue to use Roundup for weed control today. 

  






Document Number: 8647 

GMO Giant Monsanto under Investigation

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineeing page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Last month the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) began an investigation into Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide business - The Monsanto Company is the world's largest genetically modified seed producer. This investigation looks into Monsanto's incentive program for Roundup distributors for 2009 and 2010, which was discontinued last summer as part of Monsanto's larger restructuring of its herbicide business.

The US company provides cash incentives to distributors to buy Roundup glyphosate, the world's leading herbicide, and Roundup Ready seeds. Its most recent program, introduced last year, offered up to $20 per acre. Federal regulators are now investigating Monsanto's incentive program for distributors who sell the company's herbicide Roundup to farmers.

Hugh Grant, Monsanto's Chairman, President and CEO, said the investigation is not related to Monsanto's genetically modified (GMO) business. "We take this seriously," said Grant. "Out of respect for the SEC and their processes, there's really not a great deal I can say at the moment. It's early days. We're just starting document production and we're co-operating to our full ability."

Last year, the Justice Department formally requested information on Monsanto's herbicide-tolerant soybean seed business as part of an investigation into anti competitive practices. The Justice Department's antitrust division "is investigating the possibility of anti competitive practices in the seed industry," said Gina Talamona, department spokeswoman. 

  






Document Number: 6159 

A Q on Genetically-Modified Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Whole Foods and the Myth of Natural page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Illinois News page

In Wednesday's Tribune, we look at genetically modified foods and those trying to get them labeled as such or pulled from stores like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods.

	The subject of genetically modified crops is full of passionate voices on both sides. We covered the issue in Wednesday's story. Even so, some readers may still walk away with questions about whether to avoid them or how to do so if they wish.

	These extra morsels may help make this huge subject more digestible:

	How much do stores like Trader Joe's and Whole Foods Market vet their products for eco- and health-conscious shoppers?

	We had discussions with both stores for the story. Both companies are very attuned to customer concerns about GMOs, and say they are doing what they can to remove and reduce them in their stores. Representatives for the Non-GMO Project give high marks to Whole Foods Market for doing such things as getting their 365 Every Day Values store brand verified non-GMO -- and strongly encouraging suppliers of their other products to enroll in the non-GMO program.

	In a statement, Trader Joe's told us that "all products in Trader Joe's private label are sourced from non-genetically modified ingredients. Our efforts began in 2001, when we determined that, given a choice, our customers would prefer to eat foods and beverages made without the use of genetically engineered ingredients. Our process has been to identify any product containing ingredients that could potentially be derived from genetically engineered crops and work with our suppliers to replace offending ingredients with acceptable alternatives." 

  






Document Number: 1958 

El Salvadoran Government & Social Movements Say No to Monsanto

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

On the morning of Friday, May 6th President Mauricio Funes of El Salvador's left-wing FMLN party, arrived at the La Maroma agricultural cooperative in the department of UsulutÃ¡n for a potentially historic meeting with hundreds of small family farmers. UsulutÃ¡n has often been referred to as the country's bread basket for its fertile soil and capacity for agricultural production, making it one of the most strategic and violent battleground zones during El Salvador's twelve year civil war between the US-supported government and the FMLN guerrilla movement.

	Once again, UsulutÃ¡n has entered the spotlight for its agricultural reputation. The FMLN, which initially formed around an ideology of national liberation from US hegemony, has now adopted the goal of "food sovereignty," the idea that countries hold the right to define their own agricultural policies, rather than being subject to the whims of international market forces. On Friday, officials representing the Ministry of Agriculture and the local governorship accompanied President Funes in inaugurating a new plan aimed at reactivating the country's historically ignored rural economy and reversing El Salvador's growing dependence on imported grains.

	The opening ceremony for the new plan was hosted by the Mangrove Association, a non-governmental organization established by members of a grassroots social movement called La Coordinadora del Bajo Lempa y Bahia de Jiquilisco (known locally as La Coordinadora), which has been supporting initiatives for food security and environmental sustainability in UsulutÃ¡n for over 15 years. Over the last three months, the Ministry of Agriculture has been working closely with the Mangrove Association and other campesino organizations to develop what may represent the new program's greatest break from past governments' agricultural policies: a goal that by 2014 all corn and bean seed needed for agriculture be produced by Salvadoran farmers, rather than purchased from multinational seed companies, namely Monsanto, as has been the case in recent years. 

  






Document Number: 5105 

Monsanto Has a Brutal 2010

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

With a virtual stranglehold on U.S. soybean and corn seed sales and an 18 percent world market share, Monsanto Co. enjoyed a position that was unquestioned until 2009. Since then the agricultural giant has suffered several blows that cut its net earnings nearly in half within a single year. Now, after restructuring its operations, Monsanto has dug in its heels and is looking towards the future.

	While the St. Louis-based company has begun to rebound in its current fiscal year ending in August, and is expected to grow in the long term, not all analysts are ready to buy.

	Some question the market potential of future products.

	"I have somewhat muted feelings about the future," said Charlie Rentschler, investment analyst with Boenning  Scattergood Inc.

	Others think Monsanto's stock price is too high at $68 for a price-earnings ratio of 29.35, well above Standard  Poor's 500 index P/E of 23.93.

	"Why pay 30 times for a company that is growing 15 percent, especially when there's no competition to tell you it's cheap?" said Horst Hueniken, analyst with Stifel, Nicolaus  Co Inc.

	Analysts are sharply divided. Ten of the 22 surveyed by Bloomberg LP rate Monsanto's stock a hold or neutral, while another two rate it a sell. 

  






Document Number: 5828 

Monsanto Dangles New Seeds In Push To Collect Argentina Royalties

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

BUENOS AIRES -(Dow Jones)- Monsanto Co. (MON) is making a big push to get Argentina's farmers to voluntarily pay for its latest genetically modified soybean seeds with the promise of higher yields as the biotech giant seeks to increase its revenues from one of the world's top breadbaskets.

	Monsanto's attempt to sell an earlier version of its seeds introduced 15 years ago was a flop after the company failed to obtain an Argentine patent and its efforts to collect royalties were foiled by local regulations. Argentina is the world's third-leading exporter of soybeans, behind the U.S. and Brazil.

	Its new Roundup Ready 2 seeds, which are resistant to glyphosate-based herbicides and insect pests, are expected to increase yields by 10% to 15%, according to St. Louis-based Monsanto.

	Monsanto hopes to reach an agreement with at least 80% of the country's growers as "a sign that the Argentine farm sector really wants to move forward with this technology," Pablo Vaquero, Sustainability and Corporate Affairs Director for Southern Latin America, said in an interview.

	Vaquero said that about 2,600 farmers who cultivate 4.5 million hectares, or 25% of the nation's farmland, have already agreed to the deal. The company is focusing on large-scale growers in a country where about 10,000 farmers are responsible for 80% of soy production, he said.

  






Document Number: 9156 

Consumer Activists Protest Whole Foods Market - Seek Labeling of Genetically Modified Foods

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our All About Organics page.

When a team of activists wearing white hazmat suits showed up at a Chicago grocery store to protest the sale of genetically modified foods, they picked an unlikely target: Whole Foods Market.

	
	Organic foods, by definition, can't knowingly contain genetically modified organisms, known as GMOs. But genetically modified corn, soy and other crops have become such common ingredients in processed foods that even one of the nation's top organic food retailers says it hasn't been able to avoid stocking some products that contain them.

	
	"No one would guess that there are genetically engineered foods right here in Whole Foods," said Alexis Baden-Mayer, political director of the Organic Consumers Association, which organized the protest. The activists dramatically trashed a battery of well-known health food brands outside the store, including Tofutti, Kashi and Boca Burgers.

	
	Though people have been modifying foodstuffs through selective breeding and other methods for centuries, genetically modified crops differ in that the plants grow from seeds in which DNA splicing has been used to place genes from another source into a plant. In this way, the crop can be made to withstand a weed-killing pesticide, for example, or incorporate a bacterial toxin that can repel pests. 

  






Document Number: 2712 

Greeks Mobilize to Protect Endangered Seeds

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's All About Organics page, Organic Transitions page, Environment and Climate Resource page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The remote valley of Mesohori in northeastern Greece seems an unusual choice for a stand against genetically modified crop conglomerates who are knocking on Europe's door.

	Yet thousands of organic farming advocates seeking to bar so-called "Frankenstein" foods from the continent made the journey here to help raise awareness about dangers to seed diversity.

	The event was an annual seed exchange festival organised by the Peliti alternative community, a Mesohori-based non-government organisation working to preserve Greece's vegetal wealth against an encroaching global economy.

	"We are doing something important here," beamed Grigoris Papadopoulos, a 60-year-old agronomist whose "green" epiphany came a decade ago after years of selling pesticide to farmers.

	"I realised that money is not as important as quality of life, I saw the dirt in farm chemicals," said Papadopoulos, who came to trade his wild peach and apricot seeds. 

  






Document Number: 2877 

Genetically Modified Salmon: Everything You Need to Know

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Food Safety page, and our Information on Fish  Sustainability page.

Taking inspiration from the dozens of faux QAs sent to me throughout the year by the PR departments of the corporate food world, I thought I would produce my own QA about corporate food's most recent contribution-the AquaBounty AquAdvantageâ„¢ salmon.

	
	Q: AquaBounty calls the AquAdvantageâ„¢ an "advanced hybrid" fish and the company's president Ronald Stotish said recently on CNN that there is not "any material difference between the AquaBounty salmon and an Atlantic salmon." Is this fish an Atlantic salmon? And is it a hybrid or a genetically modified animal?

	
	A: The AquAdvantageâ„¢ salmon is an Atlantic salmon with a Chinook salmon growth gene inserted into its DNA. In addition, a regulator protein from a fish called an ocean pout has been added to the Chinook growth gene turning the gene permanently in the "on" position. It is a genetically modified animal.

	
	Q: Does it grow very fast?

	
	A: Yes, very fast. Twice as fast as an unmodified salmon.

	
	Q: Isn't that a little uncomfortable for the fish?

	
	A: Probably. In fact, experiments with artificially accelerating growth in terrestrial animals have been known to cause crippling skeletal deformations. Fish, however, float, and can endure some of the negative effects of precocious growth. But in the end we do not know how much these fish will suffer.

	
	Q: But is the AquAdvantageâ„¢ salmon safe to eat?

	
	A: According to the Center for Food Safety, AquaBounty has tested a total of 12 fish for allergens and other potential human health risks. AquaBounty claims they have tested 30 fish. If the number really is 12, most statisticians say this is too small a sample size to be statistically valid. Whatever the number of fish, the individuals tested were not grown in Panama, the location where AquaBounty plans to produce their fish. This, the Center for Food Safety asserts, is a violation of testing standards set forth by the United States Food and Drug Administration. 

  






Document Number: 1590 

Sweden Heads for GM-Free Status: UK Should Follow

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page.

An announcement from the main Swedish slaughter house operator SCAN that they will no longer accept pigs for slaughter if they have been fed on GM animal feed is another major step in Sweden moving to a completely GM-free food chain. GM Freeze is repeating their call for UK retailers and producers to follow suit. 

	SCAN announced that from 1 September 2011 they will not accept pigs that have been fed on GM crops (mainly Monsanto's RR soya). Other slaughterhouses are reported to be following the SCAN decision.

	The move brings the company into line with Sweden's four major retail companies, all of whom have a long-standing no-GM policy, and other producer organisations for poultry/chicken, lamb, beef, veal and milk, who have rules against GM-feed for their animals.

	The move has been consumer-led. The Swedish Consumer Coalition has played a leading role in lobbying for the change, brought about despite both the pro-GM stance taken by the Swedish Government when voting at the EU Council of Ministers and criticism of retailer policies from the Swedish National Food Administration.

  






Document Number: 8034 

Court of Appeals Dismisses Monsanto's Appeal of Biotech Beets Case, Preserves Victory for Farmers, Environment

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Food Safety page.

Upholds Lower Court's Rulings Requiring New USDA Approval Decision And Rigorous Review of the Crop's Impacts

	Litigation Over USDA's Interim Approval of Planting Continues

	Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary order concluding a long-standing lawsuit over the impacts of genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" sugar beets. As a result, previous court rulings in favor of farmers and conservation advocates will remain, including the order requiring the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to prepare a rigorous review of the impacts of GE sugar beets, engineered to be resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, before deciding whether to again allow their future commercial use.

	Center for Food Safety (CFS) attorney George Kimbrell: "Today's order cements a critical legal benchmark in the battle for meaningful oversight of biotech crops and food. Because of this case, there will be public disclosure and debate on the harmful impacts of these pesticide-promoting crops, as well as legal protections for farmers threatened by contamination."

	CFS, Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club, represented by CFS and Earthjustice, challenged the USDA approval in 2008. They argued that GE sugar beets would contaminate organic and non-GE farmers of related crops, such as table beets and chard, as well as increase pesticide impacts on the environment and worsen the current Roundup-resistant "superweeds" epidemic in U.S. agriculture. In September 2009, Judge Jeffrey S. White in the federal district court in San Francisco agreed, and ordered USDA to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing these and other impacts, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In August 2010, after a year of vigorous litigation over the proper remedy for USDA's unlawful approval, the court again agreed with plaintiffs, threw out the USDA's approval, and halting planting. 

  






Document Number: 151 

GM Food Toxins Found in the Blood of 93% of Unborn Babies

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Food Safety Resource page, Health Issues page, Appetite for a Change page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Toxins implanted into GM food crops to kill pests are reaching the bloodstreams of women and unborn babies, alarming research has revealed.

	A landmark study found 93 per cent of blood samples taken from pregnant women and 80 per cent from umbilical cords tested positive for traces of the chemicals.

	Millions of acres in North and South America are planted with GM corn containing the toxins, which is fed in vast quantities to farm livestock around the world - including Britain.

	However, it is now clear the toxins designed to kill crop pests are reaching humans and babies in the womb - apparently through food.

	It is not known what, if any, harm this causes but there is speculation it could lead to allergies, miscarriage, abnormalities or even cancer.

	To date the industry has always argued that if these toxins were eaten by animals or humans they would be destroyed in the gut and pass out of the body, thus causing no harm.



  






Document Number: 48 

Are You Ready for Genetically Engineered Human-Derived Gelatin?

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Chinese researchers have created a new gelatin using genes that produce human collagen and inserting them into yeast. The yeast then produce human-derived gelatin.

Given the supermarket shelf space devoted to Jell-O, and the undergraduate brain-space devoted to jello shots, a new type of gelatin might not seem that necessary in the world.

But it actually has many medical uses where animal-derived products can be problematic. Gelatin is made from denatured collagen. It's used to make drug capsules and in other medical applications. Almost all of it is made from animal products, generally the bones and skin of cattle and pigs. That can be a problem for people with allergies and carries concern about the transfer of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow disease.

For that reason, scientists in Beijing have been working on a substitute that can't trigger immune responses in humans because it's derived from humans and produced in a microbial expression system - yeast. 

  






Document Number: 2809 

Keepers of the Seeds: How Seed-Saving Native Farmers Preserve Agricultural Heritage

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, All About Organics page, and our Genetic Engineering page.

For 14 years, Caroline Chartrand, a Metis woman who recently traveled from Winnipeg, Canada, to the 8th annual Great Lakes Indigenous Farming Conference, has been looking for the heritage seeds of her people. It is believed that in the 1800s, the Metis grew some 120 distinct seed varieties in the Red River area of Canada. Of those, Caroline says, "We ended up finding about 20 so far."

	In Canada, three-quarters of all the crop varieties that existed before the 20th century are extinct. And, of the remaining quarter, only 10 percent are available commercially from Canadian seed companies (the remainder are held by gardeners and families). Over 64 percent of the commercially held seeds are offered by only one company; if those varieties are dropped, the seeds may be lost.

	That's the reason Caroline and about 100 other indigenous farmers and gardeners-along with students and community members-gathered in March on the White Earth reservation in Northern Minnesota to share knowledge, stories, and, of course, seeds. 

  






Document Number: 5221 

Monsanto's Soybeans and Cattle Ranchers Destroying Amazon Rainforest

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Environment and Climate Resource page.

Satellite images show deforestation increased from 103 sq km in March and April 2010 to 593 sq km (229 sq miles) in the same period of 2011, Brazil's space research institute says.

	Much of the destruction has been in Mato Grosso state, the centre of soya farming in Brazil.

	The news comes shortly before a vote on new forest protection rules.

	Brazilian Environment Minister Izabella Teixeira said the figures were "alarming" and announced the setting up of a "crisis cabinet" in response to the news.

	"Our objective is to reduce deforestation by July," the minister told a news conference.

	Analysts say the new figures have taken the government by surprise.

	Last December, a government report said deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon had fallen to its lowest rate for 22 years.

	However, the latest data shows a 27% jump in deforestation from August 2010 to April 2011. 

  






Document Number: 2058 

Confidence in GMO Trees Stalls

Summerville, SC- The genetically engineered tree (GE tree) company ArborGen, a joint project of timber corporations International Paper (NYSE: IP), MeadWestvaco (NYSE: MWV) and Rubicon (NZSE: RBC.NZ), decided suddenly yesterday to change its plans and not sell shares in ArborGen publicly on the NASDAQ exchange.

	On July 1, 2010, three member organizations of the STOP GE Trees Campaign (Global Justice Ecology Project, Dogwood Alliance and Sierra Club) teamed up with attorneys at the Center for Biological Diversity and the Center for Food Safety to sue the US Department of Agriculture over their approval of a series of field trials involving more than a quarter of a million GE cold tolerant eucalyptus trees because the Environmental Assessment the USDA used to approve the field trials was inadequate. The lawsuit demands that the USDA prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement regarding the field trials because of their potential impacts on forests, ground water, wildlife and endangered or threatened species.

	The groups that filed the suit charge that GE trees carry serious social and ecological risks; and that these risks were either downplayed or outright ignored in the USDA's Environmental Assessment.

	"This lawsuit against the USDA over their approval of GE eucalyptus trees is just one of a series of lawsuits that has been filed against the USDA by the Center for Food Safety, the Sierra Club and others," stated Dr. Neil Carman, a plant scientist with the Sierra Club. "The USDA's Environmental Assessments on GMO plants are shams. Their science is completely flawed. Litigation has revealed this time and time again in court. I think ArborGen has good right to worry that they will never get commercial approval for their GE trees, based on the legal precedents so far," he added. 

  






Document Number: 9603 

GMO Products a Failure, Says African Ag Expert

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page and our All About Organics page.

But a local agricultural policy expert Roger Mpande says this has turned out to be a false start and Zimbabwe's best bet is to stick to local knowledge systems and resources.

	He says the health, environmental and social impact of GMOs cannot be underestimated.

	Mpande - who spoke during a Humanitarian Information Facilitation Centre knowledge brief for journalists in Harare last week on why Zimbabwe should refuse to licence the commercialisation of GMOs - says a look at the GM products leaves a lot to be desired.

	"There is no drought-tolerant variety (among the GMOs), no vitamin enhancement, no medicinal traits and no yield increases," he says.

	Mpande, who works with the Zimbabwe Organic Producers and Promoters Association (Zoppa), says only two traits - herbicide tolerance and B toxin expression - have made it onto the market while only four crops have been commercialised. These are maize, soya beans, cotton and canola.

	There has been extensive debates surrounding GMO issues in relation to organic farming in the country and Africa in particular and the subject of genetic modification has been contentious owing to various reasons. So much uncertainty still surrounds GMOs which can cause unpredictable health and environmental effects.

	Zoppa Trust executive director Fortunate Nyakanda says her organisation is promoting organic agriculture which she defined as "a process that uses methods respectful of the environment from the production stages through handling and processing". 

  






Document Number: 8284 

What We Know - and Don't Know - About the Safety of Eating GMOs

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Genetic Engineering page, Food Safety Research Center page, and our Health Issues page.

Are genetically modified foods safe to eat?

	The conventional answer is "yes," and it's not hard to see why. Since their introduction in 1996, genetically modified (GM) or genetically engineered (GE) corn and soy seeds quickly conquered U.S. farm fields. Today, upwards of 70 percent of corn and 90 percent of soy are genetically modified, and these two crops form the basis of the conventional U.S. diet. Nor are they GM technology's only pathway onto our plates. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. cotton is now genetically engineered, and cottonseed oil has emerged as a staple fat for the food industry. (USDA has figures on this.) Canola oil -- another crop that has largely succumbed to genetic modification -- is yet another common ingredient.

	Given their swift path to ubiquity, wouldn't we know by now if GMOs posed some threat? Since no obvious problems have come to the fore, some scientists -- and certainly the agrichemical industry, which dominates GM seed production -- have seen fit to declare them safe. Pamela Ronald, professor of plant pathology at the University of California, Davis, recently summed up the conventional view: "After 14 years of cultivation and a cumulative total of two billion acres planted, GE crops have not caused a single instance of harm to human health or the environment."

	Let's leave aside Ronald's claim about the environment (which is rendered suspect by the rise of herbicide-resistant "superweeds") and dig into the human-health aspect. What we do know is that GMOs are not acutely toxic to eat. That is, we know that if you dine on a burger made from cows gorged on GM corn and soy, French fries cooked in oil from GM cottonseed, and soda laced with high-fructose syrup from GM corn, you're not likely to keel over in agony. Tens of millions of people do it every day. 

  






Document Number: 7379 

EU Agriculture Chief Slams GMOs, Expresses Strong Support for Natural Agriculture

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Millions Against Monsanto page and our Genetic Engineering page.

In a bold move that goes against the mainstream flow, European Union (EU) Agriculture Commissioner Dacian Ciolos recently denounced genetically-modified (GM) food crops, citing the fact that they fail to meet various "quality and diversity criteria" that consumers have come to expect, and their inherent lack of benefit for both farmers and consumers. Ciolos also expressed support for individual EU member nations having the freedom to ban GM crops if they so choose, emphasizing the notion that natural, local agriculture is the best route for European nations to take.

	Acceptance of GMOs throughout Europe continues to be far lower than it is in the US, partly due to the fact that EU policy dictates that GMOs be properly labeled, while US policy has no labeling requirements. But European consumers have also been far more vocal against the use of GMOs than consumers in the US have been, and numerous other European leaders like Ciolos have publicly spoken out against GMOs, while most US politicians have remained silent on the issue (http://www.naturalnews.com/030422_G...).

	In a recent interview, Ciolos properly identified traditional polyculture agriculture as beneficial to high food quality, diverse diets, and natural biodiversity. Sharply contrasted to GM crop cultivation, which represents a chemical-based system of monoculture, traditional agriculture represents a wide variety of unique food items that are not chemical dependent, and that do not put the environment and human health at risk (http://www.naturalnews.com/GMO.html).


  






Document Number: 5996 

Monsanto Renews Efforts to Commercialize Biotech Wheat

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Stop GM Wheat Campaign page, Genetic Engineering page, Millions Against Monsanto page, and our Montana News page.

Wheat is one of the world's primary crops and, in the American landscape, an almost mythical one. But over the past decades, American farmers have turned away from their amber waves of grain.

	That's a trend the wheat industry and seed companies - including Creve Coeur-based Monsanto - are trying to reverse.

	Over the past two years, the agricultural biotechnology giant has renewed its interest in wheat, committing more resources to creating new traits and seed varieties that it hopes could eventually bring more farmers back into the wheat fold.

	In 2009, the company paid $45 million to buy WestBred, a Montana-based wheat seed company. In the past six months, the company has built a 'seed chipper" for wheat - a proprietary and prohibitively expensive machine that speeds the process of identifying beneficial crop traits.

	"We're seriously trying to be successful in wheat," said Sean Gardner, head of the company's wheat efforts. "We think we can make a difference in what is the world's largest crop."

	Monsanto had been working to commercialize a genetically modified wheat, but in 2004, facing industry rejection, the company pulled back. "A couple of things led us to stop," Gardner said. "The industry probably wasn't ready for it." 

  






Document Number: 3304 

Monsanto, DuPont Will Benefit Once Mississippi Flooding Subsides

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Farm Issues page, Genetic Engineering page, Arkansas News page, Louisiana News page, Mississippi News page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

The Mississippi River has overflowed its banks and almost non-stop rain has swollen it to an epic size. Memphis barely survived. The land south of there is experiencing serious trouble. We will see exactly how hard the lands along the southern Mississippi are hit as the weekend unfolds. The damage to crops will be in the billions of dollars. The area flooded will be in the millions of acres.

	
	From the pictures of the Morganza Spillway, there is no question they will have to open it soon. Then the entire area south of it will be flooded. That's a large chunk of the farmland in Louisiana. Arkansas has more than 1500 square miles flooded. They blasted a levee to flood Missouri farmland to avert the flooding of Cairo, Illinois. Mississippi (the state) has considerable flooding. Estimates are for total flooding there to be more than 2100 square miles. In fact, the Mississippi River is backing up the Yazoo River, and it is flooding too. I don't know the overall totals yet, but this flood is being compared to the epic flood of 1927 (in other words it's a once in a hundred years phenomenon). The crop damage will be extensive.

	
	Eventually the floodwaters will subside. The farm lands may need some work, but they will go back to being farm land. The farm lands will need to be re-planted. For a shortened season, they will need good seed and likely good fertilizer. The two US companies most famous for their seeds are Monsanto (MON) and DuPont (DD). They should see a nice uptick in sales from this disaster. In addition they may get secondary business from farmers elsewhere in the US and the world who will be trying to take advantage of the now larger shortage in crops. Since the world's grain stores were already short due to the many disasters last year, the supply will be still shorter.




  






Document Number: 8166 

Discovery of Bt Insecticide in Human Blood Proves GMO Toxin a Threat to Human Health, Study Finds

For related articles and more information, please visit OCA's Health Issues page, Apetite for a Change page, Food Safety Resource Center page, Canada News page, Genetic Engineering page, and our Millions Against Monsanto page.

Fresh doubts have arisen about the safety of genetically modified crops, with a new study reporting presence of Bt toxin, used widely in GM crops, in human blood for the first time.

Genetically modified crops include genes extracted from bacteria to make them resistant to pest attacks.

These genes make crops toxic to pests but are claimed to pose no danger to the environment and human health. Genetically modified brinjal, whose commercial release was stopped a year ago, has a toxin derived from a soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis ( Bt).

Till now, scientists and multinational corporations promoting GM crops have maintained that Bt toxin poses no danger to human health as the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of this toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.

Scientists from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada, have detected the insecticidal protein, Cry1Ab, circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women.

They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation. The research paper has been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication in the journal Reproductive Toxicology. The study covered 30 pregnant women and 39 women who had come for tubectomy at the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS) in Quebec. 

  






Document Number: 8682 

Swiss Researcher Shows Natural Breeding Better than GMOs
A Swiss researcher has developed a new apple that is resistant to disease, appealing to the palate, and easy to grow, all without using genetic modification.

According to Natural News, it took Swiss orchardist and researcher Markus Kobelt twenty years of careful research and development to come up with the new apple variety. The RedLove apple is said to be "sweet, tangy and delicious."  For a long time, researchers from other food establishments have been trying to create a GM apple that has more nutrients, that is more resistant to disease and pests, and attractive to growers and consumers. However, Kobelt did it first with his non-GM variety, which he was able to create using natural breeding methods and cross-pollination techniques.  Amazingly he didn't have to use any GM to beat the companies who usually do a lot of gene splicing to make new varieties of crops. This means that the RedLove apple has none of the serious health risks that many GM varieties do. It's a big win for natural agricultural methods.

"These varieties of new apple have been created through non-GE (genetically engineered) techniques which is fantastic," said Claire Bleakley from GE Free NZ in Food and Environment, a non-profit organization working to raise awareness about the dangers of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). "It cannot be logical to spend millions of taxpayers' dollars and research resources on a red GE apple we know could have dangers to the environment and people health and is simply not acceptable to the market, and already exists as a non-GE variant." 

  






Document Number: 8891
Is Your Food Safe?

What the biotech industry doesn't want you to know

The explosive expos Seeds of Deception reveals how industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-allow dangerous genetically engineered food into your daily diet. Company research is rigged, alarming evidence of health dangers is covered up, and intense political pressure applied.

Chapters read like adventure stories:

Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted.
Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.
Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.
When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.
Read the actual internal memos by FDA scientists, warning of toxins, allergies, and new diseases-all ignored by their superiors, including a former attorney for Monsanto. Discover how industry studies are designed to avoid finding problems. Learn why the FDA withheld information from Congress after a genetically modified supplement killed nearly a hundred people and disabled thousands.

Eating such experimental food is gambling with your health. Find out how you can protect yourself and your family.

Jeffrey Smith is a master storyteller. His style captivates and charms, while his meticulously documented facts leave no doubt about a massive injustice.

 




Document Number: 3708 
The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster reevaluatedNew evidence indicates that genetic engineering Published January 6, 2007. Last updated May 8, 2010.A poisonous substance in a GM food supplement killed 37 persons and 1500 contracted a chronic severely painful and incapacitating disease. This disaster started in the late 1989 and ceased when the cause was discovered. 

At that time, the biotech industry maintained that some change in the production of the supplement caused the accident, but our conclusion, based on recently discovered evidence, is that, , a metabolic disturbance, caused by genetic engineering, was the reason for the appearance of the deadly and powerful poison that made the food supplement very harmful, although tests showed it was 99.6% pure.
This disaster demonstrates that genetic engineering may give rise to very dangerous unexpected substances, difficult to detect. Unfortunately, the present safety assessment procedure for genetically engineered (GE) foods  to detect such unexpected dangerous poisons that may appear through genetic engineering. 

As all genetically engineered (also called GMO) foods on the market have been approved with this method, all GE foods must be withdrawn to prevent another disaster. The first step should be to immediately label them until withdrawal has been implemented. May 2010: The present campaign by the US government to forbid labelling of GE foods globally may pave the way for a world-wide disaster because the connection with a harmful GE-food will not be discovered in time.[Definition: GE foods = genetically engineered foods = GMO foods]In 1989, a disastrous epidemic broke out in the US that caused 37 deaths and disabled 1.500 permanently in a disease called the "Eosinophilia-Myalgia-Syndrome" (EMS). It was caused by a highly poisonous substance in the food supplement tryptophan, which had been produced by genetically engineered bacteria at the Japanese company Showa Denko.The biotech industry maintained that the disaster was not caused by genetic engineering but by an "impurity" due to reduced filtering of the product. But recently it has been discovered that hundreds of cases contracted EMS We have made a careful analysis of the facts to find out if there was any plausible other reason for the appearance of the deadly poison than genetic engineering. Bacterial fermentation, the method used for producing tryptophan, had an excellent safety record since over 60 years before genetically manipulated bacteria were used. Therefore it is extremely unlikely that the fermentation process produced the poisonous by-product.On the other hand, molecular biologists predicted decades ago that genetic engineering may cause changes that induce the appearance of unexpected and potentially harmful substances. This prediction has been confirmed in a number of cases. Moreover, not one gene had been inserted, as commonly is the case, but four different genes. Increasing the number of inserted genes increases the risk for unpredictable consequences. 

Most importantly, the poison considered most important in the tryptophan was closely similar to tryptophan (a dimer), but never found in natural bacteria. This indicates that disturbed tryptophan metabolism generated the poison. Moreover, the inserted genes were directed at altering the metabolism (so as to increase tryptophan production). 
Our conclusion is that the only plausible explanation for the appearance of this poison is disturbances of the natural metabolic processes due to genetic engineering.would have passed as a safe product if the established procedure for approval of GE foods had been used. It is based on a safety assessment method that is is not designed to reveal unexpected poisons. 
All genetically engineered foods on the market are unsafebecause they have been approved  on the basis of this assessment method that leaks like a sieve. Therefore until withdraval is implemented they If not withdrawn, it is no doubt a matter of time only before another GE food disaster occurs.
Showa Denko was the Harrisburg of gene technology. Must we have a Chernobyl before the use of GM foods is stopped? May 2010: The present campaign by the US government to forbid labelling of GE foods globally may pave the way for a world-wide "Chernobyl" because, without labeling and with the insufficient pre-release safety assessment, the connection between the harmful GE food and disease symptoms will not be discovered in time.37 persons died and 1.500 were permanently disabled  in a disease called Eosinophilia-Myalgia-syndrome (EMS) caused by some extremely poisonous substance present in a tryptophan food supplement, which was produced by genetically engineered bacteria at the Japanese firm Showa Denko (1). 

The poison (or poisons - it has not been possible to find out if one or a combination of poisons caused the disease) was very aggressive, damaging several organ systems including, among others, heart, lungs, muscles, joints, liver, skin and the nervous system. It caused death from severe muscle damage, severe nerve damage (polyneuropathy) heart damage or lung damage. It caused chronic suffering from severe muscular and joint pain, muscle cramps, severe fatigue and troublesome skin and neurological disorders in survivors. No cure for the chronic sufferers has been found although 20 year has passed since the disaster.The incidence of EMS in the United States diminished abruptly following the withdrawal of L-tryptophan containing products.
The disorder has been blamed on impurities due appearing because the produced reduced the filtration of the product. However, this explanation is no more tenable. The American attorney William Crist has made a very thorough investigation discovering new evidence that has helped bring increased clarity to the question whether genetic engineering was the cause of the appearance of this deadly toxin (2). He found that hundreds of patients had fallen ill the producer decreased filtration. The report of William Crist was published in the book "Seeds of Deception" by Jeremy Smith (2).
Our analysis, based on the new evidencePart 1. Was the poison created by the bacteria?The insufficient filtration hypothesis disproven 
The biotech corporations maintained that EMS appeared after Showa Denko reduced the effectiveness of a carbon filter (reduced carbon content) in december 1988. They maintained that this probably had reduced the protection against chemical impurities appearing in the production process (without any explanation from where they came). The filter story was distributed to the press worldwide as the cause of the epidemic. 

This argument is untenable, because as explained above, hundreds of cases of EMS occurred Tryptophan fermentation using normal bacteria never created any poison
Tryptophan has been produced in very large quantities for many years by a several other producers through the same bacterial fermentation method as Showa Denko, using bacteria that are not genetically engineered. No similar complication has occurred in any case. Bacterial fermentation is the standard method for this kind of production. Bacterial fermentation of many other substances without any problem
Large numbers of bacterial fermentation units have been producing huge amounts of various medical substances, including other amino acids, enzymes, nucleotides, vitamins, antibiotics (including very large amounts of penicillin, tetracyclin and erytromycin). 
Such manufacture has been going on at a large scale since more than 60 years without the appearance of any unexpected highly poisonous chemical impurity (fermentation of the first substance produced at a large scale, penicillin, started in 1945). 
EMS was caused by extremely small amounts of a very poisonous substance that was able to pass the filters even when the filtration was at the standard level used in industrial fermentation (that is, before filtration was reduced by Showa Denko).  
This leads to an important conclusion:Considering the enormous amounts of medical substances that have been produced through bacterial fermentation since over 60 years, it is extremely unlikely that there is any fundamental weakness in this procedure that could produce very dangerous poisons. If that had been the case, it would most certainly have been discovered decades ago. Summary and conclusion of part 1reduced filtration was not the cause of EMS.Non-GE tryptophan bacteria have never generated any dangerous toxin. This is especially convincing as such production has occurred at several sites since decades and the amounts produced have been large.  having been used for many other organic substances since over six decades at a large scale without any similar complicationNo plausible explanation has been presented how an extremely toxic substance could appear in the production process except for in the bacteria.Therefore, as all other elements in the production method have been cleared beyond reasonable doubt, we can conclude with great certainty that the bacteria themselves caused the emergence of the poison and not some fancied other source in the production process as implied by the biotech corporations.Part 2. What caused the appearance of the poison in the bacteria?A Non-GE cause is extremely unlikely. The excellent completely poisonfree safety record from over six decades of bacterial fermentation at a very large scale, makes it extremely improbable that the bacterial strain spontaneously started to produce an extremely poisonous and unusual substance. In the case of genetic engineering the siutation is Unexpected appearance of poisons due to genetic engineering  by molecular biologists because of the way gene manipulation can disturb cellular functioning.
Moreover, this prediction has been experimentally  That is, unexpected appearance of poisons  due to genetic engineering (3). In the case of the Showa Denko bacteria, they had undergone an unusual extent of genetic manipulation as not one, as usually is the case in GE, but The risk for unexpected complications is greater, the larger number of genes are inserted because it brings about a greater instability in the genetic control of metabolic processes. 
The risk was especially great for a disturbance of the metabolic processes involved in generating tryptophan,  because all the artificially inserted genes were specifically directed at increasing the production of this substance. This means that the natural metabolic process was interferred with in four different ways, considerably increasing the risk of abnormal metabolism. Abnormal metabolism can generate abnormal molecules.  This is well known from genetic diseases of various kinds (caused by a change in a single gene leading to the generation of an abnormal and harmful molecule). "IMT", one of the impurties, is a  (11). It has been correlated with EMS symptoms. The presence of this abnormal tryptophan-related molecule confirms that the metabolism was disturbed in the genetically engineered bacteria."EBT", the most prominent harmful substance was also  This further confirms that the metabolism in the genetically engineered bacteria was disturbed (for more, see "EBT" is able to cause autoimmune reactions in the Eosinophilic Myalgia Syndrome (Considering the above points, it can be concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the only plausible explanation is that the poisonus impurities that caused EMS were generated inside the bacteria due to abnormal metabolism caused by genetic engineering. No other scientifically tenable reason for the appearance of the deadly poison has been found, and the probability for a metabolic disturbance to occur due to genetic engineering was considerable, considering that four different genes had been inserted, causing an especially great degree of instability in the cellular regulation of the production of tryptophan resulting in disturbed metabolism which means that abnormal substances can appear. Most importantly, one of the poisonous substances "EBT" was an abnormal substance similar to tryptophan.
Furthermore unexpected poisonous substances have been reported also in some other cases of genetic engineering. On the other hand, when natural bacteria have been used for producing tryptophan and many other substances at a massive scale, no harmful substance has appeared. 
Therefore, we find it justified to conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that a metabolic disturbance, caused by genetic engineering, was the reason for the appearance of the deadly poison in the tryptophan-producing bacteria of Showa Denko. Usage of GE organisms, recipe for another disasterThis disaster shows that genetic engineering can generate unexpected substances that are so poisonous that even extremely small quantities can kill or cause severe disease., as genetic engineering has generated unexpeted poisonous substances also in other organisms, including at least one genetically engineered plant (see ). For a scientific explanation why hazardous substances can appear, see "The Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods. Reasons to expect hazards and the risk for their appearance.
Moreover, there are good reasons to suspect that the biotech corporations have "buried" cases where poisons appeared in their GMOs (for more, see The established method for safety assessment of GE foods is insufficient. It is based on "substantial equivalence", and is not capable of reliably detecting unexpected hazardous substances. This is especially so in cases where they cause long term damage including genetic disturbances and cancer. Do read our explanation "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods" (written for laymen). For a scientific explanation, see the article by professor John Fagan "Testing the Safety of Genetically Engineered FoodsTherefore, it is only a matter of time before another unexpected toxin appears in GE food, which in the worst case might harm millions of people before the connection is discovered, especially if, as is the case in the US and Canada, the GE foods are not labeled.absolutely necessary that all GE foods are withdrawn from the market before another disaster occurs.

If, for some ethically unacceptable reason, this is not immediately done (resistance from the producers can be expected), at least the GE-foods must be immediately labelled so people have a chance to avoid them. Presently the only way to do so in countries, including the US, where they are not labeled, is to eat only certified organically grown food. The present campaign by the US government to make the international body for food policy, Codex Alimentarius, forbid labelling of GE foods globally, if successful, may have very dangerous consequences. If a GE food, containing a harmful substance, undetected by the superficial and highly insufficinet safety assessment procedure is released on the world market, it may pave the way for a world-wide disasterbarring labelling, it may take months before the connection to the harmful GE food is discovered.Genetically Engineered foods can never be safe because of the inherently unpredictable nature of gene manipulationIt will take several decades to develop sufficent knowledge about genetic engineering so as to know how it works (see ""). Already now there exists enough knowledge about the effects of GE to be able to conclude that GE, because of its unpredictable nature, can never become safe enough for developing any kind of food or for any other purposes. Therefore the only reasonable and sound scientific conclusion is that it is a dangerous method, not to be used, if at all, other than under strictly contained laboratory conditions. 

It is no doubt a matter of time only before genetic engineering will be forbidden, and mankind will be amazed how governments and international organs, including the FAO, Codex Alimentarius and EFSA (of the European Union), could allow such a potentially disastrous method to be deployed in spite of very incomplete knowledge of DNA and the effects of gene manipulation on the cell as well as its health and environmental consequences. 

The commercialization of genetically engineered foods and other GMOs, in spite of insufficient testing, is nothing less than a  made possible by political suppression of serious warning signals and disinformation from corrupt or incompetent scientists, sponsored by irresponsible multinational corporations. Moreover, scientists who have published results indicating harmful effects of GE foods have been persecuted by governmental or international agencies, or colleagues, including  (he is being attacked especially violently because he is a leading scientist). This persecution frightens scientists critical to genetic engineering from raising their voices, see for example "It is not a question whether, but when the next disaster occurs. considering the serious incompleteness of knowledge and the highly insufficient safety assessment metods.  of Genetic Engineering. We should not need a "Chernobyl" before all GE foods are recalled from the market and no new one are allowed before proper testing"). No GE food and no other GE product developed so far provides any such benefit that it is justified to take any risk at all by using it.1. For more about the catastrophe, see 2. The report of William Crist regarding the Showa Denko catastrophe as presented in the book "" by Jeffrey Smith. It is an excellent presenation of the GE food issue reveailing the governmental corruption and the deceptive behavior of biotch corporations in the process of establishing commercial approval of GE foods.3. a)Tobacco plants were genetically engineered to produce the Gamma-linoleic acid, a popular food supplement. In stead the plant unexpectedly mainly produced the toxic octadecatetraenic acid. This substance does not exist in the natural tobacco plant. (Reddy SA, Thomas TL. Nature Biotechnology, vol 14, sid 639-642, May 1996)
b) When a yeast was manipulated for increased fermentation there was an unexpected production of a metabolite (methyl-glyoxal) in toxic and mutagenic concentrations. (Inose, T. Murata, K. Int. J. Food Science Tech. 30: 141-146, 1995).: "We, the undersigned scientists and physicians, demand that all genetically engineered (GE) foods be withdrawn from the market unless they have undergone rigorous safety assessment including long term testing on animals and humans." No GE food sold as human food has presently undergone such testing.Inadequate safety assessment of GE foodsAn example of fatal substantial equivalence. Applying the Showa Denko case, we demonstrate how useless and insufficient the present safety assessment procedure is.8. Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini pointed out serious weaknesses in the safety analysis of a GE Maize variety that was approved as harmless on the basis of substantial equivalence. 9. Unfortunately, genetic engineering is almost entirely sponsored by commercial interests that earn billions from genetic engineering. Therefore, it is highly probable that, if poisons have been generated and detected in the experimentation with GE, they have been kept strictly secret. Because the technology brings about uncontrollable disturbances of the metabolism, that according to molecular biologists may generate unwanted substances, we find it justified to posit that poisonous substances have appeared in perhaps several GMO cases, buried as "business secrets" in the case they were discovered. However, because of the insensitive test methods used, poisons may also have passed unrevealed in the experiments and possibly ended up in GE food due to insufficient testing.10. a) Kurihara Nobutaka, a, Yanagisawa Hiroyukia, Jin Zhuyua and Wada Osamua. "Production of polyclonal antibodies against 1,1'-ethyliden bis[l-tryptophan] (EBT), a potential contaminant causing eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome (EMS)". 
b)  William C. Buss; Julie Stepanek; Arthur D. Bankhurst; Arthur N. Mayeno; Andrzej Pastuszyn ;David Peabody. "EBT, A Tryptophan Contaminant Associated with Eosinophilia Myalgia Syndrome, is Incorporated into Proteins during Translation as an Amino Acid Analog " Autoimmunity, Volume 25, Issue 1 September 1996 , pages 33 - 45

c) H Barth, R Klein, P A Berg. L-tryptophan contaminant 'peak E' induces the release of IL-5 and IL-10 by peripheral blood mononuclear cells from patients with functional somatic syndromes. 
d) Richard M. Silver, * Anna Ludwicka, * Marta Hampton,Takashi Ohba, * Sarah A. Bingel,' Timothy Smith, Russell A. Harley, John Maize, Melvyn P. Heyesil."; A Murine Model of the Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome Induced by 1,1 '-Ethylidenebis.." The Journal of Clinical Investigation, Inc.11. B Mller, C Pacholski, T Simat, H Steinhart. "Synthesis and formation of an EMS correlated contaminant in biotechnologically manufactured L-tryptophan.
"Harrisburg - another accident whose significance was ignored for fostering dubious technologyAs long as politics and corporate interets are allowed to suppress scientific safety concerns, the world is in great danger occurred 1979 in a nuclear reactor in Harrisburg, PA, US, that came close to meltdown (also called the "Three mile Island accident"). It sparked the discussion of the safety of nuclear energy. But not until the Chernobyl catastrophe occured in 1986, the further usage of nuclear energy in the US and other countries was either stopped or plans were made to replace it with other solutions as soon as possible. 

Before Harrisburg, experts sponsored by the US and other governments, fervently denied that the technology was unsafe. Still several independent experts had warned that nuclear energy reactors are unsafe. This situation is very similar to the denial today of GE risks by biotech sponsored scientists and the refusal of governements to listen to the well underpinned warnings of impartial experts including PSRAST.

This shows that it is unacceptable and dangerous that governmental bodies interfere with, and override technology assessments made by impartial scientists. They evidently don't have the competence, foresight, intelligence and sense of responsibility to be able to handle complex technological issues. Unfortunately corruption of government officials and politicians has contributed to suppression of truth.
This danger is especially great now that science has reached a level where it is capable of generating very powerful technologies that can destroy the Earth.
We have suggested the establishment of national and international councils of truly independent experts that have the ultimate, unrestricted power to decide for the country, or for the world, in issues regarding responsible and safe application of new technologies, see "". History has very clearly shown that there are very strong reasons to create such bodies whose decisions are imperative and cannot be overrun by any political or corporate influence.EBT - an anomalous substance in the supplement
(This text is based on and partly quoted from professor John Fagans article " EBT, the most prominent of the poisonous substances in the tryptophan supplement, was identified as a dimerization product of tryptophan (a dimer is a molecule consisting of two identical parts - joined in this case by an ethylidene bridge). It comprised less than 0.1% of the total weight of the product, yet that was enough to kill people (1). 
 
Based on fundamental chemical and biochemical principles, scientists have deduced that this compound was probably generated when the concentration of tryptophan within the bacteria reached such high levels that tryptophan molecules or their precursors began to react with each other (5). 

Thus, it appears that genetic manipulations led to increased tryptophan biosynthesis which led to increased cellular levels of tryptophan and precursors. At these high levels, these compounds reacted with themselves, generating a deadly toxin. 
 
Being chemically quite similar to tryptophan, this toxin was not easily separated from tryptophan, and contaminated the final commercial product at levels that were highly toxic to consumers.

The purpose of the genetic manipulation was to increase the tryptophan production in the bacteria, and this apparently was successful, however with disastrous consequences.

1. Mayeno, A.N. and Gleich, G.J., Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and
tryptophan production: a cautionary tale, TIBTECH, 12, 346-352, 1994.
5. Raphals, P., EMS deaths: Is recombinant DNA technology involved?,
The Medical Post, Maclean-Hunter, Toronto, 16, November 6, 1990.
This accident raises a serious warning flag regarding other cases of genetic engineering where the purpose likewise is to increase the productivity of the GMO. 

Especially worrisome is that the products of the disturbed metabolism were very harmful in spite of being present in extremely small amounts, that could easily be overlooked in the same way as they were in the tryptophan case. 
Physicians and Scientists for ResponsibleApplication of Science and Technology"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 7673 
Organic farming could feed the world

The lead author of the study, Professor Ivette Perfecto said:"The idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is ridiculous.

Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companiesall have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food, she said."
...
"My hope is that we can finally put a nail in the coffin of the idea that you cant produce enough food through organic agriculture," Perfecto said.
The study compared yields of organic versus conventional or low-intensive food production for a global dataset of 293 examples and estimated the average yield ratio (organic:non-organic) of different food categories for the developed and the developing world. 
Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows. Press release from the University of Michigan. 10 July 2007.Organic agriculture and the global food supply.  C Badgley,  J Moghtadera,  E Quinteroa et al, Renewable Agriculture and Food SystemsThis extensive study puts a nail "into the coffin" of Genetic Engineering of foods, along with several other nails presented on this page and in our website. It is now very obvious that the GE foods cannot be justified in any sense and that their inherent unpredictabililty along with the very scanty knowledge about genes of modern science makes it necessary to immediately stop the release of all kinds of GE crops into the environment."Alternatives to genetic engineering of food" contains some especially important "nails in the coffin" of GE foods. It demonstrates very clearly that industrial chemistry-based agriculture is harmful to the health and the environment. There is no need for it, on the contrary it poses a threat of starvation to hundreds of millions of people if an oil crisis comes.
Now that it has been established that organic agriculture can produce food as effectively, the continuation of industrial, chemistry-based agriculture cannot be justified in any way, whether it uses GE or conventional crops. 

 




Document Number: 6873 
GE food agriculture for feeding the world increases the risk for mass starvationIn this website we have presented facts that demonstrate that genetic engineering is inherently unpredictable. Therefore, GE foods may contain unforeseen hazardous substances and may have unpredictable and potentially harmful environmental effects. We have shown that there is no need for them to feed the world. 

For these reasons alone, it is neccessary to ban their use. But there are strong reasons to stop them even if they were safe. These reasons have so far not been considered in the debate:It has now been generally accepted by climate experts that Global Warming will bring about considerable climatic instability and extreme weather conditions, including heavy rains, storms as well as severe droughts.Experience indicates that GE crops may be more delicate than conventional crops. In addition, accumulating evidence are demonstrating that they are less productive.
(This is a more advanced text that, for full understanding, needs the study of the article Circumstances that can make GE crops less hardy and less productiveThe insertion of a foreign gene constitutes a significant disturbance for several reasons.The so called promoter DNA, that is always inserted along with the "trait" gene, has the effect of forcing the cell to produce the "trait" protein all the time, 24 hrs a day (see ) . Normally, the protein production of the cell is finely attuned to the needs in every moment. In a GE cell this important energy saving function is overridden by the promoter. Saving of energy is a basic feature of biological life of vital importance for hardiness as well as for productivity. Indiscriminate energy expenditure of this kind is likely to make the plant less productive as well as more vulnerable to extreme weather conditions that cause nutritient deficiency. The same promoter DNA has the property of strongly stimulating the activity of genes. It may activate neighboring genes to produce undesired proteins 24 hours a day. Especially if this protein happens to be an enzyme, this may disturb the metabolism of the plant to a significant extent. This is because production of enzymes is one of the key regulatory mechanisms of normal metabolism (the amount of a certain enzyme decides how much is produced of the corresponding substance). Therefore an indiscriminate and  abnormally large production of an enzyme can weaken a plant significantly. But even if it is not an enzyme, the abnormal accumulation of a protein, that normally is produced to a small extent only when needed, may disturb the normal functioning of the plant cells. Productivity as well as hardiness depend on an effective functioning of the cells, finely attuned to the needs in every moment.The inserted gene produces a protein that is foreign to the cell. Proteins that don't affect one organism may be a deadly poison to others (see the foreign protein may disturb the metabolism and regulation of cellular functioning. Metabolic disturbance is a hallmark of genetic diseases. This is hardly compatible neither with hardiness nor productivityIn genetic engineering the foreign gene is inserted haphazardly, interrupting the normal sequence of DNA codes. The knowledge how genes function is very incomplete so it is not possible to fully evaluate the importance of this disturbance. But it is well known that even very small abnormalities in DNA is associated with increased vulnerabilityit cannot be excluded that this interruption of the normal DNA code sequnce may influence hardiness as well as productivity  It is evident that genetic engineering causes abnormal functioning of the cell in different ways that are very likely to decrease its hardiness and productivity. This prediction has been confirmed by agricultural studies that report that genetically engineered plants are less productive as well more delicate and brittle than normal organisms. For a few examples, see Therefore there may be an increased risk for GE crop failures due to the extreme weather conditions caused by Global Warming. If the GE food biotechology were allowed to expand in the way the Biotech Corporations want, so as to become the major source of food in the world, there may be an increased risk for large scale hunger catastrophes under extreme climatic conditions. 2. Imminent oil shortage predicted to bring about hunger crisisThe international energy agency (IEA) and other expert bodies have predicted that there is  a risk for severe hunger catastrophes when oil shortage occurs. This is because conventional large scale, chemistry-based agricultural food production is heavily dependent on oil. 

In addition, transportation will become expensive and in the worst case very limited. Industrial scale agriculture is closely tied to long distance transport of foods.


In the case of genetically engineered crops, the seeds are produced only in a few places and therefore require long distance, if not overseas transportation. This will make it very expensive to use such crops, and with severe oil shortage, it might become physically impossible. 

With oil shortage, industrial agriculture, which presently produces the food to a large part of the world population may collapse. The situation is even worse for GE crops based agriculture for said reasons.

Recently an increasing number of experts have been warning that oil and gas shortage may occur earlier than believed so far (see for example "Get ready for oil supplies to dwindle, experts warn" (Vancoucer Sun, 27 Sept 2006),  (Bussiness week June 25 2007)  and for a more scientific source, Association for the study of Peak Oil & Gas
The great problem is that the world is not prepared for oil shortage. The experts predict that it will take at best 10 years, but more probably 15-20 years to replace the oil-dependent technology with something else. At the same time, there is an increasing consensus among independent experts that oil shortage will come in less than ten years, and in the worst case within a few years.The present large scale expansion of GE food production is a major threatEven if Food Biotechnology had been safe in every way, for these reasons alone it is a dangerous way to go. It is highly disquieting that the Biotech corporations are now pressing for a rapid increase of GE-food production in the world, and thereby increasing heavily oil-dependent agriculture. When oil shortage comes, the intended large scale replacement of small scale farms with industrial agriculture will expose millions, if not hundreds of millions to the risk of hunger and death from starvation.Already the expansion of food biotechnology in the third world is eradicating tens of thousands of small scale farming units with a low oil dependence, replacing them with highly oil dependent industrial farming. 

In stead, great care should be taken to foster a development in the opposite direction, which would decrease the impact of an oil crisis on food production.Expansion of the usage of GE crops significantly increase the risk for mass starvation in the future. This is brought about by a combination of: 

lower productivity and increased risk for crop failure caused by extreme climate conditions due to Global Warming andincreased oil dependence in a time of imminent oil shortage.Therefore, even if GE foods would have been safe, they have to be stopped. However, this technology is inherently unsafe and has already spread genes with unpredicatable effects over wide areas. Consequently there is every reason to stop the release of GE genes into the environment including production of GE foods immediately.September 3, 2007; Updated April 22, 2008. To be able to insert a foreign gene and to make it work it has to be attached to a synthetic mixture of virus and bacterial genes. One is a  taken from a virus, which ensures that the gene will produce the protein it codes in the new environment. Another is a commonly  that enables insertion of its DNA into foreign chromosomes. Both of the most commonly used ones are potentially hazardous to health. For more, see  A concrete example out of many is the venom of the Australian Funnel Web spider (Atrax robustus). Its robustoxin is a lethal neurotoxin that has killed several people. Still, to its own cells this protein is harmless.. Here are a few examples of documented decreased productivity and increased weather sensitivity:

Exposed: the great GM crops myth. Major new study shows that modified soya produces 10 per cent less food than its conventional equivalent". The Independent, Sunday, 20 April 2008. Reports about problems with GE crops, including decreased productivity."Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Beans Cracking Up". These widely used beans cracked up in soil temperatures over 40 degrees Celcius (104 F) and this has caused Bt Corn hybrids development delayed under extreme weather. Under extreme weather conditions e.g. cool air temperature at planting and severe drought during the development, there was a significant delay of development. (93: 199-21, September 14, 2005)Physicians and Scientists for ResponsibleApplication of Science and Technology"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 6464 
It has been scientifically establised that genetic engineering can cause the appearance of unexpected harmful substances. Therefore, a very careful procedure is necessary for detecting them in GE foods. Yet such a procedure is not used.In spite of this, an approval procedure is being used worldwide that may let through outright dangerous GE. It is based on the principle of  (SE). It states that the only requirement for approval is that the GE food should be "grossly similar" to its natural counterpart. It is based on the scientifically invalid assumption that such similarity grants safety. 

Every molecular biologist can confirm that this assumption is fundamentally wrong. In reality, a GE food may even not only be grossly similar, but almost completely identical with its natural counterpart (far more than required by the SE principle) and yet contain an unexpected harmful substance. 
 approved on the basis of "substantial equivalence" are not safe. on the market in the world, becasue they have all been approved on the basis of "substantial equivalence".
 
Therefore, it is our conclusion that every GE-food must be withdrawn from the market. food approval is unscientific, being based on incorrect assumptions about the effects of genetic engineering. The assumption is that if it is established that the genetically engineered organism is similar to its natural counterpart, "substantially equivalent", then there is no reason to believe that it is hazardous.
 food is substantially equivalent, only a limited set of characteristics (selected by the manufacturer) needs to be compared according to this principle. If this superficial testing procedure reveals no significant difference between the GE food and its natural counterpart, then it is assumed that no further food safety 
So the approval procedure is based on the  that GE foods are safe if they are "substantially equivalent". This assumption would have been justified only if genetic engineering had been a safe technology that never could give rise to unexpected substances. However the opposite is the case: 
Molecular biological theory has predicted and experimental findings have confirmed that unexpected substances may be created through genetic engineering. This includes  carcinogenic (cancer-generating), mutagenic (mutation-generating), poisonous and allergenic substances, see "Genetic Engineering Possesses Inherent Unpredictability". Reasons to expect hazards and the risk for their appearance".. This is especially problematic as it may be very difficult to detect such hazardous substances. Some poisons are harmful even in very small concentrations.
 
Unexpected substances may appear however "equivalent" the GE variety is. This means that a GE food may be hazardous even if it is not just  equivalent with the natural counterpart  one unexpected harmful substance that runs a considerable risk of being undiscovered unless very rigorous food safety testing is done. This was the case in the Showa Denko disaster, see the  box below. 
Examples of failure of the present approval procedureA dreadful example demonstrating that approval based on "substantial equivalence" is not only useless but also dangerous is the  disaster that killed 37 and permanently disabled 1.500 persons, see "An example of fatal substantial equivalence"Monsanto's genetically engineered Soy, is approved as human food, being "substantially equivalent" with natural soy. When hamsters were fed on it in three generations, they developed slower growth and high mortality among the pups. Fertility was less in the second generation and in the third generation many were sterile. 

This result is in accord with the results of a number of other research studies reporting decreased fertility in GMO-fed animals, indicating that at least in this respect the harmful effect was due to genetic engineering, see "Genetically modified soy linked to sterility, infant mortality". Another study likewise found a high litter mortality and stunted growth in mice who ate Monsantos GMO soy (see " when mother rats ate genetically engineered soy").  , declared to be "substantially equivalent" was found to have 67 significant differences from natural Maize. The difference could indicate toxicity according to Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a leading biotechnology expert.  Genetically engineered Roundup Ready Soy of Monsanto, has been declared to be "substantially equivalent" and therefore approved as human food. Liver, pancreas and testicular changes were detected in mice eating it. This soy is widely used as human soy. For more, see The approval procedure has been rejected by important bodies of scientists Thie approval procedure based on "substantial equivalence" has been critisized and rejected by important bodies of scientists.the US National Academy of Science; its Canadian counterpart, the Royal society and the The UK Medical Research Council. It has also recently been revealed that the US Food and Drug Administation (FDA), suppressed serious concerns about the safety expressed by its own experts. Below just one example:"...substantial equivalence does not function as a scientific basis for the application of a safety standard, but rather as a decision procedure for facilitating the passage of new products, GE, through the regulatory process,  (2001) Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada, Ottawa, p.182 (April 2001).
 In British Commonwealth countries, the  is a national body of distinguished scientists and scholars that promote learning and research. In other countries, the corresponding body is called "The National Academy of Science".
The rejection of Substantial Equivalence by these distinguished bodies of scientists becomes even more understandable if you study the table below that demonstrates important differences between the procedure based on substantial equivalence and rigorous scientific assessment. We have been critisizing this approval procedure since several years and feel greatly satisfied to find that important bodies of scientists have joined us in rejecting it. It should be a matter of short time before the GE food approval regulations will be changed accordingly. This should inevitably lead to the withdrawal of all GE on the market as they were all approved on the basis of this flawed principle. 

The paragraph above was written in year 2000 and yet this unscientific and dangerous approval procedure is still being used, although 10 years have passed, indicating that the governmental authorities dealing with approval are ignoring science in a seriously irresponsible wayin the US, and the European Food Safety Agency, For more about the criticism by scientific bodies, see
"Scientists and scientist organizations rejecting the principle of Substantial Equivalence"How could this unreliable assessment method become established? (in the end of this document) - Presently marketed GE should be withdrawn from the market as they have not been tested properly. New regulatory procedures for establishing food safety need to be established that effectively prevent political interventions and exclude the influence from biased scientists and industrial lobbyists. The approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready Soy as a foodA case illustrating the inadequacy of the principle of Substantial Equivalence as appliced in practice. Table comparing substantial equivalence with a scientifically valid food assessment procedure assessment based on substantial equivalence as applied in practice (on the basis of the recommendations of the United Nation's organ FAO), is compared below with the kind of assessment required from a rigorously scientific and impartial standpoint. that genetic engineering is not different from breeding. If there is no obvious difference between the assessed product and it's natural counterpart, regarding its appearance, taste, or selected chemical and nutritional properties, it is assumed to be equivalent and then no thorough testing is necessary. that there is a considerable difference between GE and breeding. Because of the insertion of a foreign gene, unpredictable metabolic changes may occur that may generate unexpected hazardous substances that require thorough testing to be detected.with regard to selected characteristics No food can be excluded from rigorous testing on the basis of comparing  organism may be identical with its mutual counterpart  one harmful substance. Therefore the following tests are always necessary1. Short term assessment of the influence on growth rate and similar gross and superficial symptoms is sufficient to establish the safetyNo thorough laboratory analysis is required.1. Short term animal testing with thorough laboratory analysis is necessary in every case for reliable detection of immediate harmful effects.No long term animal testing is requiredRigorous long term animal testing is necessary in every case for reliable detection of slow acting harmful substances. of GMOs. Animal testing is enough.3. Rigorous human testing over several years, is necessary, as animal testing is not a fully reliable means for detecting harmfulness to humans in the case of slowly acting harmful substances like carcinogens.Biochemical allergen analysis and animal tests are accepted as sufficient for assessing allergenicityBiochemical analyses and animal tests are not reliable indicators of allergenicity. Human allergy testing, both short and long-term, is necessary for reliable assessment.   For more details about scientifcally required testing, see the right table column in: The approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready Soy as a food. Conclusions from the comparison aboveIt is obvious from this table that GE assessment" based on substantial equivalence has no scientific basis. This principle neglects well established scientific facts of crucial importance for food safety assessment. These facts invalidate it completely. The application of the principle of substantial equivalance carries with it a great risk that unexpected harmful substances will pass undetected. assessed this way are consequently not safe to eat. This goes for all GE on the market as they have all been approved on the basis of this principle.How could this unreliable assessment method become established?To be reliable, the testing demanded by food safety experts would have cost millions of dollar in each case. In addition, it would have delayed their approval for years as such testing takes long time. Billions of dollars had already been invested in the development GE and such demands and delays would have made the GE food projects unprofitable. So the Biothec firms were under pressure to find some way to get around these impediments.A judicial hoax to facilitate rapid approval"substantial equivalence" that was  to facilitate rapid approval procedures for GE in USA without any demands on careful testing.  without any scientific basis. 
Unfortunately it was succesfully established globally. This was achieved through strong pressure from the United States Government that made it a national and even a presidential issue to promote its Biotech Multinationals so that they could lead and dominate the biotech sector. The American Food and Drug Agency (FDA) played a key role in officially declaring (1994) that these foods were as safe as natural ones in spite of warnings by their own expertsfindings indicating harmful effects of a GE food were suppressedFDA scientists indirectly rejected the principleSerious failure of food safety authoritiesThe international (FAO and Codex Alimentarius) and national food safety committees still support this approval procedure. Their approval of this non-scientific and unreliable assessment method represents an unacceptable failure of the procedures for developing food safety regulationsserious dysfunction of the national and international scientific expert committees that endorse ittruly amazing that this useless and dangerous safety assessment procedure is still approved by the scientists in the international organizations, including FAO, Codex Alimentarius, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well those in and national food safety authorities like the American FDA, the Danish Fdevaredirektoratet, the Swedish Livsmedelsverket, the British Food Standard Authority, the German Bundesamt fr Lebensmittelsicherheit etc. Are these scientists gravely incompetent or corrupted or what? In any case it is very evident that the scientists dealing with food safety in organs approving substantial equivalence are seriously irresponsible unless they have been gagged by their superiors, which has been the case at least in FDA.This demonstrates the danger of political and corporate intervention into judgements and decisions that should be made completely impartially by independent scientists. See also "Towards a pseudoscientfic world order?""Why were genetically engineered foods approved in spite of insuffient safety"The ubiquitous argument that "since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe" is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted."
, professor and head of the Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute, La Jolla, California, The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants, Journal of Medicinal Food, Vol. 11, No. 4, 2008Foods that have been approved on the basis of the principle of Substantial Equivalence should be declared unsafe and be withdrawn from the market,
If it takes time to implement this, mandatory labeling is necessary components in order to facilitate early discovery of unexpected harmful effects.Regulations for securing the safety of food should only be based on impartial scientific considerations. This has obviously not been the case in regulations applying the principle of substantial equivalence. Measures need to be introduced in the regulatory procedures that prevent political interventions and exclude the influence from biased scientists and industrial lobbyists (see: A suggested procedure to ensure impartial safetyWithout drastic improvements of the regulatory procedures, the health of the population of the Earth may be exposed to peril from insufficiently tested Novel foods that now are being developed and marketed.Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application Scientists and scientist organizations rejecting the principle of Substantial Equivalence 
 
This section has been moved to a separate document, "An example of fatal substantial equivalence""Beyond Substantial Equivalence" 401: 525-526, 7 Oct 1999. A thorough scientific exposition of the uselesness of this principle for GE is a leading science journal).
The approval of Monsanto's genetically engineered Roundup Ready Soy as a foodA case illustrating the inadequacy of the principle of Substantial Equivalence as appliced in practice. The failings of the principle of substantial equivalenceCritique of the recommendations concerning application of the principle of Substantial Equivalence in "The Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food SafetyPhysicians and Scientists for ResponsibleApplication of Science and Technology"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 9107 
2-Plants: Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows in Hesse(Germany)?GENET-news <GENET-news@genet-info.org>2-Plants: Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows in Hesse(Germany)?GENET <coordination@genet-info.org>Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:02:28 +0100Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printableContent-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1List-Help: <mailto:genet-news-request@genet-info.org?subject=help>List-Post: <mailto:genet-news@genet-info.org>List-Subscribe: <mailto:genet-news-request@genet-info.org?subject=subscribe>List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:genet-news-request@genet-info.org?subject=unsubscribe>Old-Return-Path: <coordination@genet-info.org>Resent-From: genet-news@genet-info.org

TITLE:  Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows in Hesse?
SOURCE: Greenpeace Germany, by Henning Strodthoff and Christoph Then
DATE:   December 2003


Is GM maize responsible for deaths of cows in Hesse?

In the last few years cows have died without explanation at one of the
few farmers in Germany to grow and feed his animals genetically
manipulated plants. Five cows died in 2001, and seven in 2002, at a farm
in Woelfersheim in the German state of Hesse, while other animals there
have also had to be slaughtered. After common errors in feeding and
infections had by and large been ruled out as the cause of death, the
farmer now suspects Syngenta company GM maize as to blame for the sudden
death of his cows. How might the deaths of the animals be linked to this
genetically modified maize? What is known so far about the GM maize and
why have the authorities failed to make a full investigation?

Syngenta has in the meantime compensated the farmer for part of his
damages but at the moment refuses to make full compensation. The farmer
has called on the authorities and Syngenta to investigate the cases, so
far in vain, as a result of which he has now given the facts to Greenpeace.


GM maize on the way out

The maize, officially designated Bt 176, contains a plant which forms an
insecticide which is supposed to protect against particular insects that
feed on it (the corn borer caterpillar). To do this, poison was isolated
from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium and incorporated by
manipulation into maize plants using a "gene gun". Bt 176 maize was one
of the very first GM plants authorised to be marketed.

Syngenta obtained a Europe-wide licence to market this maize back in 1997
(1). The licence applied to seed production and the import and processing
of food and animal feed. Although this licensing has from been hotly
contested from the outset, it has stayed in place until today. But the
licence for it in the US expired as long ago as 2001 (2). In Europe
Austria, Luxembourg and Italy have moreover banned its cultivation (3).


Only for research purposes

Germany also restricted its use in March 2000 out of safety concerns. In
its notification of the change the Robert Koch Institute said on 31 March
2000 that it thereby "orders the suspension of the authorisation for
putting the maize line 00256-176 and its derivatives on the market,
unless it is cultivated for research or trial purposes..." This means
that since then Bt 176 maize is only allowed to be grown in Germany for
trial purposes. But harvests of it may subsequently be fed to animals.
Syngenta clearly doesn't take this too literally. In 2002 Greenpeace
discovered several Bt 176 fields in Hesse. The fields had been cultivated
without any controls and had to be destroyed. The GM maize is currently
grown on a large scale in Spain (4), where 20,000 hectares of it a year
are farmed. This maize had been grown and used as feed at the farm in
Woelfersheim since 1997. Bayer company GM maize made resistant to
insecticide sprays had also been grown (in smaller quantities).


Death of cows began with harvest of maize in 2000

Maize is fed to cows the year round at the dairy farm concerned. The cows
get maize silage and grain maize. To make maize silage, the whole maize
plant is shredded early in the autumn and fermented by adding lactic acid
bacteria. Grain maize has to ripen for longer and so is not harvested
until late autumn. The grain is then threshed from the cobs like with
other kinds of grain, as with wheat for example. The maize grains are
rich in starch and can be stored for a long time because they have a low
water content.

The farmer had been using GM maize increasingly on his farm since 1997.
In 2000 and 2001 only GM maize was grown. The farmer reports that his
cows had become sick more frequently after being fed the maize harvest
from the year 2000. According to him the situation then escalated. Five
cows died within four months, and others produced less milk or had to be
slaughtered. Only one of the five dead cows was examined at the pathology
institute at Giessen, and a clear cause of death could not be
established. Additional tissue samples were sent to the university of
Gttingen, where they vanished in unexplained circumstances.


Less milk

A (still) convinced adherent of genetically modified plants for feed, the
farmer in February 2002 decided to stop using Bt 176 maize as feed on his
farm. Despite this, another seven cows died by October 2002, and in 2003
it could be seen, possibly as an eventual result of their being fed the
GM maize, that some cows were producing less milk.


Cause still not determined

Syngenta assumed the costs of five dead cows, reduced milk yields, the
vet and analyses (5). But the cause of the cows' deaths still hasn't been
determined. While samples of feedstuff have continued to be taken at the
farm, none of the analyses has yet provided any answer to the question
why the cows died. A communiqu by the Giessen district government board
on 21 August 2003 said that "the cause of the incidents referred to could
not be determined".

Analyses commissioned by the farmer himself produced indications that the
components of the grains of the GM differ more from those of normal maize
than had been assumed.


Toxin slow to decompose

The farmer now wants to have samples of his feed analysed for the toxic
protein that comes from Bt 176 maize. He fears that this toxin has also
been borne onto his pastures by the cow manure. In analyses made in Japan
in 2003, the Bt-toxin was indeed found for the first time in cows'
stomachs, intestines and dung (6). It appears to degrade more slowly than
had been assumed.

The Syngenta company had until now assumed it would decompose rapidly in
cows' stomachs. Clear traces of the toxin were however found in the cows'
stomachs five and eighteen hours after they had been fed. It may be
spread onto pastures and into stalls through the animals' dung. If Bt
toxins come into contact with the soil they can remain there for months,
bound to minerals in clay.

Contrary what Syngenta always maintains, there are indications that the
toxin can also be biologically active in the intestines of mammals. At
the outset it was assumed the toxin could only affect certain insect
larvae. But a scientific investigation made in 2000 describes the Bt
toxin as becoming attached to the stomach wall in mice, where it can
cause biological changes (7). This binding to the mucous membrane in the
stomach is also a precondition for the toxin being able to have its
effect on insects.


Passivity of authorities

Although the maize is only allowed to be grown within a framework of
scientific research, the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin (RKI), the
authority responsible for assessing the risks from it, did not learn of
the deaths until November 2001. And even then it reacted rather
passively. Neither all the feed on the farm nor the dead cows were
impounded. Nor have comprehensive analyses been instigated to look at
residues of the toxin in the soil and animals' dung. It may now be too
late to be able to actually determine the causes. Syngenta and the
authorities have not even yet made the funds for years of feed trials
available. Instead, the RKI's investigations ended on 12 December 2002 by
pointing to other possible causes of death. In Greenpeace's view the
authorities are to be charged with having categorically failed here.
After the documents submitted had been inspected the GM maize should
never have been authorised or been revoked long ago, for the following
reasons.

1. Unexpected biological effects have been evident on several occasions
in feed trials with GM maize. Animals have gained weight in some cases
more quickly, and in others more slowly, in comparison with those in
control groups (8). Biological effects which may be due to genetic
changes are significant if they do not cause direct harm to an animal. It
is known that toxic substances, depending on their concentration and how
long they have an effect for, can have a stimulating effect on the
metabolism. The assumptions originally made whereby the GM maize would
produce better yields because it would be more seldom prone to attack by
harmful mildews have however not been proven to be generally correct. In
the light of these facts further investigations into the incidents at
Woelfersheim have to be made.

2. The maize was altered by a gene gun. In this process the genes are
packed onto metal particles and fired into the plant cells. It appears
that several copies of the gene construct, some of them only fragmented,
became unintentionally incorporated (9). Depending on the location at
which they have been incorporated into the plants' genetic make-up, they
can trigger off additional undesired effects in the plants' metabolism.
To some extent, differences in the protein and lignine content of the
plants show up accordingly.

3. The maize contains a whole hotchpotch of foreign genetic material. The
genes incorporated into it are genes for resistance to antibiotics,
insecticide resistance, and several genes for the insect toxin and
various genes intended to reinforce the effect of the toxin gene (10).
The gene for the insect toxin, isolated from bacteria, has been greatly
modified in the construct, and a another, new protein is created. The
spectrum of the effect of the toxin (originally only combating specific
pest larvae) appears to have broadened as a result. It now endangers
useful insects (11).

4. The pollen of the GM maize plants contains unnecessarily high
concentrations of the Bt toxin. The caterpillars of protected butterflies
in the area around the corn fields can also be endangered by dispersal of
the pollen (12; 13).

5. In registering the maize Syngenta expressly made no investigations
into the long term effect of the toxins and potential allergic effect of
the plants (14).

Many of the studies made have been financed by corporations. It is
noticeable that in most of the publications involved all references to
undesired characteristics are systematically played down. The
corporations also work on false assumptions at another point. The plants
don't bestow on farmers the advantages that had been anticipated.
According to statements by the farmers' federation , farmers in Germany
can as a rule control infestation by corn borers by applying simple
agricultural methods and without using all the insecticides (and GM seeds).


Greenpeace demands

An immediate ban on Bt 176 GM maize
A full scientific investigation into the deaths of cows at Woelfersheim
in Hesse
Investigation into the failures of the authorities to act as called for
No release of genetically modified forms of life
No cultivation of GM plants
No use of genetic engineering in food


Footnotes:
 1) Decision in accordance with EU Directive 90/220, 23 Jan 1997.
 2) The Impact of GM corn in Spain, a report by Greenpeace and Friends of the
    Earth, August 2003, page 6
 3) The current state of affairs concerning GMO licensing in accordance with
    EU law. EU Commission memo, 7 November 2003, see Annex 4
 4) The Impact of GM corn in Spain, a report by Greenpeace and Friends of the
    Earth, August 2003
 5) Syngenta communiqu, April 2002
 6) Chowdhury, E.H., 2003, Vet. Human Toxicol 45 (2), pages 72-75
 7) Vazquez-Padron, R. et al, 2000, Biochemical and Biophysical Research
    Communications 271, ps. 54-58 (Cry1Ac Protoxin)
 8) Brake J and Vlachos, 1998, Poultry Science 77: 648-653 ("Although it is
    not clear whether this enhanced perfomance was attributable to the
    transgenic corn per se, or due to possible slight differences in overall
    composition of the formulated diets, it was clear that the transgenic
corn
    had no deleterios effects in the study.")
    Barrire, Y. et al, 2001, J. Dairy Sci. 84: 1863-1871 ("However the
    dietary intake was unexpectedly higher for animals fed the GM hybrid")
    Folmer, J.D. et al, 2002, J.Anim.Sci.80: 1352-1361 ("The interaction of
    corn hybrid and incorporation of the Bt-gene is difficult to explain.")
    Hendrix, K.S. et al, 2000 J. Anim.Sci.Vol 78, Suppl.1, p. 273
 9) Moens, 16 June 2003, Report on the molecular characterisation of the
    genetic map of event 176
10) Syngenta (/ Novartis) registration documents, and Moens, ebenda.
11) The Impact of GM corn in Spain, a report by Greenpeace and Friends of the
    Earth, August 2003, page 21
12) ebenda, page 22
13) Felke et al. 2002, J. Appl. Ent. 126, 320-325
    Felke et al. 2003, Gesunde Pflanzen, Heft 1, 2003
14) Syngenta (/Novartis) registration documents


Greenpeace e.V.
22745 Hamburg
Germany
Tel. +49 (0)40 30618 0
E-mail: mail@greenpeace.de
Website: www.greenpeace.de

GENET
European NGO Network on Genetic Engineering

Hartmut MEYER (Mr)
Kleine Wiese 6
D - 38116 Braunschweig
Germany

P: +49-531-5168746
F: +49-531-5168747
M: +49-162-1054755
E: coordination(at)genet-info.org
W: <7-Business: Argentina foresees export loss from new EU food rules6-Regulation: EU moves to make pollutors pay for environmentaldamage

 




Document Number: 8757 
Views and goods advertized are not necessarily endorsed by  or the Inst. of Science in Society. Recent incidents and scientific findings cast grave doubts over the
		safety of GM food and feed. We shall be circulating a selection of the
		following reports.Transgenic DNA and Bt Toxin Survive DigestionBt Toxin Binds to Mouse IntestineLiver of Mice Fed GM Soya Works OvertimeAnimals Avoid GM, for Good ReasonsTo see all the reports, subscribe to our house-magazine 
for this report are available in the ISIS members site.
Full details Twelve diary cows died after being fed GM maize and silage. This
		happened on a farm in Woelfersheim in the state of Hesse, Germany. Glckner has been growing Bt 176 increasingly in his fields since
		1997, and in 2000 and 2001, switched over entirely to GM maize. Shortly
		thereafter, five of his cows died within four months in 2001, and another seven
		in 2002. The rate of milk production decreased in some of the remaining cows
		and others had to be slaughtered because of unknown illnesses.Syngenta obtained a European license to market GM maize Bt 176 in 1997
		and is currently growing 20 000 hectares commercially in Spain. The US license
		for the crop expired in 2001 and was not renewed. Austria, Luxembourg and Italy
		have banned its cultivation. In Germany, safety concerns were raised in early 2000, causing the
		German Robert Koch Institute to announce " the suspension of the authorisation
		for putting the maize line 00256-176 and its derivatives on the market, unless
		it is cultivation for research or trial purposes." In November 2001, Glckner reported the demise of his herd to
		Robert Koch Institute in Hesse, who were regulating the GM trials on behalf of
		Syngenta Corporation. In 2002, he was awarded compensation of 40 000 euros by
		Syngenta for five dead cows, decreased milk yields and vets bills. In February
		2002 he decided to stop feeding his cattle GM maize altogether, but by October
		2002 a further seven cows had died. The distraught farmer, who by this time was
		over 100 000 euros out of pocket called upon Syngenta and the Robert Koch
		Institute to conduct a proper investigation. The Robert Koch Institute impounded neither the dead cows nor the GM
		feed from the farm and carried out no comprehensive tests on the soil from the
		farm or any dung samples from the cows in question. What investigations they
		made on the GM maize feed from the farm ended in December 2002 with
		inconclusive evidence as to what caused the death of the cows. This was backed
		up by the local district council in Giessen who issued a statement in August
		2003 that "the cause of the incidents referred to could not be determined."The regulatory maze surrounding another Syngenta Bt maizeFurther concerns are being raised over another Syngenta GM maize, Bt 11,
		destined for human consumption in 2004, if approved by the European Council of
		Ministers, because it contains the same protein that according to Syngenta, was
		in the Bt176 maize fed to the German cows.
		moratorium remains in place in Europe, thanks to other member-countries who
		voted against approving Bt 11. However, the approval process for Bt 11 as food is being processed under
		the Novel Food Regulation, which is not as strict as the new GM Food and Feed
		Regulation. The new legislation provides for approval under the old rules, if
		the application received a final scientific assessment before the new rules
		apply, as in the case of Bt 11. Nevertheless, Bt 11, if approved, will be
		subject to the new labelling and traceability legislation. Indeed Bt 11 sweet
		corn will fail to meet new EU food safety criteria, which clearly state that
		short term and long term effects of food safety on future generations must be
		taken into account, according to Article 14 (4) of EC Regulation 178/2002 (the
		general legislation on food law and food safety, not the Novel Food
		Regulation).A chief suspect for the death of the cows in Hesse is the Bt protein
		contained in Bt 176, which Syngenta says is Cry1Ab, the same as in Bt 11.Studies conducted in Japan in 2003 clearly showed that undigested Bt
		toxin Cry1Ab is present in calf stomach, intestine and dung after being fed Bt
		11 maize; and these results have been replicated in further experiments in
		pigs. Both transgenic DNA and toxin protein fragments were detected in pigs fed
		Bt 11 maize (see "Transgenic DNA and Bt toxin survive digestion", this series).
		Both normal and transgenic DNA break down much more slowly  than
		Syngenta previously assumed. To date there are no scientific studies on the long-term effects of
		eating Bt 11 and no toxicological testing on the whole GM maize plant. Tests
		for allergic reactions to Bt 11 were insufficient and relied on theoretical
		argument rather than scientific evidence.Farmer Glckner now fears that his pastures are contaminated with
		the Bt 176 toxin by decomposing dung from his cows leaching into the soil where
		it can bind with the minerals in the clay, and remain harmful to many
		organisms. He has called upon Greenpeace to lobby Robert Koch Institute and
		Syngenta to re-open the investigation into the death of his cows.But worse is in store. Molecular analysis recently carried out suggests
		that the toxin in Bt 176 may not be Cry1Ab, but Cry1Ac, and that Bt 11, which
		is engineered with Cry1Ab, may be contaminated with Bt 176, so it will have
		Cry1Ac and well as CrylAb (see "Unstable transgenic lines illegal", this
		issue).Molecular analysis has recently been carried out both by French and
		Belgian government scientists. Their results revealed that the Bt gene in Bt 176 showed 94% similarity
		with a synthetic construct of  gene, but only 65% homology with
		the  strain HD1, from which it was supposed to have been derived.
		This suggests that the company has misreported or misidentified the
		transgene present. Syngenta is maintaining that Bt toxin can only deleteriously affect
		certain insect larvae, thus bestowing insect resistance to their GM maize. But
		many Bt toxinx are potential allergens and immunogens. A study in 2000 found
		that the Cry1Ac protein is a potent immunogen and does bind to the intestinal
		wall of mice, causing significant changes in the gut cells. Bt 176 expresses
		very high levels of the toxin (see "Bt toxin binds to mouse intestine", this
		series).Many Bt transgenes are synthetic, including the one in Bt 176. They are
		hybrids of multiple toxins. That means Bt transgenes not only risk killing more
		species of insects than intended, but may also contain previously unknown
		toxicities for other animals and human beings (see "Regulatory sham on Bt
		crops", this issue). Bt 176 is also the worst GM crop in terms of stability and uniformity.
		There are multiple transgenic inserts, the number of inserts depending on
		the source. This makes it very difficult to pin down the precise problems
		with the GM crop. There may be more than one problem with Bt 176 from different
		sources, or due to continuing instabilities in one seed lot, depending on where
		the unstable inserts have landed in the plant genome. since characterised by the company - many involving the
		well-known recombination (fragmentation) hotspot, the cauliflower mosaic virus
		(CaMV) 35S promoter.  The CaMV 35S promoter, as ISIS has repeatedly warned, is a very
		powerful promoter active in all species including humans. It leads to
		over-expression of genes downstream from it. Over-expressing of certain
		oncogenes are involved in cancer.Transgenic DNA containing the CaMV 35S promoter is an invasive DNA,
		capable of inserting into all genomes, including those of animal cells, and
		hence carries the risk of triggering cancer. Greenpeace is demanding an immediate ban on Bt 176 and a full scientific
		investigation into the death of the cows at Woelfersheim in Hesse.  It is clear that farmers who support GM run the risk of being
		under-compensated for their livestock and harvests should anything go wrong. It
		appears that environmental risks and hazards on the farm even during field
		trials are not something that GM companies accept full liability for.  The cows at Woelfersheim are by no means an isolated case indicating
		that GM feed is far from safe. It must be seen in the light of already existing
		evidence in the scientific literature that GM feed had adverse effects on
		laboratory rats and mice (see "Liver of mice fed GM soya works overtime", this
		series), largely corroborating the findings of the much maligned senior UK
		scientist Arpad Pusztai and his collaborators. To that must be added a host of
		anecdotal reports by farmers and others that animals avoid GM feed, if given
		the choice, and if force-fed GM, fail to thrive (see "Animals avoid GM food,
		for good reasons", this series).
        Celebrating ISIS - Quantum Jazz Biology - 100 page book featuring essays and selected artwork from the 2011 ISIS event of the same nameGreen Energies - 100% Renewable by 2050 A must-read for saving the climateThe Rainbow and the Worm, The Physics of Organisms Probably the Most Important Book for the Coming Scientific Revolution Now in its Third EditionFood Futures Now: *Organic *Sustainable *Fossil Fuel Free How organic agriculture and localised food (and energy) systems can potentially compensate for  greenhouse gas emissions due to human activities and free us from fossil fuelsThe only radical science magazine on earth
        Order your copy from our  A comprehensive dossier containing more than 160 fully referenced articles from the Science in Society archives. GMO Free: Exposing the Hazards of Biotechnology to Ensure the Integrity of our Food SupplyJoin the I-SIS mailing list; enter your email address
	I-SIS is a not-for-profit organisation, depending on  sales to continue its work. Find out more about membership  1999-2011 The Institute of Science in SocietyContact the Institute of Science in SocietyMATERIAL ON THIS SITE MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FORM WITHOUT EXPLICIT PERMISSION. FOR PERMISSION, PLEASE 

 




Document Number: 7916 
Over 50% of newborn rats died within 3 weeks when mothers were fed with GE soyaThe research was led by Dr Irina Ermakova at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, a leading research institute in Russia.
Flour was used from a GM soya bean developed by Monsanto to be resistant to its pesticide, Roundup.  It was added to the food of female rats, starting two weeks before they conceived, continuing through pregnancy, birth and nursing. Others were given non-GM soya and a third group was given no soya at all.
36 per cent of the young of the rats fed the GE soya were severely underweight, compared to 6 per cent of the offspring of the other groups. More alarmingly, 55.6 per cent of those born to mothers on the GE diet perished within three weeks of birth, compared to 9 per cent of the offspring of those fed normal soya, and 6.8 per cent of the young of those given no soya at all.

"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" said Dr Ermakova. "They point to a risk for mothers and their babies."
The independent, UK, 8 Jan 2006The cause is either harmful effects of the herbicide in the Genetically engineered Soy or harmful effects from the genetically engineered genes (transgenes). Such harmful effects have been predicted on the basis of experimental research, so the effect from GE soy reported here is not a great surprise.More research is needed to establish the same effect in humans, but the reason laboratory rats are used in safety research is that they are often good indicators of health hazards for humans
We have repeatedly demanded thorough investigation of the risks before GE foods are released for human consumption. But the biotech industry has been ignoring the rapidly increasing numbers of data indicating serious health effects.

With the support of the US government, the biotech industry is now pressing hard for a universal acceptance of GE foods claiming that there is an "absence of evidence of harm". This is seriously dishonest and very unscientific as very little research has been done into the safety of these foods. There is evidence of harm, but such reports have been few, because very little research has been done. The reason is a serious negelect by governmental authorities to support thorough independent examination of the risks of GE foods. The Biotech lobby maintains that no obvious indications of harmfulness has appeared in spite of widespread use as food. But important potential harmful effects, such as fetal defects, cancer and immune system disturbances act slowly. Therefore people may fall ill months or years after eating the harmful food, so "obvious indications" of harmfulness will not appear even if the food is very harmful.

there is no labelling of GE foods in the US, where most of the GE foods are used. So if the GE soy is as harmful to humans as to rats, many newborn babies of mothers eating GE soy (which is very common) may have been harmed or even killed without any possibility of discovering the connection. GM Soya Fed Rats: Stunted, Dead, or SterileThe excessive stunting and deaths from GM soya is clear, even though the cause(s) remain unknown without extensive further investigations. One possibility is poisoning from glyphosate herbicides and residues used with RR soya. Glyphosate - and more so in the Roundup formulation - is extremely lethal to many frog species [15] ( Roundup Kills Frogs , SiS 26), and is linked to late spontaneous abortions in humans, and toxic to human placental cells at one-tenth the recommended agricultural dosage [16] ( Glyphosate Toxic & Roundup Worse , SiS  26) and/or other causes general to the genetic modification process [17] (see most recent review, Genetically Modified Food Animals Coming ).

These include toxicities and immunogenic reactions from the transgenes  [transgene = genetically modified DNA /PSRAST comment]; unknown toxins and RNA transcripts from unintended genetic and epigenetic changes in the RR soya subsequent to the insertion of foreign DNA, and/or continuing transgenic instability [18, 19] ( Transgenic Lines Proven Unstable , SiS  20; Unstable Transgenic Lines Illegal , SiS 21); and unintended horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA from RR soya into the rat germ cells that give rise to the progeny, resulting in lethal and other harmful mutations [20, 21] ( Sense & Nonsense in Horizontal Gene Transfer , SiS  16, and many other articles on horizontal gene transfer on ISIS website).

The effects on the progeny of female rats fed GM soya were not limited to the first generation. It persisted into the next. "

"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 1149 
DNA from GE foods can end up in your genes
Tissues including meat of chicken who had eaten only genetically engineered Bt corn were found to contain pieces of DNA from this food. 
The problem however is that every cell in plant GE foods contain genetically unstable DNA from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) promoter. This DNA is suspected to be cancerogenic. Moreover the CaMV is related to human viruses that cause serious diseases (AIDS and Hepatitis B). The corn grains on one cob of GE corn contain hundreds of millions of such CaMV DNA.

This is just one of several studies that have established that the genes in the body may take up potentially harmful, patogenic viral DNA from GE food. It has not been proven that it is safe to ingest large amounts of such dangerous virus genes. Still the GE foods containing them has been approved for sale and are found on the shelves all over the US and other countriesPieces of DNA from GM Bt corn have been detectedin chicken tissues including muscles (the meat), liver, kidney and spleen.The chicken had eaten only the Bt corn for 32 days. The DNA polymerase technique (PCR) was used. This is a standard method for identifying DNA. The Bt-gene itself was however not found. But this depends on special properties of the used examination technique according to professor Jahreis, who leads the research group at Friedrich-Schiller-Universitt in Jena, Germany. "You can however reckon that there were also pieces of the Bt gene in the chicken tissues" he said.Professor Jahreis comments that no consumer can protect himself from absorbing foreign genes. "We take up genes from all nutritiens through the so called Peyer Plaques in the gut." LifeSciene.de 03.11.00 (german)
Another german research group has demonstrated traces of Bt corn DNA in cows milk and in cow blood immune cells  (Bauernstimme 11/2000, s. 8).
There are reasons for serious concern
A German research group, lead by professor Walter Walter Doerfler at the university of Cologne, has repetitively demonstrated that large enough pieces of DNA to contain a gene (1000 base pairs) may survive digestion, for a brief resum see Research Indicates that Ingested Virus Genes may be taken up by Body Cells
Moreover Doerfler showed that these absorbed pieces of DNA were taken up in the tissues of mice and ended up inside the cells (1, 2, 3). The research was done with state of the art methods and cannot be easily dismissed. The present study confirms and extends his findings.This is problematic as common GE foods contains a special kind of genetically unstable DNA not found in natural food. It is the DNA from CauliFlower Mosaic Virus (CaMV)  that are always added to the inserted gene at genetic engineering of foods. Its purpose is to ensure that the inserted gene will be active (see "The CaMV is related to the virus of a serious liver disease, Hepatitis B and to the AIDS virus. It is believed that it is an animal virus that thas been transformed to a plant virus.This CaMV virus DNA may constitute a health hazard, possibly even a cancer hazard, see "Dormant viruses can be reactivated with genetically modified organismsThe corn grains on one cob of GE corn contain hundreds of millions of CaMV DNA, one in each cell.Biotech proponents have maintatined that CaMV virus has since long occurred in crops that we have been eating, without causing any known health problems. But the critics point out that there is a great difference. The CaMV DNA used in genetic engineering has been modified in such a way that the risk for harmful effects is considerably greater than for natural virus DNA.Adding to this concern is that Professor Doerfler has reported that genes from food ends up in the DNA of mouse embryos (5). A review of book of Doerfler says:"In mammals, like in all other species, the gastrointestinal tract is constantly exposed to foreign DNA from the food supply. There is no information on defense mechanisms against foreign DNA.The biotech proponents maintain that no obvious problems have occurred in the US from the eating of GE foods. This is a seriously dishonest and misleading argument because:The GE foods in the US have not been labeled, so people have no possibility to discover any connection between GE foods and disease symptoms.The genetic damage from such virus-DNA is slow-acting, so eating them does not cause any immediate symptoms even if, in the long run, they would cause a serious disease.It is an established fact that in eating GE foods our own genes may take up potentially harmful, patogenic viral DNA. There is no evidence whatsoever proving that such foods are safe to eat. 1. W. Doerfler, R. Schubbert, H. Heller, C. Kmmer, K. Hilger-Eversheim, M. Knoblauch, and R. Remus. Integration of foreign DNA in mammalian systems and its consequences.
Review. Trends in Biotechnology. 15, 297-301, 1997.2.  R. Schubbert, D. Renz, B. Schmitz, and W.
Doerfler.Foreign (M13) DNA ingested by mice reaches peripheral leukocytes,
spleen and liver via the intestinal wall mucosa and can be covalently
Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA 94, 961-966, 1997.3.  Uptake of foreign DNA from the environment: The gastrointestinal tract and the placenta as portals of entry
Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, Nr. 110, 2, 19984. Rainer Schubbert, Clarissa Lettmann and Walter Doerfler. Ingested foreign (phage M13) DNA survives transiently in the gastrointestinal tract and enters the bloodstream of mice. Molecular and General Genetics MGG, Volume 242, Number 5 / March, 1994
5. Walter Doerfler. Fremde DNA aus der Nahrung gelangt ber den Darm in den Organismus von Musen und ber die Plazenta in Foeten und Neugeborene.  Forschung in Kln, nr 2 1998, http://www-f.rrz.uni-koeln.de/organe/presse/fik.html.
Foreign DNA in Mammalian SystemsWalter Doerfler (Institut f. Genetik, Univ. zu Koln, Weyertal 121, 50931 Koln, Germany), Publisher: Wiley.
ISBN: 3527300899   Publication Date: 1999  



"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 5022 
Liver, pancreas and testicular changes from GE foodChanges in vital organs were found in mice fed with Genetically Engineered RoundupReady Soy in a study at the Urbino University in Italy.
(This is a scientific text. The layman is recommended to proceed to 
"...we carried out an ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical study on hepatocytes from mice fed on GM soybean, in order to investigate eventual modifications of nuclear components of these cells involved in multiple metabolic pathways related to food processing...
Our observations demonstrate significant modifications of some nuclear features in GM-fed mice.

In particular, GM fed-mice show irregularly shaped nuclei, which generally represents an index of high metabolic rate, and a higher number of nuclear pores, suggestive of  intense molecular trafficking. Moreover, the roundish nucleoli of control animals change in more irregular nucleoli with numerous small fibrillar centres and abundant dense fibrillar component in GM-fed mice, modifications typical of increased metabolic rate. Accordingly, nucleoplasmic (snRNPs and SC-35) and nucleolar (fibrillarin) splicing factors are more abundant in hepatocyte nuclei of GM-fed than in control mice.
In conclusion, our data suggest that GM soybean intake can influence hepatocyte [liver cell] nuclear features in young and adult mice." Malatesta M, Caporaloni C, Gavaudan S, et al "Ultrastructural Morphometrical and Immunocytochemical Analyses of Hepatocyte Nuclei from Mice Fed on Genetically Modified Soybean".  Vol. 27 (2002) , No. 4 pp.173-18. http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=3622Similar changes in Pancreas and TestesThe same research team found similar ultramicroscopic changes in the pancreas and testicles of mice fed RR soybean. Malatesta M., Biggiogera M., Manuali E., Rocchi M.B.L., Baldelli B., Gazzanelli G.: Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Eur. J. Histochem., 47:385-388, 2003;These study demonstrated distinct changes in the nucleus of liver, pancreas and testicular cells in mice eating GE soy. This indicates significant alterations of the functioning of cell nucleus. It is the "command central" of the cell. Therefore alterations of its function can have important negative effects on health.

This is one of the most serious scientific indications that eating GE foods may be harmful to health. This underscores our tenet that, because science has a very incomplete knowledge about how GE affects the cell, it is irresponsible to expose people to GE foods. We have repeatedly expressed our great concern about the almost complete absence of research on harmful effects of GE foods. This absurd situation is the consequence of strong pressures from powerful industries who have been maintaining, without any scientific underpinning, that there is no reason to make such studies. 
Worst of all, the Roundup Ready soy found to cause this damage has been approved as human food, being considered "substantially equivalent" to natural soy. For ino about this faulty approval method, see  Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 6992 
Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt Cotton At least 1 800 sheep reported dead from severe toxicity after grazing on Bt cotton fields in just four villages in Andhra Pradesh India 
The Bt trail of dead sheep, ill workers and dead villagers over three years At least 1 820 sheep were reported dead after grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton crops; the symptoms and post-mortem findings strongly suggest they died from severe toxicity. This was uncovered in a preliminary investigation conducted by civil society organisations in just four villages in the Warangal district of Andhra Pradesh in India. The actual problem is likely to be much greater. Grazing lands decline as commercial crops increaseGrazing lands in Warangal district have declined steeply as commercial crop cultivation expanded in recent years, and it has become customary for sheep and goats to be allowed to graze on crop residues after harvest. This year, there have been several media reports of sharp increases in the deaths of sheep and goats after grazing in Bt cotton fields. There were similar reports in 2005, when complaints were lodged with the Joint Director of Agriculture by a few NGOs, but no action has resulted. Between February and March 2006, the shepherds of Warangal district again reported high mortality in their flocks after grazing in harvested Bt cotton fields. Some shepherds reported to the animal husbandry department and requested confirmation on whether the deaths were due to grazing on Bt cotton. Still getting no response, a fact-finding team of five members was constituted by the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds Union: two members from Anthra (NGO working on livestock issues), veterinary scientist Dr. Ramesh and a field researcher Mr. Apparoa; Mr. Jamalaiah, Secretary of the Andhra Pradesh Shepherds Union; and two scientists from the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture working on Bt cotton issues, Mr. S. Ramprasa and Mr. G. Rajashekar. The team travelled through three mandals in Warangal district on 22 April 2006 and met with shepherds and farmers. The villages visited were Ippagudem in Ghanapur mandal, Valeru and Unkkucherla in Dharmasagaram mandal, and Maadpalli in Hasanparthi mandal. Twenty-five percent of sheep dead within five to seven days
The Ippagudem village in Ghanapur mandal has 100 households belonging to the shepherd community. Forty shepherds and ten farmers attended the group meeting when the team visited. They said the deaths began after their sheep grazed on Bt cotton leaves or bolls. This year was the first time some of the shepherds and farmers cultivated Bt cotton hybrids, believing in the propaganda that they can get more yield and profit. They started grazing from the end of January to March. The deaths began within a week of continuous grazing on the Bt cotton crop residues. Mr. J. Parmesh, one of the shepherds got diarrhoea after consuming the affected sheep's meat. The shepherds took their sheep to the government veterinary hospital in Warangal for post-mortem, some shepherds also performed their own post-mortem, as is often the practice of shepherds across Andhra Pradesh. They found black patches in the intestine and enlarged bile duct and black patches on the liver. The shepherds said that the Assistant Director of Animal Health Centre in Warangal told them these deaths appeared to be due to grazing on Bt cotton fields, as she has earlier seen such cases. She prescribed some medicines for the sick sheep, but very few sheep responded, and most died. Of the 2 601 sheep that belonged to 42 shepherds, 651 sheep died, giving an average mortality rate of 25 percent. A shepherd in another village, Akkapalli reported that he had cultivated Bt cotton the previous year and allowed his sheep to graze, which resulted in deaths. This year, while he still cultivated Bt cotton, he did not allow them to graze on it, and his sheep did not die. On the way to Dharmasagaram mandal, the team spoke to a shepherd Shri Kochla Malliah, who has 100 sheep, but 5 died after grazing on Bt cotton crop residues. He reported that sheep had also died in adjoining villages Molakagudam, Kunipatti and Kondaparthi More deaths and identical symptoms in other villages Of 2168 sheep owned by the 29 shepherds, 549 sheep died, again giving an average mortality rate of about 25 percent. In the remaining villages, it was not possible to have a group meeting with the shepherds. But the team was informed that the sheep population is nearly 1 000 in Unkkucherla village, Dharmasagaram mandal, and 150 adult sheep and 70 lambs died within 4 days of grazing on Bt cotton fields between February and March 2006. In Maadipalli village Asanparthi mandal, there are 20 households rearing some 3 000 sheep, and nearly 400 died due to grazing on Bt-cotton fields from the second week of February through to March. They took their animals to the Warangal veterinary hospital for post-mortem. The Assistant Director at the Animal Health Centre who conducted the post-mortem advised them to stop grazing their sheep on the Bt cotton fields, saying the deaths could be due to the Bt cotton, and prescribed some medicines for the affected sheep. The team met with the Assistant Director who conducted the post-mortems. When questioned, she replied that while it appeared that the deaths occurred after grazing on Bt cotton fields, and could be due to the effects of Bt toxin, it was not possible to arrive at a definitive conclusion, as farmers also spray different types of insecticides and pesticides on their crops, and this factor confounds the observations. She also said there were no kits or other facilities available within the Department to enable her to arrive at a firm diagnosis that the deaths were due to Bt cotton. When asked to see the post-mortem results/reports, she said she was not permitted to show them to the team, as permission of the Joint Director was needed. But the Joint Director was not present that day. Demands for in-depth investigation and moratorium on Bt cottoncomplete moratorium on Bt cotton cultivation until conclusive results show that the Bt toxin is completely harmless. Furthermore, they call for the shepherds who suffered losses to be compensated. What is not yet clear from the report is whether all the sheep that did not fall ill or die also grazed on Bt cotton; if not, then the mortality rate is even higher than reported. [Links to the articles below were added by PSRAST.]Report of the Preliminary Assessment  by K. VENKATESHWARLU in Frontline, India Volume 24 - Issue 08: Apr. 21-May. 04, 2007.http://www.i-sis.org.uk/MDSGBTC.phpThe BtCotton is not human food. But, for example, BtCorn and Btpotatoes are intended as human food. They are using the same Bt gene. So this report has a great relevance regarding the safety of GE foods. It concurs with a report from Germany that cows in Woelfersheim eating Bt-corn fell ill and died (Greenpeace Germany, by Henning Strodthoff and Christoph Then, December 2003, quoted in The absurd thing is that the Bt food has not been exposed to safety testing because it is considered "substantially equivalent" to other foods. The untenability of this "safety principle" is exposed in the article "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods ""Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 3839 
AboutGeneticallyModifiedFoods
						Table of Contents, Chapter Summaries, Excerpts
						Praise for Seeds of Deception
						Book Reviews and ArticlesWhat the biotech industry doesn't want you to know reveals how industry manipulation and political collusion-not sound science-allow dangerous genetically engineered food into your daily diet. Company research is rigged, alarming evidence of health dangers is covered up, and intense political pressure applied.Chapters read like adventure stories:Scientists were offered bribes or threatened. Evidence was stolen. Data was omitted or distorted.Government employees who complained were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired.Laboratory rats fed a GM crop developed stomach lesions and seven of the 40 died within two weeks. The crop was approved without further tests.When a top scientist tried to alert the public about his alarming discoveries, he lost his job and was silenced with threats of a lawsuit.Read the actual internal memos by FDA scientists, warning of toxins, allergies, and new diseases-all ignored by their superiors, including a former attorney for Monsanto. Discover how industry studies are designed to avoid finding problems. Learn why the FDA withheld information from Congress after a genetically modified supplement killed nearly a hundred people and disabled thousands.Eating such experimental food is gambling with your health. Find out how you can protect yourself and your family.Jeffrey Smith is a master storyteller. His style captivates and charms, while his meticulously documented facts leave no doubt about a massive injustice. Yes! Books, 2003, Fairfield, IA USAAboutGeneticallyModifiedFoodsYes! Books, P.O. Box 469, Fairfield, Iowa 52556| Institute for Responsible Technology Fax: 888-FAX-7000 (888-329-7000)

 




Document Number: 483 
Considerable increase of foodborne diseases in the US - GE foods are a likely causeIn USA, between 1994 and 1999, the rate of illnesses caused by food has increased tenfold regarding diseases of diagnosed as viral. As a comparison, the rate of the same diseases in Sweden in 1999 was about the same as it was in the US in 1994. In Sweden, GE foods were not available during that time period. It seems likely that GE foods are the reason.Why this great increase of virus-caused diseases in the US?Mae-Wan Ho, director of the Institue of Science in the Society, and an expert on food biotechnology notes in a recent report that there is a very pronounced difference between Sweden and the US in one respect - the rate of virus-caused illnesses. While in Sweden, viruses were the cause in only 9% of the cases, they were so in 80% of the cases in the USA.The reason for this increase is unknown. But Mae-Wan Ho points out that the use of genetically engineered foods has increased enormously in the US since 1994. By comparison, in Sweden, almost no GE foods were used in 1999.GE crops can generate new virusesHo suspects that a possible reason might be that GE foods may give rise to new viruses. This has been well established scientifically (even the biotech firm Monsanto has acknowledged this). The reason is that every cell in a GE plants contains parts of virus genes that can combine with the genes of infecting viruses. In a very large proportion of GE crop varietes, the virus genes come from a virus (Cauliflower Mosaic Virus - CaMV) related to human viruses. Therefore some scientists have warned that GE plants may give rise to new human viruses. For more, see "The Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter - a hazard in GE plants"Ho has warned that so called vector DNA used in all GE crops may also be a culprit. This DNA comes from virus and bacteria and facilitates the combination of genes of unrelated species. Thereby it might promote the emergence of new bacteria. For more, see "Horizontal transfer of viral and bacteria DNA facilitated by GE organisms?""US Foodborne Illnesses Up Two to Ten Fold"We agree that the large scale cultivation of GE crops brings with it a definite risk for the emergence of new viruses. But if this were the cause of a major part of foodborne disease increase, it should also have caused a considerable increase of virus diseases affecting other organs. We are not aware that this has happened. So we assume that, if new viruses have contibuted to the increase of foodborne diseaes, it is likely to be to a minor extent.We propose another explanation how GE foods might be the cause. It is based on the remarkable fact that 82 % of the foodborne diseases and 25% of the death cases were caused by "unknown pathogens", assumed to be viruses, in the american study that Ho refers to, (Mead PS, Slutsker L, Dietz V et al.
Food-related illness and death in the United States, Emerg Infect Dis   5:607-25; 1999). This could be explained by the fact that, in practical medicine, the diagnosis of severe diarrhea occurs through exclusion. That is, if no common pathogens causing severe diarrhea, like salmonella, shigella etc. are found, and systemtic diseases (Mb Crohn, ulcerating colitis) are ruled out, it is commonly assumed that the disease is caused by a virus. But as it is costly, not useful and in practice impossible to detect all possible viral pathogens, little or no viral testing is done (as there is no specific therapy for viral diseases, specific diagnosis is of no help). We suggest that the increase may have been caused by GE foods in two possible ways:
By the Bt-toxin, found in most commonly eaten genetically engineered food. 
By bacterial DNA used for genetic engineering in almost all GE foods.
1. Major GE crops have been genetically engineered to produce the Bt toxin for its insecticidal ability.

Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that an Egyptian study indicates that the Bt toxin causes intestinal irritation which may case acute as well as chronic gastrointestinal illnes ("Fine Structural Changes in the Ileum of Mice Fed on -Endotoxin-Treated Potatoes and Transgenic Potatoes" Natural Toxins Volume 6, Issue 6, 1998. Pages: 219-233 Published Online: 29 Jun 1999 Nagui H. Fares, Adel K. El-Sayed). This study found that mice, fed with genetically engineered potatoes, developed significant intestinal changes indicating an irritative effect of the toxin. For more, see Cummins, J.: "Comments on the human health impact of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene product in genetically modified crops"In addition, a number of field reports indicate severe and in many cases lethal, gastrointestinal damage in cows and sheep eating GE plants containing Bt-toxin,  see for example Mass Deaths in Sheep Grazing on Bt CottonAs the Bt-toxin demonstratedly affects animal intestines, it cannot be excluded that it might cause disturbances in humans as well, manifesting as "foodborne disease with unknown origin". Biotech proponents assert that this toxin is degraded by stomach acid. However this is contradicted by the studies and experiences reporting severe gastrointestinal damage from eating GE-food containng Bt-toxin. This toxin is actually quite acid resistant and, moreover, people may have a low level of gastric acid because of disease or because of the very common use of Losec or similar potent antacid preparations. So even if it were degraded by a normal level of gastric acid, a considerable proportion of the population would be at risk.

As the foods are not labelled as GE, the connection is not apparent to the consumer. According to Cummins, no studies have been done that reliably exclude that Bt-toxin in the food can cause gastrointestinal damage. 2. Professor Joe Cummins has pointed out that certain bacterial DNA sequences present in practically all GE crops may incearase the risk for inflammatory disordersare found in the DNA used for enabling gene insertion (vectors) and in many of the primary crop protection genes including Bt and most herbicide tolerance genes. This bacterial DNA contains considerable amounts of the CpG sequence (higher forms of life, so called eukaryocytes, have little of this sequence and it is in a different state). It has been established that this sequence induces inflammation (it has been found to adversely affect autoimmune inflammatory diseases ).
Inflammation induced in the bowel by this bacterial DNA in GE foods is likely to mimic foodborne diarrhea. As no bacterial pathogen is found, and if the diarrhea is persistent, the routine is, as explained above, to assume that it is caused by one of the many viruses that cause diarrhea.
"The fate of food genes and the DNA CpG motif and its impact"There are two conceivable ways in which GE foods may cause gastrointestinal disturbances in addition to those proposed by Ho. It is through the action of the Bt toxin in common GE foods, including maize and soy, and through the action of the CpG DNA sequence that induces inflammation. 

So there are a number of likely explanations how the large increase of foodborne diseases in the US could have been caused by GE foods, while in Sweden, where no GE foods were available during the same time period, there was no increase of the same disorders, although the food habits are similar. 

"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 8765 
Animals Avoid GM Food, for Good Reasons
Experimental and anecdotal evidence shows that animals seek to avoid GM food and do not thrive if forced to consume such food. Dr Eva Novotny reports.In the course of preparing a submission to the public hearing on a genetically modified (GM) maize that the UK government wanted to put on the National Seed Register, I had the opportunity to review evidence on how animals respond to GM food. The evidence makes interesting reading.Chardon LL is a GM maize engineered for tolerance to the herbicide glufosinate. The whole plant is intended as cattle-feed, but no experiments on whether this is safe or suitable has been carried out.Approval of the application of Aventis for commercial growing of this maize in the UK was granted on the basis of two animal-feeding experiments, one on feeding kernels to chickens and the other on feeding the isolated GM protein to rats. In both experiments, the investigators concluded that the tested animals consumed food and gained weight normally.However, reanalysis of the data led to a different conclusion.The first experiment fed Chardon LL maize kernels to 280 young broiler chickens over 42 days, purportedly to detect differences in nutrient quality of corn samples. All the chickens were allowed to eat at will.The official report said: Results of live bird traits  show that source of corn  had no effect on body weight, feed intake,  or percent mortality over the experimental period  and Glufosinate tolerant corn from the U.S.A. is comparable in feeding value, for 0-42 day broilers, relative to the commercially available corn hybrid. Therefore, the nutritive value of glufosinate tolerant corn hybrid is equivalent to a commercially available corn hybrid. The mortality rate was judged to be normal.Closer examination of the data shows up many unexplained anomalies.Although chickens on the GM diet have, on average, weights only 1% below the average weight in the control group, the error bars are much wider for chickens fed GM maize; and they grow progressively wider as the experiment progresses.During the first phase of the experiment (days 0-18), the test group eating GM maize consumed 9 gm more than the control group; during the second phase (18-32 days), consumption had dropped to 7 gm less; and in the final phase (days 32-42) consumption by the test group had fallen to 63 gm less than that of the control group. Again, the error bars are much greater for the test group and increase with time.Average body weights and feed intakes of the chickens do not vary significantly, as concluded in the study. Nevertheless, the much larger error bars for both these quantities give concern that the weight gains and the feeding patterns were erratic in the treated group, indicating that at least some of the chickens were not thriving on the glufosinate-resistant maize.Information on deaths during the study is given only in the form of mortality: 7.14  5.47 % for chickens eating the glufosinate-resistant maize and 3.57  4.29 % for those fed commercial hybrid corn. Although the former values are twice those of the latter, the study points out that values of 5 to 8 % in male broilers are normal at that laboratory.Nevertheless, it may be significant that the mortality rate was twice as high among the chickens eating the GM maize as compared with those fed commercial non-GM hybrid maize.Another experiment involved feeding PAT-protein to rats. This study on rats, like that on chickens, has little relevance to cattle, as the digestive systems of these animals are very different. Furthermore, it was not the Chardon LL maize itself, but the isolated PAT-protein it contains that was tested; and the effects of feeding the isolated protein must be expected to differ from the effects of feeding the whole maize.Also, the very short time during which the experiment was pursued (14 days) gives no indication of possible long-term effects of feeding over a lifetime, especially when the maize is to be fed to a very different animal species. Only five male rats and five female rats were used in each of the four groups, and the individual rats had substantial differences in weight even at the start of the experiment.Nonetheless, the studies claimed, Average mean food consumption over treatment was in the same range for treated groups and controls, Occasionally recorded differences between controls and treated groups were generally small, showed no dose-relationship or consistent trend and Mean body weights were similar for treated groups and controls. There were no differences which could be attributed to treatment with the test article.Although the purpose of the study was to test for toxicity, the data provide evidence that the animals may not be thriving on a diet including the PAT-protein. The evidence for this suggestion comes from data on body weights and food consumption.The 40 young, rapidly growing rats were divided into two control groups and two test groups, each containing 5 males and 5 females. All animals were allowed to eat at will.Tables provided, separately for males and females, the average weight of each of the four groups as measured on several days of the experiment. For males eating a small amount of PAT-protein, weights remained nearly the same as for one of the control groups; while for those eating the high dose of PAT-protein, weights fell progressively below those of all other groups, even though these rats were marginally the heaviest group at the beginning of the experiment. Females in both groups consuming PAT-protein had weights falling gradually below those of the two control groups, although the females fed the high dose were the heaviest group at the beginning. For both males and females consuming high-doses of PAT-protein, weight gain per day, averaged over the duration of the experiment, was distinctly lower than for either control group.During the latter half of the experiment, data for individual animals show that 2 males and 2 females on the low-PAT-protein diet were rapidly falling behind in weight as compared with other rats in the same group and in both of the two control groups. Of the rats on the high-PAT-protein diet, 3 males and one female were falling behind in weight during the latter half of the experiment.While these data are not conclusive because too few animals were studied over too short a time, the low rates of weight-gain in several of the animals eating PAT-protein suggest that some individuals were not thriving on the diets that included PAT protein.The data also showed unusual patterns in the food intake, averaged over the group, of animals consuming the high dose of PAT-protein, suggesting that the diet did not suit the rats. In the middle of the experiment, both males and females on this diet had an increase in food intake followed by a dip, unlike the other groups; then, over the last five days, their food consumption showed a sharp rise, again unlike other groups.
Stray cattle did not eat GM maizeThe following press release -Damage To Gm Maize National List Trial Site - was issued by the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on November 10, 2000:The NIAB (National Institute of Agricultural Biotechnology) have notified MAFF of damage to a national list trial of GM forage maize taking place in Somerset. The damage was caused by cattle straying onto the site in October. There is no evidence that the cattle ate any of the maize.Sheridan - the maize in question - has full approval under European GM legislation to be marketed for both animal and human food use. The undamaged maize at the site has since been harvested.Sheridan is a GM forage maize that contains the same genetic construct (conferring herbicide tolerance) as Chardon LL. It is interesting to note that the cattle did not wish to eat any of the maize.American journalist Steven Sprinkel wrote an article with the above title in an ACRES, USA Special Report dated 19 September, 1999 (reproduced on the Natural Law Party Wessex website, http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/), which contains the following excerpt.After four months of retrieving anecdotes from Kansas to Wisconsin, I think its high time to sample the producer community more thoroughly to see how many stories are out there. About the hogs that wouldnt eat the ration when the GMO crops were included. About the farmer who said Well, if you want your cattle to go off their feed, just switch them out to a GMO silage. About the farmer who said that his cattle broke through an old fence and ate down the non-GMO hybrids but wouldnt touch the Round-up ready corn, and as a matter of fact They had to walk through the GMOs to get to the Pioneer 3477 on the other side. About the cattleman who saw the weight-gain of his cattle fall off when he switched over to GMO sources. About the organic farmer with a terrible deer problem on his soybeans, and when he drives out at night there are forty of them mowing down his tofu beans while across the road there isnt one doe eating on the Round-up Readies. About the raccoons romping by the dozen in the organic corn, while down the road there isnt one ear thats been touched in the Bt fields. Even the mice will move on down the line if given an alternative to these crops. What is it that they know instinctively that most of us ignore?Other incidents of cattle refusing to eat Bt maizeVarious scientists working actively with the farming community in the United States have reported difficulties feeding GM maize to cattle. In April 2000, one of them (who has asked to remain anonymous) sent the following information:There have been dozens of such reports over the last two years. Generally, the reports are concerned with Bt maize. Many farmers feed maize to their cattle just as it grows, without mixing in other feedstuffs. Typical reports are that the farmer buys a new shipment of maize, which his cattle either refuse to eat or eat with reduced consumption. Upon making enquiries, he discovers that the maize is a genetically modified variety. When he replaces it with a non-modified maize, the cattle start eating again.Scientific evidence for animal preferencesAlthough it may be difficult to credit animals with the ability to distinguish between GM and non-GM feed, this anecdotal evidence is supported by scientific evidence that they can indeed distinguish between organically- and non-organically-produced feed; moreover, they have a definite preference for the former (see Do animals like good food? this issue).Re-analysis of experiments on chickens and on rats fed Chardon LL GM maize suggest that, contrary to the official conclusions, at least some individual animals do not gain weight as rapidly as they should when given a diet including GM feed. Furthermore, there appear to be irregularities in the feeding habits of at least some animals given GM feed. In the experiment on chickens, mortality was twice as high among those fed the GM maize as among those fed non-GM maize.Existing scientific evidence indicates that farm animals prefer organically produced over conventionally produced feed; while a substantial amount of anecdotal evidence on both domestic and wild animals indicates that, given a choice, they will avoid GM feed and, if forced to eat GM feed, they do not thrive.(This is an edited version of Report for the Chardon LL Hearing: Non-suitability of genetically engineered feed for animals, by Eva Novotny, Scientists for Global Responsibility, May 2002.) "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 4015 
BIODECEPTION: How the Food and Drug Administration is Misrepresenting the
Facts About Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods and Violating the Laws Meant
to Regulate Them 
In a lawsuit by the Alliance of Biointegrity against the american Food and Drug Administration (FDA) records were found showing a/o that:

 FDA has lied to the public in saying that they were not aware of any doubts about the safety of the foods among scientists. Therefore, they said, GE foods were equally safe as conventionally bred foods.
   FDA scientists had, on the contrary, warned that bioengineering had a recognized potential to produce unexpected and unpredictable toxins, carcinogens and allergens -- hazards not ordinarily involved with conventional breeding. These warnings were suppressed by FDA.
   FDA scientists had found that safety assessment of the tomato FlavrSavr indicated that it might have harmful gastrointestinal effects. This important finding was suppressed by FDA.
   FDA declared, in spite of said indications of harmfulness, that FlavrSavr was found safe.

   FDA further declared that the absence of any signs of harmfulness in the FlavrSavr tomato justifies a general relaxation of the demands on safety assessment of GE foods. In addition to being based on a lie, this conclusion has no scientific basis as every instance of genetic engineering is unique and therefore does not allow any generalization about the safety of GE foods.
The Alliance for Biointegrity finds that this evidence shows the agency violated the
U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be
marketed without first being proven safe.PSRAST finds that this case demonstrates the need of radically changed procedures for assessing new products. Considering that modern technology can provide products with powerful effects, it is of vital importance that strong safeguards are introduced against any kind of suppression or distorsion of the truth about their safety. This requires completely transparent assessment procedures of the kind suggested by us in "A suggested procedure for ensuring impartial and reliable safety assessment of commercial applications of science"How the Food and Drug Administration is Misrepresenting the Facts About Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods and Violating the Laws Meant to Regulate ThemStatement by Steven M. Druker, JD, executive director of the Alliance for Bio-Integrity, coordinator of the lawsuit against the FDA to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of GE foods, and an attorney on the case (in collaboration with the legal department of the Center for Food Safety). Overview: Uncovering FDA's Misbehavior Through Litigation

In May 1998, the Alliance for Bio-Integrity led an unprecedented coalition of public interest groups, scientists, and religious leaders in filing a landmark lawsuit against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to obtain mandatory safety testing and labeling of all genetically engineered (GE) foods. In an unprecedented step, nine eminent life scientists joined as plaintiffs in order to emphasize the degree to which they think FDA policy is scientifically unsound and morally irresponsible. Now, the FDA's own files confirm how well founded their concerns are. The FDA was required to deliver copies of these files--totaling over 44,000 pages--to the plaintiffs' attorneys. (Key documents from these files are in a numbered list at . Numbers following quotations below refer to the corresponding document's place on this list. Also on our website are fuller discussions of FDA misbehavior.) The FDA's records reveal it declared GE foods to be safe in the face of broad disagreement from its own experts -- all the while claiming an overwhelming scientific consensus supported its stance. Besides contradicting the FDA's claim that its policy is science-based, this evidence shows the agency violated the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in allowing genetically engineered foods to be marketed without first being proven safe, on the premise that they are generally recognized as safe by experts.FDA's Admitted Agenda to Promote the Biotech Industry
The FDA acknowledges it has been operating under a government policy "to foster" the U.S. biotechnology industry.("Genetically Engineered Foods," FDA Consumer, Jan.-Feb. 1993, p.14) This policy was initiated by the Reagan/Bush administration and has continued through Clinton/Gore. Further, when in 1991 the FDA created a new position of Deputy Commissioner for Policy to supervise the formulation of its policy on GE foods, it appointed Michael Taylor, a Washington, D.C. lawyer who had been representing Monsanto and other members of the biotech industry on regulatory issues. During Mr. Taylor's tenure as Deputy Commissioner, warnings from FDA scientists were persistently overridden and drafts of the policy statement increasingly contradicted their assertions about the hazards of bioengineering. (Subsequently, Mr. Taylor was hired by Monsanto as Vice-President for Public Policy.) Moreover, when Vice-President Dan Quayle introduced FDA's final policy in 1992, he referred to it as "regulatory relief" for the industry. FDA Scientists Protested the Attempt to Equate Bioengineering with Conventional Breeding The White House directive to foster biotechnology advocates the premise that GE foods are essentially the same as others. However, the agency's attempts to bend its policy to conform to this premise met with strong resistance from its own scientists. Numerous agency experts protested that the proposed policy was ignoring the recognized potential for bioengineering to produce unexpected and unpredictable toxins, carcinogens and allergens -- hazards not ordinarily involved with conventional breeding. For instance, Dr. Louis Pribyl of the FDA Microbiology Group wrote, "There is a profound difference between the types of unexpected effects from traditional breeding and genetic engineering ..." He added that some aspects of gene splicing "...may be more hazardous." (4) Dr. E.J. Matthews of the FDA's Toxicology Group warned that GE plants could contain unexpected toxins that could "...be uniquely different chemicals that are usually expressed in unrelated plants." (2) Citing the potential for such unintended dangers, the Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) called for GE products to be demonstrated safe prior to marketing. He stated: "... CVM believes that animal feeds derived from genetically modified plants present unique animal and food safety concerns." (10) He explained that residues of unexpected substances could make meat and milk products harmful to humans.The numerous in-house critiques are summed up by Dr. Linda Kahl, who protested the agency was "... trying to fit a square peg into a round hole . . . [by] trying to force an ultimate conclusion that there is no difference between foods modified by genetic engineering and foods modified by traditional breeding practices." She declared: "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks." (1) Moreover, Dr. James Maryanski, FDA's Biotechnology Coordinator, acknowledged in a letter to a Canadian official that there is no consensus about the safety of genetically engineered foods in the scientific community at large (8); and FDA scientists advised they should undergo special testing. Misrepresenting the Facts in Order to Approve the
FoodsNonetheless, so strong was the FDA's motivation to promote the biotech industry that it not only disregarded the warnings of its own scientists about the unique risks of gene-spliced foods, it covered them up and claimed that no such input had been received. Its official policy asserts: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way...." Thus, although agency experts advised that GE foods should be subjected to special testing, the bureaucrats in charge of the policy proclaimed these foods require no testing at all. Further, the FDA misrepresents the tests that have been done. For instance, although not required to do so, the developer of the "Flavr Savr" tomato, the first GE whole food brought to market, voluntarily put it through feeding studies and asked the FDA to review the data. FDA scientists noted a pattern of stomach lesions that raised a safety issue and repeatedly requested more testing. None was performed. Consequently, FDA experts concluded "... the data fall short of 'a demonstration of safety'" (15) and said "... unresolved questions still remain." (16) Yet, the FDA not only approved the tomato, it claimed that all relevant safety issues had been satisfactorily resolved - and that because the Flavr Savr did so well, it would be unnecessary for any subsequent GE food to go through the same rigorous testing. To date, there is no reliable evidence showing that any has successfully met the standard the Flavr Savr failed to meet.Moreover, the government consistently distorts the fact that in 1989 a GE food killed dozens of Americans and permanently crippled over 1,500 others. That product (a supplement of the amino acid L-Tryptophan) contained at least one unusual toxin never found in conventionally produced batches. Many experts think the bioengineering process was the most likely cause of the toxicity, and the FDA's biotech coordinator admits it cannot be ruled out. (FDA Administrative Record 22923) But in public statements, FDA officials have hidden the fact the fatal product was bioengineered and instead blamed risks of health supplements; and other government spokespersons persistently claim that no GE food has ever harmed a consumer. Besides violating basic canons of ethics, the FDA's behavior flagrantly violates the U.S. Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, which mandates that new food additives be demonstrated safe through testing before they are marketed. While the FDA admits that bioengineered organisms fall under this provision, it claims they are exempt from testing because they are "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS), even though it knows they are not recognized as safe even by its own scientists, let alone by a consensus in the scientific community. Further, the statute prescribes that additives like those in GE foods can only be recognized as safe on the basis of tests that have established their harmlessness. But no such tests exist for GE foods. So, although the GRAS exemption was intended to permit the sale of substances whose safety has already been demonstrated through testing, the FDA is using it to circumvent testing and to approve novel substances based largely on conjecture--conjecture that is dubious in the eyes of its own and many other experts.Consequently, every genetically engineered food in the U.S. is on the market illegally and should be recalled for rigorous safety testing. The FDA has deliberately unleashed a host of potentially harmful foods onto American dinner tables in blatant violation of U.S. law. This text was published here with permission from Alliance for Biointegrity. When we started our campaign in 1996, we were greatly astonished over the obvious denial of facts by FDA. Although the truth that GMO-s require thorough safety testing appeared obvious to us we were worried about the uncritical acceptance of the statements of FDA by decisionmakers, media people and even many scientists who obviosuly were not well acquainted with all aspects of the issue. We think the reason was that the FDA is a prestigious and internationally respected institution generally believed to be reliable. 

This is the reason why we designed our website in such a way so as to make it possible even for the layman to realize that GE is fundamentally different from breeding and that it may generate serious unexpected toxins that may be difficult to detect.
it is absolutely necessary that the evaluations of governmental assessment bodies be completely transparent and formulated in such a way that everyone can assess the correctness of the judgement. Not any more it is acceptable to hand over the official judgement to some appointed experts (perhaps selected by the government for having a desirable attitude to the issue) without requiring them to rigorously and exhaustively present the basis for their conclusions.

In this case, it took a lawsuit to "dig out" the truth that obviously had been hidden by the bureaucrats of FDA. This is unacceptable. Every fact, discussion and assessment about the value of a new technology must be made available to independent public scrutiny from the beginning so as to ensure that the safety of people and ecology will not be endagered by pressure from shortsighted political and/or financial interests. See "A suggested procedure for ensuring impartial and reliable safety assessment of commercial applications of science".
We want to congratulate Steve Druker and the Alliance of Biointegrity for a contribution of very great importance.
It is now time for the governments all over the world to realize that the exploitation of GE food at this stage of very incomplete knowledge and absence of truly reliable safety tests is not justifiable. We have long been demanding that all presently marketed GE foods be withdrawn from the market all over the world, as none has been reliably tested for safety. There is no justification for delaying such a decision.How It Happened That We Don't Regulate Biotech by professor Donella Meadows. A revealing article about scientists systematicaly hiding the truth and lying about important discoveries of hazards due to genetic engineering. This paved the way for approval of genetic engineering without any demands on stringent safety evaluation.


 




Document Number: 8946 
Leading Scientist sacked after presidential intervention because of critisizing GE foods
A sensational turn of the Arpad Pusztai affairDr Arpad Pusztai, a world renowned nutrition expert, expressed doubts about the safety of GE foods on BBC TV "World In Action broadcast" in August 1998. Because he was a leading expert, this was a great sensation. So Pusztai's critisim was aired all over the world.
But a few days later again, all over the world, the story was aired that he was an old man (68) who had confused his results, making wrong conclusions. This was however a lie. Both me and other scientists who talked with him when this happened found that his mind was perfectly clear. The "senility" story was part of a plot aimed at destroying his credibility.

He was sacked by his employer, Rowett Research Instiute, the leading nutrition research institute in UK.

Pusztai was heavily attacked by fellow scientists, especially the British Royal Society (the foremost scientific organization, corresponding to the National Academy of Science in other countries). He was expelled from the illustrious international Lectin research group that he had founded.

But the world leading medical journal, Lancet, found these attacks unfair and published Pusztai's research. This was a first step towards his rehabilitation as a scientist that Pusztai has struggled hard for ever since these concerted attacks started. Several independent scientists, including PSRAST, have been supporting his case, finding the attacks on him unscientific, being dictated by partial interests in favor of genetic engineering. Now the story has taken a sensational turn. From an article in the UK newspaper "Daily Mail" (july 2003) it appears that Prime Minister Tony Blair was instigated by President Clinton to stop Pusztai."Breaking his long silence over the affair, he [Pusztai] now claims that he was fired as a direct consequence of Tony Blair's intervention. The day after his World In Action broadcast, he believes that two phone calls were put through to his boss, Philip James, from the Prime Minister's office in Downing Street.The following day he was fired. He says he was informed of the calls by two different employees at the Rowett. Dr Putsztai and his wife were also told by a senior manager at the institute that Blair's intervention followed a phone call to Downing Street from President Bill Clinton, whose administration was spending billions backing the GM food industry. To sceptical ears, this sounds scarcely credible. Would the Prime Minister really have had any influence over the position of a respected scientist?And yet the story is supported by two other eminent researchers. Stanley Ewen, says another senior figure at the institute told him the same story at a dinner on September 24, 1999.'That conversation is sealed in my mind,' Ewen says. 'My jaw dropped to the floor. I suddenly saw it all - it was the missing link.'Until then, I couldn't understand how on Monday Arpad had made the most wonderful breakthrough, and on Tuesday it was the most dreadful piece of work and immediately rejected out of hand.'The second source to confirm the story is Professor Robert Orskov OBE, who worked at the Rowett for 33 years and is one of Britain's leading nutrition experts. He was told that phone calls went from Monsanto, the American firm which produces 90% of the world's GM food, to Clinton and then to Blair.'Clinton rang Blair and Blair rang James,' says Professor Orskov.'There is no doubt he was pushed by Blair to do something. It was damaging the relationship between the USA and the UK, because it was going to be a huge blow for Monsanto.' "The sinister sacking of the worlds leading GM expert  and the trail that leads to Tony Blair and the White House. By Andrew Rowell.
Daily Mail July 7, 2003.The aggressive and united attacks against Dr. Pusztai by leading scientists appear in a new light through this revealing story.
It appears that a major part of the community of scientists in the GE field has turned into a  as dictated by the government and by the powerful multinational industry. Many scientists may be doing so most unwillingly, but the Pusztai case is a warning example of what they can expect if they dare to fulfill their duty as scientists to be objective and impartial. For more about this problem, see Dysfunctional science - Towards a "pseudoscientfic world order"?The New Thought Police - Suppressing Dissent in Science.The tenet of biotech proponents that a majority of scientists find GE foods unproblematic, sounds very hollow against this background.It needs to be added that it was no coincidence that Clinton got involed. The biotech giant Monsato was a major sponsor of President Clinton and had a strong influence on his policies. After he took office, his administration supported the corporation in several ways, including appointing Monsanto people to FDA top positions, threatening (by way of USDA) dairymen with confiscation if they labelled their milk free from Monsantos rBGH (genetically engineered hormone), supporting an attempt by FDA to allow genetically engineered foods to be listed among organic foods, and most importantly, it was the Clinton administation that enabled the launch of (Monsanto's) GE foods into the market by gagging the FDA scientists who warned about their dangers (see 

For more about the Pusztai story, see
"Leading food safety expert sacked when he warned about GE foods."

  Report about professor Pusztai at the OECD/Edinburgh GE Food Safety Conference in March 2000. where he tells the story from his perspective.

 




Document Number: 4203 
The end of gene technology - patents on GE (transgenic) organisms have no scientific basisExisting patents will be challenged and are likely to be found invalidA cooperation project of 35 groups of leading scientists from all over the world has resulted in the consensus that genes work in a different way than believed when gene technology was conceived in 1973.  The genes work in networks where the effect of every gene is decided by the interaction with many other genes as well with its environment, see So the one-gene-one-trait concept, the very basis of gene technology, is fundamentally wrongThus patenting of genes as carriers of specific traits is illusory and therefore scientifically untenable. A process has already started on challenging existing gene technology patents. It has been successful in challenging four Monsanto patents (1). The new consensus on the nature of genes will lead to a general attack on gene technology patents. 

A fundamental requirement for a patent is that it must have a scientifically correct foundation. You cannot obtain a patent for a gene as the carrier of a specific trait when science has established that genes are not carriers of isolated traits. We can therefore safely predict that no patent on genetically engineered organisms are defendable. When a patent is found to have a scientifically incorrect basis it can be revoked. This will be the case with all GE patents.
The economical fundament of gene technology shatteredThis shatters the economical fundament of the gentech industry because without viable patents, the industry will not be able to survive economically. No investor will find it safe to invest in such bussiness.Monsanto patents asserted against american farmers rejected by patent office: PUBPAT Initiated Review Leads PTO to Find All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid. "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 5322 
Unintended Effects of Genetic Manipulation
A Project of The Nature Institute

Project Director:Craig Holdrege

Email:nontarget@natureinstitute.org
Understanding the Unintended Effects of Genetic
ManipulationThis article provides background and explanatory information
for The Nature Institute's project "Unintended Effects of Genetic
Manipulation." To visit the main website page concerning this
project,
Genetic engineering experiments are conducted with a specific objective in
mind. The scientists aim to transfer foreign DNA into a host organism and
effect specific changes within that organism. For example, the plant may
be meant to become herbicide- or pest-resistant, to grow more quickly, to
form compound instead of simple leaves, or to synthesize new  substances.
These are the intended (target) effects and the altered organism is called a
transgenic organism. (Instead of this technical term, the expressions
"genetically modified organism" (GMO) and "genetically engineered
organism" are widely used and will be used interchangeably by us. We also
use the expression "genetic manipulation" to indicate the process by which
transgenic organisms are produced.) 
Unintended (or, as I will sometimes say here, "nontarget") effects are
those experimental results that appear in addition to or, in some cases,
instead of the intended results. Within the scientific literature
a variety of virtually synonymous terms and expressions point to
such unintended effects of genetic manipulation.  Scientists speak
of nontarget effects, unexpected effects, unintended consequences,
or the pleiotropic effect of the gene.  (Pleiotropy means that a gene
affects more than one characteristic.) Sometimes a research report will
signal unintended effects with a phrase such as, "Surprisingly, we found
. . ." or "Unexpectedly, the plants . . ."  An instructive analogy is
the common occurrence of drug "side effects."  Here, too, the intended
effect of the drug is often accompanied by numerous, sometimes harmful,
effects arising from the drug's unanticipated action on nontarget tissues
or processes.Unintended Effects of Genetic Manipulation in
the Scientific Literature
Of course, such nontarget effects are not always reported in research
reports. As Dougherty and Parks (1995) write, "Organisms that do not
perform as expected are discounted as defective or atypical in some way,
are not the subject of study, and frequently are not reported in the
literature. It is important, therefore, to recognize that most published
works represent a selected subset of transgenic organisms that have
been produced. These built-in biases have hindered our understanding
of how transgene expression impacts the endogenous [host] gene" and,
I would add, how the organism as a whole can be affected by the genetic
manipulation.
Reports in the scientific literature handle unintended effects in widely
differing ways:
In the kinds of cases Dougherty and Parks refer to, unintended effects
are simply not reported, although some may have been observed. There is no
way to know how often this occurs.
Sometimes no unintended effects are explicitly reported, although the
research article gives evidence that they were present. We
have found articles in which, for example, the morphology of plants
was illustrated, but the visually evident abnormal development was not
described as such (see Mller et al. 2006). 
The intended effect is the focus of the article, but unintended effects
are also reported.
Unintended effects are the primary subject of the research. Such
investigations include risk assessment studies to establish whether there
are unintended effects and, if so, whether they present safety or health
concerns. 
The articles we have used to report on unintended effects constitute a
mix of the last three categories. We have selected research where either
the authors have reported unintended effects or we have designated them
as such in view of the evidence presented in the study, although the
authors may not have drawn special attention to any unintended effects.
Because we are focusing on unintended effects related to transgenic
organisms, we have not included examples of unintended effects that can
arise in traditional breeding (selection and crossing) or in more invasive
practices such as chemical or x-ray mutagenesis. Especially this latter
can call forth extensive changes within the organism and many unintended
effects have probably gone undetected, since - oddly enough - there is no
regulation of crops produced using mutagenic methods. (For discussions
of some of the kinds of unintended effects that can arise in traditional
breeding, see Gepts 2002; Halsberger 2003; Kuiper et al. 2001; National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National Academies 2004.)
We have also not included articles that report the absence of unintended
effects in transgenic organims. Such studies may find, for example,
that a genetically modified crop was, in terms of an analysis of
selected nutrients and antinutrients, "substantially equivalent" to its
unmanipulated parent variety. While such studies may find no significant
differences in the levels of compounds they studied, they have not done
a complete analysis of the plant's composition.
Such a complete analysis is impossible, but with the technique of
metabolic profiling, scientists can at least gain a broader picture
of how a genetic manipulation affects the organism's physiology
(Tretheway 2004). For example, a study was carried out to screen for
potential unintended effects in transgenic potato lines in which the
pathway for sugar (sucrose) breakdown was altered in different ways
(Roessner et al. 2001). The researchers did a metabolic profile of
88 different substances (metabolites) that could be identified in the
tubers. Surprisingly, the transgenic potatoes had altered levels of most
of the eighty-eight substances, even though the production of many of
these substances, such as amino acids, was not known to be related to the
sugar breakdown pathway targeted by the genetic manipulation.
The various transgenic lines differed from each other as well as from the
non-manipulated potatoes. The transgenic potatoes often produced more
amino acids than the non-manipulated potatoes. Moreover, nine substances
were found in the transgenic potatoes that could not be detected in the
non-manipulated potatoes. Since a plant makes thousands of substances (the
mustard plant  is known to make more than five thousand
different compounds), such an example gives only an inkling of the extent
of unintended changes that might occur in the organism's physiology.
One other example: In transgenic potatoes that were altered to
synthesize their own insecticidal substances, researchers investigated
whether the production of particular substances in the leaves might
have been altered as well (Birch 2002). They found that this was the
case and that the reduced levels of glycoalkaloids, which are toxic
to mammals and some insects, may affect the potatoes' natural ability
to ward off mammal and insect pests. In a screening for "substantial
equivalence," such a change would never have been detected, because no
one would have looked for it. While this particular unintended effect
may have no bearing on farm animals or humans who eat potato tubers,
it is in fact a change in the plant's physiological make-up and may have
important implications for agricultural practices, such as pesticide use.
In relation to testing for unintended effects of transgenic organisms on
the environment, Marvier (2001) points out that "the vast majority of the
examined toxicity studies reported in USDA petitions for deregulation
relied on appallingly few replicates, usually just three or four per
treatment group." As a result, while such a study may conclude that
there are no statistically significant effects, the lack of evidence may
have been due to the small sample so that real effects may in fact have
been overlooked.
These examples show that it is simply inaccurate to state that
there are no nontarget effects in any given case. Rather, one must say:
no nontarget effects were found within the boundaries of the analysis
carried out in this case. If you fish with a wide-meshed net, you may
not catch sardines.  In scientific terms, the absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence.
Another problem arises when studies report that the transgenic plants
produced in the experiment were "phenotypically normal."  This usually means
that the researchers - who rarely are plant morphologists - detected no
gross differences between the unmanipulated controls and the transgenic
plants. But usually this judgment is not based on a rigorous comparative
morphological study of the plants in question, much less a thorough
compositional assessment of those aspects of phenotype that are not
visible to the naked eye. Therefore such statements must be
taken with rather large grains of salt.
Moreover, unintended effects often become apparent only under certain
conditions - for example, when the plants are grown under different
experimental conditions or when they encounter the vicissitudes of
growing in a natural, rather than a laboratory, environment. Transgenic
insecticide-producing () cotton does not, for example, always
adequately protect the plants against insect pests. In China, farmers and
agronomists have observed that  cotton is especially susceptible
to the cotton bollworm later in the season when it is producing cotton
bolls and when it has been hot. In experiments researchers found that
 cotton subjected to a short period of high temperature while
it is forming bolls produces significantly less  toxin in its
leaves (Chen et al. 2005). In some unknown way, the high temperature
suppresses  production at that particular stage of the plant's
development. If a study remains within the narrow confines of particular
experimental conditions and concludes there are no nontarget effects,
then this conclusion, once again, must be taken with caution - for it
means: no unintended effects were observed when the researchers applied
their specific lenses of analysis under the specific conditions of this
experiment.
All this indicates that in providing examples of unintended effects of
genetic manipulations we are surely identifying only a portion of what
actually occurs. Whether it is more than the merest tip of the iceberg,
we cannot say. But the cases we have identified and summarized in our
reports are documented within the scientific literature and form a good
starting place to consider the implications of genetic modifications.
One thing is already abundantly clear from the reports gathered to date:
among the common types of genetic manipulation and among the main types of
plants, agricultural and otherwise, used in experiments, there appear to
be no notable exceptions to the fact that nontarget effects, often
striking in nature, have been occurring.

We are quite aware that the studies we have selected can be criticized
and questioned in various ways. That is simply the nature of experimental
science. The theoretical framework, the experimental set-up, and the
way conclusions are drawn are always limited and in one way or another
biased, since no one can take everything into account in one study. If a
study finds statistically significant unintended effects, this judgment
is based on a certain kind of statistical operation and, in addition,
does not necessarily indicate the role these effects may play under
other conditions. Similarly, just because an unintended effect is not
found to be statistically significant in a controlled experiment does
not mean it will be insignificant in the wild.
Researchers also bring their personal biases - their specific background
and context within the scientific community - to the work they do. In
journal articles it is quite easy to recognize, by the tone of the
writing and the type of literature cited, which data are given particular
consideration, and which facts are brought together (or left out) in order
to draw conclusions. This does not mean the results are merely subjective;
it means they are informed by particular perspectives. There's no getting
around this, much as some scientists would like the public or policy
makers to believe they are reporting "just the facts."
In our reports on this website, we provide brief compilations of
the evidence for unintended effects that are contained in the articles
cited. Of course, we too have been selective - our focus is on reporting
unintended effects. Interested readers must consult the source articles
that we cite if they want to form more nuanced judgments concerning
a specific study. We believe that a primary contribution of our work is
to bring together the diverse cases of unintended effects so that, out
of a broad overview, we gain insights that are not available when we
focus only on the results of this or that study.Different Categories of Unintended Effects
In a review article, Cellini et al. (2004) make a distinction
between "predictable unintended effects" and "unpredictable unintended
effects." Predictable unintended effects go beyond the target effect but
"may be explicable in terms of our current knowledge of plant biology
and metabolic pathway integration and interconnections." For example,
transgenic canola plants had increased levels of carotenes in their
seeds - the target effect - but also had reduced levels of other substances
(tocopherols and chlorophyll; see Shewmaker et al. 1999). While
unintended, these results were not wholly surprising, since it was
already known that the metabolic pathways of carotene production and
those of tocopherols and chlorophyll are linked. So if one takes a
slightly larger context into account, the reduction of the amounts of
the latter substances might even be expected.
Unpredictable unintended effects, in contrast, fall outside present
understanding - the scientists simply do not know how to interpret the
effects. In the above experiment where the carotene content in transgenic
canola was raised, the composition of fatty acids was also altered;
there was more oleic acid and less linoleic and linolenic acid. As the
authors note, this "alteration in fatty acid composition was unexpected"
(p. 408), since there is no known connection between fatty acid synthesis
and the carotenoid pathway.

Interesting in this context is how an unintended effect in one experiment
may become an intended effect in the next one. In one study researchers
investigated how genetic manipulation of starch metabolism in potatoes
affected the production of other substances (Roessner et al. 2001). They
found, to their surprise, that the levels of amino acids were also
altered. This was surprising since there is no known link between
the starch and amino acid metabolic pathways. In a study carried out
subsequently, in part by the same researchers, an increase in amino acid
content was also found, but in this case the finding was not reported as
unexpected, since it had been found in the previous research (Regierer
2002). However, there was no better understanding of connections, and
the finding remained a riddle. In this case a nontarget effect became an
expected effect, although it was not directly targeted. So we could add
another category of unintended effects: those that are predictable, but
not understood.

Regardless of how we group unintended effects, the main point is that
the target effect of a manipulation does not arise in isolation from the
rest of the organism. It is not simply added to the organism's suite of
characters. The organism, by virtue of the genetic manipulation, develops
differently and the whole organism is engaged in this development. The
gene construct is not portioned off from the rest of the organism, and if
it were, the new characteristic would never arise, because the production
of new substances demands the physiological and metabolic activity of the
whole organism. In this sense unintended effects can always be expected
because they are - as is the intended effect - expressions (symptoms) of the
way the organism changes and adapts to the genetic manipulation. That is,
unintended effects arise because the organism is a tightly integrated
whole; but because we have hardly begun to understand the complex web
of interactions within this whole, the effects remain unpredictable.

When an organism is genetically altered, changes in its morphology,
physiology, or metabolism will change the way it relates to its
environment. Just as the gene is not isolated from the organism, the
organism is not isolated from its environment. The expression "unintended
(or nontarget) effect" is most widely used in the scientific literature
in relation to effects that a transgenic organism may have on its
environment. Can the implanted transgenes escape into the wild via spread
of seeds or through cross-pollination with weedy relatives (Reichman
et al. 2006; Warwick et al. 2007; Zapiola et al. 2008)? Can residues of
the Unintended effects within the host organism are not necessarily due only
to the gene directly related to the intended effect. There are numerous
ways in which the genetic manipulation can affect changes in the host
organism. Although the genetic intervention may seem simple, in reality
one is dealing with a complex web of relations that can be altered in
manifold ways. Here we mention just some of the possibilities to give
an impression of why genetic manipulations are largely unpredictable.

1) Scientists discovered that it does no good to insert only the target
gene into the host organism. This does not give the desired effect. What
is needed is a gene construct consisting of DNA sequences from various
sources (see Table 1). For example, in most genetically engineered plants
this construct consists of plant, viral, and bacterial DNA in addition to
the gene for the target effect. This means that each of these segments
of DNA may elicit its own ripple effects in the organism. For example,
DNA related to antibiotic resistance or herbicide resistance is often
part of a gene construct and functions as a so-called marker. When
hundreds or thousands of plants have been subjected to potential genetic
alteration, researchers can treat them with the appropriate herbicide and
the ones that survive possess the marker gene and, with some likelihood,
the target gene. Insofar as this marker gene remains connected to the
target gene, it and its effects will accompany the plant and its progeny
through the generations.What A Genetically Engineered Plant Contains
Plants are never modified by adding just one foreign gene. A whole gene
construct made up of DNA from different sources is shot into the plant
(see Table 2). Generally, such a gene construct in transgenic plants
contains at least:

A target gene derived from a different organism.
A promoter, often derived from a virus, which ensures expression of
the target gene in all the plant's tissues or, sometimes, mainly in
specific tissues.
One or more marker genes to help biotechnologists identify those plants
that have been successfully transformed; these genes usually are derived
from bacteria. 
A circular strand of DNA (called a plasmid) from a bacterium. All the
other DNA sequences are biochemically inserted into the plasmid, which
carries the foreign DNA into the plant's cells. 
When the experiment goes according to plan, every cell of the organism
contains, in the end, at least one copy of the complete construct. Through
the gene construct, the metabolism of the cells is altered and the plant
is obliged to produce novel substances. In "Roundup Ready" and ""
crops, the transgenic proteins are produced continually in every cell of
the plant. By contrast, in normal protein metabolism, most proteins are
specific to particular tissues and temporally restricted functions.
In the case of Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant Roundup Ready soybeans
(line "40-3-2"), the gene construct was reported to have been integrated
at one place (locus) in the plant's genome. It contained the following
DNA sequences:

One copy of the target gene (DNA sequence, originally derived from
the bacterium , for resistance to the herbicide
glyphosate). 
Cauliflower mosaic virus promoter, so that the target gene would be
expressed in all parts of the plant. 
DNA from the petunia to bring the gene product (an enzyme) to the
chloroplasts so that it is present in adequate amounts to protect the
leaves when the plant is sprayed with the herbicide. ) to regulate
stable production of the enzyme needed for herbicide resistance. 
A number of DNA sequences that were originally part of the DNA construct
were not integrated into the soybean's genome, including the primary
marker (GUS) gene and a bacterial marker gene (. In 2000, four years after Roundup
Ready soybeans had been commercially grown, Monsanto scientists reported
the discovery that additional DNA sequences had been incorporated into
soybeans: an additional segment of the target gene, located next to the
construct described above, and a second insert comprising yet a different
segment of the target gene. According to Monsanto, neither of these
is expressed in the plant. This example indicates the unpredictability
inherent in the actual integration of a gene construct into a plant's
genome.
Sources: FDA/CFSAN Memorandum: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~rdb/bnfm001.html.
Health Canada:
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/gmf-agm/appro/ofb-096-100-d-rev_e.html.
2) Since the gene construct is inserted into the host organism in
a haphazard fashion (see Table 2), the insertion process itself may
be fraught with unintended effects (Day et al. 2000; Freese and Schubert
2004; Forsbach et al. 2003; Latham et al. 2006; Makarevitch et al. 2003;
Wilson et al. 2004):
Since multiple copies of the construct are shot into tissue cultures
or inserted into bacteria () that are subsequently
used as vehicles to get the construct into cells, multiple copies of the
construct and/or multiple fragments thereof may be inserted into the
plant's genome - in different places in the same chromosome or in different chromosomes. 
A single gene construct may be broken up and fragments inserted in
different places in the host organism's genome. Such fragments may or
may not have any direct effects.
The insertion of the gene construct or its fragments may interrupt a
functional gene at the place of insertion ("insertional mutagenesis") and
thereby cause a loss or change of function of that gene.
There may be rearrangement of DNA in and around the site of insertion.
3) Assuming the target gene is functionally incorporated into the host
organism's genome, the organism will produce new substances, most commonly
enzymes, that lead to the intended effect. The host organism's metabolism
can interact in unknown ways with the transgene and its products. For
example, the organism may react to the genetic manipulation by shutting
down the expression of the transgene; this is called transgene silencing
(Matzke et al. 2000). An organism may even overcompensate and stop
production of similar substances it would normally produce. As a result,
the effect of the genetic manipulation becomes the opposite of what was
intended - less, rather than more, of the desired substance is produced
(Tretheway et al. 1998). 
4) Tissue culturing - the process of regenerating the manipulated plant
tissue into full plants - may itself cause an increase in mutations in
the plant, which can have their own effects and possibly interact with
the foreign genes in unexpected ways (Jain 2001; Filipecki and Malepszy
2006).
5) Organisms belonging to the same species are not genetically
identical. Each individual organism possesses a unique genome. This
is called its genetic background, and it is into this background
that the transgene is inserted. Therefore, the same gene construct
can elicit subtly different effects in different specimens (Horvath et
al. 2001). This plays a role, of course, in the selection of the specific
variety of soybean, corn, or other crop one uses as the parent variety
for genetic modification.
6) Unintended effects may arise when the transgenic organism is subjected
to changing environmental conditions and its metabolism responds to
these conditions by producing different substances and structures,
which may affect, and be affected by, the transgene and its products
(Gertz et al. 1999; Chen et al. 2005).Table 2. Producing a Genetically Modified Plant
Here is an example of how scientists produce a genetically modified
plant. Monsanto Company was interested in developing genetically modified
plants that would be resistant to their best-selling herbicide, Roundup,
which contains as an active ingredient glyphosate. Glyphosate inhibits
the synthesis of an important enzyme (EPSPS) that is part of a primary
metabolic pathway from which many essential substances are derived. When
sprayed with glyphosate, a plant turns yellow and dies within a week
or two.

In the 1980s Monsanto scientists discovered a mutant strain of a soil
bacterium ( spp. strain CP4) that was not killed by
the herbicide. This bacterium forms its own variety of EPSPS enzyme,
which is slightly different from plant EPSPS and is not affected by
glyphosate. They succeeded in isolating the DNA (gene) connected with
the synthesis of this enzyme. They fashioned a gene construct consisting
of a variety of DNA from various sources (virus, plant, and bacteria;
see Table 1) that they hoped would allow the uptake of the gene and then
the expression of the bacterial EPSPS enzyme in plants. This construct
was multiplied in bacteria and then re-isolated. The DNA construct was
precipitated onto microscopic gold particles and these microprojectiles
were shot into embryonic tissue from immature seeds of soybeans. The
tissue was cultured in a nutrient medium. Thousands of shoot tips needed
to be generated from the tissue cultures to find a few that actually
had taken up the gene construct and were herbicide-resistant. From
these shoots whole plants were regenerated, which became the first
herbicide-resistant, genetically modified soybean plants. Field testing
ensued and one particular line of transgenic soybean was highly resistant
to the herbicide and also had good agricultural qualities. This "40-3-2"
line was selected and cultivated further, finally becoming the parent line
of subsequent Roundup Ready soybeans marketed by Monsanto Company.
Sources: McCabe et al. 1988; Padgette et al. 1995.
In our reports of unintended effects, the particular effects may be related
to any one of the above factors or several of them. For the scientific
investigator, discovering the "mechanism" behind an unintended effect is
an intriguing challenge. But so far as the organism and the environment
are concerned, this is of secondary importance. The effect itself is
what matters.What Unintended Effects Can Teach Us
In a sense it is paradoxical that genetic manipulation, which aims to
effect discrete, clearly demarcated alterations in organisms, can make us
more aware of the dynamic, context-dependent nature of life. Unintended
effects do that. The manipulated organism is a dynamic, active context
for the inserted genes and therefore does not simply take in genetic
instructions passively and do as it is told. That is why, among the many
plants and animals that may have been modified by a genetic experiment,
only very few are found that fit the researchers' expectations. In order
to be successful, the genetic engineer must circumvent as far as possible
the active, adaptive, and changing organism.
The manipulated organism does not exist in a vacuum. It is critically
influenced by its environment and influences it in turn. In this dynamic,
changing relation between organism and environment, unintended effects
have further opportunity to make themselves known. So while the genetic
engineer wants control, stability, regularity, and constancy, life plays
itself out in dynamism, unpredictability, and change. This has become
evident even at the level of genes themselves. Although the gene figures
in the popular view of genetic engineering as a kind of stable unmoved
mover, within genetic research of the past decades the gene concept has
undergone radical transformation - and has come to be viewed in more dynamic
and contextual terms (Beurton et al. 2000; Holdrege 2005; Holdrege and
Wirz 2001; McClearn 2006; Pearson 2006).
So we learn that at all levels of life - from gene to organism to
environment - we need to take into account dynamic, changing relations. The
ideal to control life through genetic engineering rather as we control
a manmade machine begins to appear sadly one-sided.
To ask, "Do we understand what we are doing?" is not merely to ask
whether, in some narrow sense, we understand the genetic "mechanisms" 
involved.  Rather: Do we truly fathom the consequences of our
actions?  We are producing hereditary alterations in organisms, with
all their consequences for the life of the organism itself and its
environment, and the array of unintended effects can alert us to the
far-reaching impact we are having on life and to how little we actually
know about what we are doing. I could also say: genetic engineering
experiments - when we take into account all the unintended effects and not
just what succeeds from a particular scientific, agronomic, or economic
standpoint - could make us keenly aware of our ignorance.  (See Vitek and
Jackson 2008.)  Awareness of
ignorance brings with it circumspection and careful consideration. It
wisely counterbalances a gung-ho "let's get the job done" attitude. We
do well to cultivate such caution when we are dealing with a powerful
technology that is changing organisms and environments around the
globe - organisms and environments that cannot simply be restored to their
previous state when we discover the unpredicted results of our transgenic
experiments.
Beurton, P. J., R. Falk, and H.-J. Rheinsberger, editors (2000). The
Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.

Birch, A. N. E., I. E. Geoghegan, D. W. Griffiths, and J. W. McNicol
(2002). "The Effect Of Genetic Transformations for Pest Resistance
on Foliar Solanidine-Based Glycoalkaloids of Potato (
To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/potato_004.php
Cellini, F., A. Chesson, I. Colquhoun, A. Constable et
al. (2004). "Unintended Effects and Their Detection in Genetically
Modified Crops," 
Chen, D., G. Ye, C. Yang, Y. Chen et al. (2005). "The Effects of
High Temperature on the Insecticidal Properties of Environmental and Experimental Botany
To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/cotton_002.php
Day, C. D., E. Lee,  J. Kobayashi, L. D. Holappa et al. (2000). "Transgene
Integration into the Same Chromosome Location Can Produce Alleles that
Express at a Predictable Level, or Alleles that are Differentially
Silenced," 
Dougherty, W. G. and T. D. Parks (1995). "Transgenes and Gene Suppression:
Telling Us Something New?" Current Opinion in Cell Biology
Filipecki, M. and S. Malepszy (2006). "Unintended Consequences of Plant
Transformation: A Molecular Insight," 
Flachowsky G., K. Aulrich, H. Bhme, and I. Halle (2007). "Studies
on Feeds from Genetically Modified Plants (GMP) - Contributions
to Nutritional and Safety Assessment," Animal Feed Science and
Technology
To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/canola_004.php
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/potato_004.php
Forsbach, A., D. Schubert, B. Lechtenberg, M. Gils et al. (2003).
"A Comprehensive Characterization of Single-Copy T-DNA Insertions
in the 
Freese, W. and D. Schubert (2004). "Safety Testing and Regulation of
Genetically Engineered Foods," Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering
Reviews
Gepts, P. (2002). "A Comparison Between Crop Domestication, Classical
Plant Breeding, and Genetic Engineering," 
Gertz, J. M., W. K. Vencill, and N. S. Hill (1999). "Tolerance of Transgenic
Soybean (The 1999 Brighton
Conference: Weeds. Farnham, Surrey, UK: The Council, pp. 835-40.

To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/soybean_001.php
Halsberger, A. G. (2003). "Codex Guidelines for GM Foods Include the
Analysis of Unintended Effects," 
Holdrege, C. (2005). "The Gene: A Needed Revolution," http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic14/gene.htm
Holdrege, C. and J. Wirz (2001). "Life Beyond Genes: Reflections on the
Human Genome Project," 
http://natureinstitute.org/pub/ic/ic5/genome.htm
Horvath, H., L. G. Jensen, O. T. Wong, E. Kohl et al. (2001). "Stability
of Transgene Expression, Field Performance and Recombination Breeding
of Transformed Barley Lines," 
To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/barley_001.php
Kuiper, H. A., G. A. Kleter, H. Noteborn and E. J. Kok (2001). "Assessment
of the Food Safety Issues Related to Genetically Modified Foods," 
Latham, J. R., A. K. Wilson, R. A. Steinbrecher et al. (2006). "The
Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation," Journal of
Biomedicine and Biotechnology
Makarevitch, I., S. K. Svitashev, and D. A. Somers (2003).
"Complete Sequence Analysis of Transgene Loci From Plants Transformed
Via Microprojectile Bombardment," 
Marvier, M. (2001). "Ecology of Transgenic Crops," 
Matzke, M. A., M. F. Mette and A. J. M. Matzke (2000). "Transgene
Silencing by the Host Genome Defense: Implications for the Evolution
of Epigenetic Control Mechanisms in Plants and Vertebrates," 
McCabe, D. E., W. F. Swain, B. J. Martinell, and P. Christou
(1988). "Stable Transformation of Soybean (
McClearn, G. E. (2006). "Contextual Genetics," 
Mller, K., X. He, R. Fischer, and D. Prfer
(2006). "Constitutive  Gene Expression in Dandelion
(, Web.) Changes Leaf Morphology from Simple
to Compound," 
To see our report on this study, click here: 
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/dandelion_001.php
National Research Council and Institute of Medicine of the National
Academies (2004).  Safety of Genetically Engineered Food: Approaches
to Assessing Unintended Health Effects.  Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press.

Owen, M. D. K. and I. A. Zelaya (2005). "Herbicide-Resistant Crops and
Weed Resistance to Herbicides," 
To see our report on this study, click here: 
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/weed_resistance_001.php
Padgette, S. R., K. H. Kolacz, X. Delannay, D. B. Re et
al. (1995). "Development, Identification, and Characterization of
a Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean Line," 
Pearson, H. (2006). "What is a Gene?" 
Prescott, V., P. Campbell, A. Moore, J. Mattes et al. (2005). "Transgene
Expression of a Bean Alpha-Amylase Inhibitor in Peas Results
in Altered Structure and Immunogenicity," 
To see our report on this study, click here:
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/pea_001.php
Ray, H., M. Yu, P. Auser, L. Blahut-Beatty et al. (2003). "Expression
of Anthocyanins and Proanthocyanidins after Transformation of Alfalfa
with Maize 
To see our report on this study, click here:
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/alfalfa_001.php
Regierer, B., A. R. Fernie, F. Springer, A. Perez-Melis et
al. (2002). "Starch Content and Yield Increase as a Result of Altering
Adenylate Pools in Transgenic Plants," 
Reichman, J., L. Watrud, E. Lee, C. Burdick et al. (2006). "Establishment
of Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Creeping Bentgrass ( L.) in Nonagronomic Habitats," 
To see our report on this study, click here: 
http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/bentgrass_001.php
Roessner, U., A. Luedemann, D. Brust, O. Fiehn et al. (2001). "Metabolic
Profiling Allows Comprehensive Phenotyping of Genetically or
Environmentally Modified Plant Systems," 
To see our report on this study, click here:

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/potato_001.php
Rosi-Marshall, E. J., J. L. Tank, T. V. Royer, M. R. Whiles et
al. (2007). "Toxins in Transgenic Crop Byproducts May Affect Headwater
Stream Ecosystems," 
To see our report on this study, click here: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/maize_004.php
Shewmaker, C., J. A. Sheehy, M. Daley, S. Colburn et
al. (1999). "Seed-specific Overexpression of Phytoene Synthase: Increase
in Carotenoids and Other Metabolic Effects," 
To see our report on this study, click here: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/canola_001.php
Tretheway, R. N. (2004). "Metabolite Profiling as an Aid to Metabolic
Engineering in Plants," Current Opinion in Plant Biology
Tretheway, R. N., P. Geigenbauer, K. Riedel, M.-R. Hajirezaei et
al. (1998). "Combined Expression of Glucokinase and Invertase in Potato
Tubers Leads to a Dramatic Reduction in Starch Accumulation and a
Stimulation of Glycolysis," 
To see our report on this study, click here: http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/potato_003.php
Vitek, Bill and Wes Jackson, editors (2008).  The Virtues
of Ignorance: Complexity, Sustainability, and the Limits of Knowledge.
Lexington KY: University Press of Kentucky.


Warwick, S. I., A. Legere, M.-J. Simard, and T. James (2007). "Do Escaped
Transgenes Persist in Nature? The Case of an Herbicide Resistance
Transgene in Weedy  doi: 10.1111/j.1365-294x.2007.03567.x

To see our report on this study, click here: :

http://natureinstitute.org/nontarget/reports/canola_003.php
Wilson, A., J. Latham, and R. Steinbrecher (2004). "Genome Scrambling -
Myth or Reality? 
Zapiola, M., C. Campbell, M. Butler, and C. Mallory-Smith (2008). "Escape
and Establishment of Transgenic Glyphosate-resistant Creeping Bentgrass
() in Oregon, USA: A 4-year Study,"  doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01430.x

 




Document Number: 6466 
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)

 




Document Number: 8861 
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST). Here you will find additional links that may be of interest. If you made the siteguide tour thoroughly, you will find some of the same links here.Bookmark this link for the future.The most important recent additionsThe major sections of this site - Very useful and comprehensive
   - Millions have visited this site
Help us increase the awareness in the world(To return here wherever you are in the site, click on "Starting points"

in the list of links at the bottom of every page)For you who got lost while following the links from Here you get back to alternatively: contains all the links listed below and many more. (It is actually the same as  as it contains helpful brief comments and presents the issue in an orderly sequence that brings you to a good understanding in a comfortable way. Also helpful for recurrent visitors.If you believe that science knows what it is doing when genes are engineered, read:"Introduction to genetic engineering.""Is our knowledge sufficient for safe use biotechnology?" If you believe the environmental and health safety effects of GE food have been carefully investigated, read this "Is there sufficient scientific knowledge to ensure safe commercial exploitation of genetically engineered foods?"If you believe that GE foods on the market have been tested in a proper way, take a look here:Inadequate safety assessment of GE foodsIf you want to know what foods may be genetically engineered, read:
"What GE foods are on the market?". Note that this page contains more info than the page "GE foods on the market - a brief summary"If you know very little about genetic engineering: A brief and simple explanation of genes and genetic engineering.If you want to know more in a pleasant and very easy way:An excellent, comprehensive pedagogical introduction with nice pedagogical comic strip illustrations.Don't forget to bookmark our site before you go there (but it has many links pointing back to us). Although this site is  in an easy style, it contains many qualified facts.
If you believe GE-foods (like e.g. "golden rice") are valuable for mankind:Do genetically engineered foods provide any benefits?If you think GE foods are necessary for feeding the world, read: If you have found the arguments in favor of GE foods convincing, read this revealing article:"Misleading arguments commonly used by biotech advocatesPR strategies used to manipulate opinions about GE foods.For answers to some common questions, read:More articles that may be good to start with are found at our For a quick idea of the design of this site, open:Open Letter to world governments demanding
withdrawal of GE foods from the marketWe have formulated a letter demanding the withdrawal of all genetically engineered (GE) foods from the market unless they have undergone rigorous safety assessment. In practice this means that all GE foods on the market should be withdrawn. See Translated to French, Italian, Russian and Spanish. - Towards a "pseudoscientfic world order"?Undue interference of industry in scientific safety evaluationThe successful launch of genetically engineered foods with the aid of a useless safety assessment principle endorsed by leading scientists in national and international expert committees is a . It indicates that we may already be well on the way towards a "new pseudo-scientific world order" where the short term interests of powerful industrial corporations override global long term ecological and health safety considerations.The New Thought Police - Suppressing Dissent in Science. By Mae-Wan Ho and Jonathan Mathews at Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). Their article further confirms and extends the tenets presented in this editorial.
Leading food safety expert sacked when he warned about GE foods.Leading Scientist sacked after presidential intervention because of critisizing GE foods. A sensational turn of the Arpad Pusztai affair.


"The aggressive and united attacks against Dr. Pusztai by leading scientists appear in a new light through this revealing story.

It appears that a major part of the community of scientists in the GE field has turned into a deliverer of "desired truths" as dictated by the government and by the powerful multinational industry. Many scientists may be doing so most unwillingly, but the Pusztai case is a warning example of what they can expect if they dare to fulfill their duty as scientists to be objective and impartial."

The most important recent additions and linksISP to FAO: GM Crops Not the Answer The Independent Science Panel (ISP) criticises the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations for its qualified backing of genetically modified (GM) crops in the global fight against hunger.
  . Liver changes were found in mice fed on Genetically Engineered Soy Beans. This indicates that GE foods may cause serious disturbances in cellular function that may affect health.

  "GM Food & Feed Not Fit for "Man or Beast". Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins at the Independent Science Panel review some of the scientific evidence behind a series of recent scandals involving the safety of GM food and feed. They expose fatal flaws in the regulatory process and highlight how Europe is in danger of approving GM varieties that are genetically unstable and hence illegal as well as unsafe. They demand a full enquiry into the abuse of science that has allowed GM crops not fit for human or animal consumption to enter our food chain.
  Independent Scientists Call for Enquiry into GM Food Safety.Independent Science Panel (ISP) press release April 2 2004.


"The ISP will call for a thorough enquiry into GM food safety and the systematic abuse of science that has allowed commercial approval in the face of damning evidence indicating that GM food is far from safe. There is ample evidence to indicate all is not well with GM food and feed.  But the findings have been systematically suppressed, ignored, misrepresented or simply not followed up."

Independent Science Panel (ISP). A panel of scientists , including members of PSRAST, has made a very comprehensive scientific document, evaluating all the safety problems of genetic engineering in an impartial way. An excellent scientific reference document. Published June 2003.
  Phenomena responsible for disturbances in gene expression
. Experiences of genetic engineering problems at a leading European Plant science center.

  GE crops are economic disaster shows new report. The Soil Association, UK, has issued a comprehensive report about the economics of GE agriculture.

"GM was introduced to the USA when farmers were financially vulnerable. The
biotechnology industry's claims that their products would bring benefits
were widely accepted, but GM crops have now proved to be a financial
liability. Growing GM crops in the UK will undermine the competitiveness of
British agriculture."
Lord Peter Melchett, the Soil Association's Policy DirectorCorporations are inventing people to rubbish their opponents on the internet. This article is a revealing example of the seriously dishonest and misleading propaganda that made it possible to put GE foods on the market in spite of serious deficiencies in the knowledge of their safety. The article shows that Monsanto, a world leading biotech firm is using a new PR strategy, creating fake critics for attacking scientists who question food biotechnology.
A selection of the most important newsThis script shows correctly only with Microsoft Internet Explorer 4+. If the window above is empty or the text  distorted, please The major sections of this siteHere you find review articles and other information that help you get a general idea of the issue. Articles that explain why GE may cause health hazards and some examples of observed hazards. Articles that explain why GE may be hazardous the environment and may cause agricultural problems.Given an idea of the global consequences of a replacement of traditional agriculture with biotechnological agriculture. Anticipated Third World problems.This section helps you understand how it came that GE foods were approved in spite of highly insufficient knowledge about their safety. Alternatives to genetic engineering of foodThere are good and effective alternative solutions.
This powerful search engine has indexed every page on the site. It ranks the matches according to best fit and links to them are displayed along with a few lines describing the page. You can use more than one word to define what you look for.
During the year 2006, we had altoghether  (according to Urchin WebStats). The numbers have been similar during several years, and are gradually increasing. This means that 
A special indicator of our worldwide popularity is that, in addition to all major countries on all continents, we have visitors from regions with low Internet access like Mongolia, Samoa, Madagaskar, Cook Islands, East Timor, Cambodia, Azerbadjan, Costa Rica etc.Why people think this website is so popularHelp us increase the awareness about the hazards all over the worldMake a donation - even a few dollars are well spentBecause of the huge number of visitors (see "Visitor statistics" right above), even a few dollars are worth-while to donate, and they will have a world-wide impact through our activity. 

By donating, you enable us to continue to entertain and improve the website and to expand our activity. 
Just click on the PayPal button below. From the page that opens, you can very easily create a free PayPal account unless you have one already. Just enter what you want to donate, and then click on "continue checkout" and you will be automatically transferred to PayPal membership registration, which is completely free and takes only a couple of minutes.You might also want to become a supporting member, if so, please register at the If you like this site, you can easily announce it to friends using our This (or a similar) menu is found at the bottom of every page:You can access the navigation menu from wherever you are on a page by pressing the keys "Ctrl" and "End" simultaneously (Ctrl should be pressed a moment earlier) as this command takes you immediately to the bottom of the page (with some browsers, incl. Microsoft IE, but not Netscape, it is enough to use "End" only).


 




Document Number: 7924 
Centre for Research on
Globalization (CRG)/ Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation (CRM)The Hidden Agenda of Genetic
ManipulationGlobal Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2SPECIAL ONLINE AND MAIL ORDER PRICE
US$17.00 (list price $24.95)This skillfully researched book
focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control
over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control
the food and you control the people."This is no ordinary book about
the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power,
into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate
boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a
diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and
coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to
gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime
story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.Engdahl's carefully argued
critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of
genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a
must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World
peace.F. William Engdahl is a leading
analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and
geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New
World Order, His writings have been translated into more than a dozen
languages.What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision
of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on
humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything--
science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands
of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To
achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All
they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist,
formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)f you want to learn about the socio-political
agenda --why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the
World-- you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these
corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist...
(Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)The book reads like a murder mystery of an
incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness
conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means
of subsistence... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria). plus s and h (incl. taxes where applicable)$17.
00 online price (click here)Add Overseas Airmail Surcharge
  if applicable (Click below)Click
    here if your order is $50 or less $10.00 for less than fifty
  dollars. Enter the surcharge twice if your order is over fifty dollars. Overseas
  orders which do not include the Overseas Surcharge will be sent by surface
  mail. allow up to 8 weeks for delivery.When
you become a Global Research Member (Annual basis), you will Receive a Free Copy
of Engdahl's bookBecome
a Member of Global Research. Contribute on an annual basis at $95.00 Global Research Member $95.00 annual
   Order
Several copies at a Reduced Price (North America only)Five
copies of Seeds of Destruction for $65.00 plus s and h (incl. taxes where applicable)(five copies is
quantity=1 in online paypal order form)Ten
copies of Seeds of Destruction for $120.00 plus s and h (incl. taxes where applicable)
 (ten copies is quantity=1 in paypal) Mail order prices are the same as the Online prices
indicated above. Payment is accepted in US or Canadian dollars Shipping
and handling charges for mail order are the same as for online ordersSend your cheque or money order made out
to the "CRG" to the following address:Centre
for Research on Globalization (CRG)To
combine your online or mail order purchase with another book or DVD visit our
online store

 




Document Number: 9500 
This page is under constructionHere you will find materials from our website that are especially useful for your study.Classification of the difficultiy level of the articlesAt each link you will find one of these signs indicating the minimum level of knowledge required:Explaining, DNA, Genes, Genetic EngineeringGenetically Engineered (GE) = Genetically Modified (GM) = Genetically Altered.

 A brief and simple explanation of genes and genetic engineering.. If you forgot almost everything about biology, you may want to read this first. Gives a brief, comprehensive picture that summarizes the essential points of the whole story. "The cell - a miracle of cooperation". Gives an idea of how cells work and how little science know about how DNA regulates it.Is our knowledge of genes sufficient for safe use biotechnology? Below you find a more advanced version: 
Is the knowledge about DNA sufficient for predicting the effects of genetic engineering?This page summarizes briefly the main points:Summary of the key points about safety"The Safety of Genetically Engineered Foods
Reasons to expect hazards and the risk for their appearance. An assessment by a group of experts.Assessing the safety and nutritional quality of genetically engineered foods By John Fagan, professor of Molecular Biology.
What may happen in the worst case: , that killed 39 and caused severe suffering in 1500 people.The safety assement of GE foods is insufficient for detecting poisons:
Inadequate safety assessment of GE foodsA science-based, precautionary approach to the
labeling of genetically engineered foods. Our position is now that all GE foods should be withdrawn from the market because of their inherent unsafety. Labeling should done as a temporary measure until the withdrawal is implemented."Is there sufficient knowledge about environmental effects to justify release of GE organisms?""The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: an Agroecological Assessment"The truth about genetic engineeringThe biotech corporations have invested hundreds of millions in propaganda giving a very distorted and false picture. Especially if you find it hard to believe in our critical  stance, read this section."Misleading arguments commonly used by biotech advocates, contains a selection of the most important news on GE foods. It provides interesting openings to further study. More materials will be added soon. So do bookmark this page."Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 685 
. Newcomers are recommended to start here to rapidly get a good idea of the issue. 
   Summary of the key points of this site. The best and easiest way of getting an idea of the whole issue.  There is a full version and an abbreviated version, called "Fast track". Unless you are in a hurry, we recommend the full version.  brings you to a page where you can choose which you want. 
  Complements the siteguide with additional links.. Here you can search the 300 pages of the website.Basic
background knowledge about genetic engineering Statements by PSRAST on Genetically Engineered FoodPotential
hazards from spread of genes without matingThe
problem of Antibiotic marker genesHazards
from inserted virus genesAn at a glance introduction to Global aspectsBiotechnology
not a solution to world hungerPatenting
of life paves the way for biotechnologyInadequate
safety assessment and labelingAlarming
deficiencies in safety regulationsInadequate
functioning of governmental bodiesInadequate
methods for safety assessment.The principle of substantial
equivalence Risk
assessment of ecological effectsWhy
safety evaluations may be unreliableSuggested
procedures to ensure adequate handling of safety issuesAlternatives to genetic engineering of foodBrief "News Headlines" summarizing the news in a few lines along with more extensive texts."Problems with Genetically Engineered Food", covering the dramatic events during 1999.Translations of the DeclarationTo
you who care about the future of the worldYou
can distribute our E-mail campaign messageTranslations of the E.mail
messageYou
can sponsor our global campaign"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety
Problems"

 




Document Number: 7148 
Genetically Engineered (GE) Foods
  We suggest you read the list before looking into "More".Animals have become seriously ill or Hazardous genes from GE foods can become inserted An unexpected poison in a GE food supplement . The poison was not discovered because careful search for unexpected harmful substances was not made.Unexpected dangerous substances may be present in GE foodsthe procedure for assessing the safety of GE foods is not designed to detect them. Most of soy and corn products in the US and Canada are GE and labeling is not required there. Organic products are reliably GE-free.  Top researchers confirm that the results of genetic engineering are unpredictableScientists are being harassed if they tell the truth about GMO hazards. Research on GMO hazards is being suppressed and negative research reports have been destroyed. Scientist who say GMO-foods are safe are not seldom lying out of fear of becoming unemployed and unable to get any new research job. Read the alarming stories.These are just a few of the alarming facts about GMO foods. For more, With best-selling author Jeffrey SmithThis is a revealing video interview about the corruption of FDA and dishonest science that made it possible to launch GMOs in spite of warnings of FDAs own scientists. It also covers major hazards including concrete examples of severe damage from GMOs. We recommend Jeffrey M Smith's books: American doctors warn: Avoid Genetically Modifed FoodThe American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM)"Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. 
"The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."1 million Europeans petitioning against GMOsTo the President of the European Commission Jos Manuel Barroso:"We call on you to put a moratorium on the introduction of GM crops into Europe and set up an independent, ethical, scientific body to research the impact of GM crops and determine regulation."Genetic engineering caused a major disasterWarning for disinformation at the internet. Corporations systematically misuse the  internet for confusing people about issues and organizations that threaten their interests. Genetically Engineered (GE) = Genetically Modified (GM) = Genetically Altered.
GMO= Genetically Modified Organisms = Genetically Engineered Organisms.GE foods are often a little incorrectly called GMO foods (should be GM foods).What foods are genetically engineered?Many common foods are, including: Corn, Soy, Wheat, Canola, Tomato
, Potato
, Rice
, Cantaloupe
, Sugar beet - (all kinds of sugar)
, Radicchio
, Flax (linseed)
, Papaya
, Squash
, Oilseed rape, Alfalfa.
All of these, and products made of them, including common , may contain unexpected harmful substances.in the US, the GE foods are not labeled if you want to skip the intro belowIn order to make it easy for you to rapidly get a good idea about the issue, we have created an introduction in steps with increasing amounts of detail at each step.Our main conclusions at a glanceCommercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences. The knowledge about the genes and how they work is too incomplete to make it possible to predict and understand all consequences of genetic engineering.The knowledge about the health safety of GE foods is seriously incomplete.The knowledge about the environmental safety of GE organisms is seriously incomplete.It has been scientifically established that unexpected effects can occur from genetic engineering that are hazardous to health and the surroundings.Science has established that there is no need for GE organisms for feeding the world or solving nutritional deficiency problems. perpetuates environmentally unsustainable industrial agriculture. It is based on chemicals of various kinds that are demonstratedly harmful to health and to the environment.
On the following pages you will find more details explaining our position.Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of 
Science and Technology (PSRAST)

 




Document Number: 3444 
An excellent revewiev of the hazards of genetic engineering and the political collusion and obfuscation of facts that enabled this unsafe technology to be commercialized.Reveals the sinister reasons why the genetically engineered foods, not needed for feeding mankind, have been launched in spite of serious safety deficiencies and highly incomplete knowledge of its environmental consequeces. This is an exciting and creative political thriller, which focuses on the negative effects of genetically engineered foods. It is written by a competent physician and White House insider.Below you find some of the most important news in recent years.New campaign against GE foods in EuropeGM foods and crops were virtually excluded from the European Union in the 1990s by scientific objections and consumer concerns. But now they are once again being strongly promoted in Europe by the biotechnology industry, putting our health and environment at risk. This has inspired the launching of the BanGMOfood campaign. They have produced some excellent information materials, see . We welcome this campaign, because the EU-commission has shown a worrisome trend towards increasing lenience to the biotech industry in spite of the strong evidence about the hazards of GMO foods. Recent research proves - gene technology is inherently unsafeGene technology is based on the belief that genes are carriers of single traits. So it was believed that you can transfer traits by transferring single genes. But in June 2007 a worldwide consensus was reached among leading scientists that this is definitely wrong. 

The effects of every gene is determined by the total situation in the cell. When genes are transferred to a foreign environment, their effects is therefore inevitably unpredictable. Unexpected substances may appear, which may be harmful.

A very important consequence of this conclusion is that the present method for assessing the safety of GE foods is highly insufficient. It is not designed for detecting unexpected harmful substances.  All GE foods on the market have to be withdrawn for this reason.37 persons killed and 1500 permanently disabled by a highly poisonous substanceNew evidence indicate that genetic engineering was the cause After eating a food supplement produced by genetically engineered bacteria, 37 persons were killed 1500 people were permanently disabled  in the US in a disease called eosonophil myalgia syndrome (EMS). It was caused by one or more extremely poisonous substances that unexpectdedly appeared in this food supplement. The biotech lobby maintained that reduced filtration of impurities was the cause. But new evidence found by the american attorney William Crist proves that many fell ill before the reduction of filtration.Our analysis, against the background of the new evidence, concludes that it is extremely unlikely that anything else than genetic engineering caused the appearance of the poison.This accident confirms the predictions of molecular biologists that GE can cause the appearance of dangerous unexpected substances. This has occurred also in other instances.This unexpected poison would not have been discovered even if the present methods for safety assessment of GE foods had been used.This means that all GE foods on the market are unsafe. It is only a matter of time before another lethal unexpected poison appears in a GE food. Organic farming could feed the worldNo need for genetic engineering and industrial agricultureA study in the University of Michigan has found that organic farming can yield at least as much as industrial agriculture and may even yield 80% more. The lead author of the study, Professor Ivette Perfecto said:"The idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is ridiculous.

Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companiesall have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food, she said."GE food agriculture for feeding the world increases the risk for mass starvationTwo important factors that increase the risk for world hunger if GE foods are used to a large extent have so far not been considered in the debate:1. GE crops are likely to fail due to the extreme weather caused by Global warmingExperience shows that GE crops are generally significantly more delicate than conventional crops. Reports of GE crops failures and disturbances in productivity are common.
This increased sensitivity increases the risk for GE crop failures due to the extreme weather conditions caused by Global Warming. 2. Imminent oil shortage predicted to bring about hunger crisisRecently an increasing number of experts have been warning that oil and gas shortage may occur much earlier than believed so far, perhaps even within a few years.GE foods are prodcuced using large scale, agricultural food production which is heavily dependent on oil. With oil shortage it will collapse.Even if Food Biotechnology had been safe in every way, for this reason alone it is a dangerous way to go. This is especially so as the Biotech Corporation now are rapidly expanding the use of industrial heavily oil dependent GE-food production in the world. When oil shortage comes, it will expose millions, if not hundreds of millions to hunger and death from starvation.Cows ate GE maize and died - the same gene as in GE maize for humansTwelve dairy cows died in Hesse, Germany after being fed Syngenta's Bt 176 GE maize; and other cows had to be slaughtered due to mysterious illnesses. A chief suspect for the death of the cows is the toxic Bt protein contained in the Bt 176 Maize. Syngenta says that the same toxic protein is found in Bt 11-Maize intended for human foodStudies conducted in Japan in 2003 clearly showed that undigested Bt toxin is present in calf stomach, intestine and dung after being fed Bt 11 maize; and these results have been replicated in further experiments in pigs. This supports the suspiscion that it was the Bt-toxin that killed the cows.The fact that Syngenta has not withdrawn its Bt-Maize in spite of this indicates a serious lack of responsibility. It indicates that it is dangerous to let the biotech corporations make the safety assessment of their products (as is the practice today, see "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods") and not independent institutes.Source: Greenpeace Germany, Henning Strodthoff and Christoph Then, December 2003, quoted in Over 50% of newborn rats died within 3 weeks when mothers were fed with GE soya the offspring of rats, fed with RoundUp Ready Soy died in the the first three weeks of life. This was six times as many as with normal diet. Of those who survived, six times many  as those eating normal diet, had underweight.
"The morphology and biochemical structures of rats are very similar to those of humans, and this makes the results very disturbing" according to the scientists who did the research.
Virus genes from GE foods can end up among your own genes
Genes (DNA) from the cells, including the meat, of chicken who had eaten only genetically engineered Bt corn contained pieces of DNA from this food. This DNA contains virus genes that are suspected to be cancerogenic or otherwise pathogenic. This means that if you eat GE foods, virus genes that may be harmful, can end up in your cellsLiver changes were found in mice fed on Genetically Engineered Soy Beans. Ultramicroscopic study revealed significant changes in the cell nucleus.
This abnormality in the liver cells indicates that GE foods may cause serious disturbances in cellular function that may affect health.Mass death of Sheep from grazing GE cotton fieldAt least 1 820 sheep were reported dead after grazing on post-harvest Bt cotton crops; the symptoms and post-mortem findings strongly suggest they died from severe toxicity.


This was uncovered in a preliminary investigation conducted by civil society organisations in just four villages in India. The actual problem is likely to be much greater.
This is the second instance of GE-plants killing animals feeding upon it. In both this case, and that of cows killed as described above, the plants were genetically manipulated with a gene producing the insect toxin of Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt).
The sheep suffered severe blackish diarrhoea. A study has found that Bt-toxin in GM potatoes can cause inflammation of the intestines (Fares NH and El-Sayed AK. Natural Toxins:1998: 6: 219-33. JC & MWH).   This could explain the diarrhoea in the sheep. 
The serious thing about this is that the same toxin-producing gene is found in some GE-foods intended for human consumption, including GE-maize (for example Syngenta Bt11 Maize) and GE-potatoes (recently offered to Russia).Considerable increase of gastrointestinal disorders in the USThere has been a great increase of gastrointestinal disorders of unknown origin in the US between 1994 when GE foods were introduced. In Sweden, where no GE foods are allowed as food, there has been no significant change during the same period.

Several mechanisms could contribute. 

One is the use of Bt Maize and other GE foods containing the Bt toxin which is harmful to the intestines(see also the story above about Sheep killed when grazing Bt GE cotton fields).

Another possibility is a certain DNA sequence in GE foods, the socalled CpG sequence, that causes inflammation.
GE soy may cause long time allergy problems. The inserted gene in the soy contains an allergenic sequence common to shrimps protein. It is suspected that it may cause persistent allergy problems because it is taken up by intestinal bacteria who can continue producing the allergenic protein. 

In the UK there was a 50% increase of GE soy allergy after the introduction of Monsantos RR soy. The connection could not be definitely proven, considering the mentioned allergen in RR soy, scientists find it likely that it was the cause.
GE Maize approved as human food caused harmful effects in mice livers and kidneys.The research on NK603 maize from Monsanto was independently assessed by the independent french research institute CRIIGEN. In a report, released in June 2007, they pointed out that there were 60 significant differences between rats that were fed the GE maize and those fed normal maize (all for 90 days). The first group showed differences in their kidney, brain, heart and liver measurements, as well as significant weight differences. CRIIGEN concluded that the results indicate a negative effect of the maize and called for more research.  
Experimental and anecdotal evidence shows that animals seek to avoid GE food and do not thrive if forced to consume such food. In a study, the mortality rate was twice as high among the chickens eating GE maize as compared with those fed commercial non-GE hybrid maize.An anonymous scientist reported: "Generally, the reports are concerned with Bt maize. Many farmers feed maize to their cattle just as it grows, without mixing in other feedstuffs. Typical reports are that the farmer buys a new shipment of maize, which his cattle either refuse to eat or eat with reduced consumption. Upon making enquiries, he discovers that the maize is a genetically modified variety. When he replaces it with a non-modified maize, the cattle start eating again. There have been dozens of such reports over the last two years."GE crops causing agricultural crisis in ArgentinaArgentina has suffered an environmental crisis with 'superweeds' overrunning the countryside and farmers reporting health problems, experts warn.Since 1997, genetically-modified soya has been planted over almost half the country's arable land. Now farmers are having to use more and more herbicides to control the resistant weeds, damaging the soil's fertility for generations.A study, detailed in the respected journal New Scientist, has found that over-use of weedkillers is rendering the soil 'inert' - and directly affecting human health. FDA suppressed report on harmful effects of GE foodThe safety of the first GE product intended for human food, the GE-tomato Flavrsavr, was studied very extensively and the result was used as a showcase of the safety of GE food. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of USA stated that the "proven safety of FlavrSavr" demonstrated that GE-foods in general are safe, and decided consequently not to demand as rigorous safety examinations for other GE-foods. In stead a very liberal procedure based on the principle of "substantial equivalence" was established, which did not require any careful testing of toxic or other harmful substances.

This decision was completely unscientific, as it is a well established fact that every case of genetic engineering has unique effects, so it is not justified to draw a general conclusion from a special case.
several years later it was discovered that, in one of the "safety showcase" reports, it was found that the GE-tomato Flavrsavr caused lesions in the stomachs of miceHowever, this finding was suppressed by FDAIt was also discovered that, prior to FDA's decision to allow GE foods to be used as human food, FDA's own scientific experts expressed serious concerns concerning the safety of GE foods. They warned that genetic engineering is different than traditional breeding techniques and may have different risks.  
The liberal safety assessment procedure established by FDA in 1994 has been applied on all GE foods in the market today and it is still applied in spite of extensive and serious critisism from a large number of scientific experts. Leading Scientist sacked after presidential interventionDr Arpad Pusztai, a world renowned nutrition expert, expressed doubts about the safety of GE foods on BBC TV "World In Action broadcast" in August 1998. Because he was a leading expert, this was a great sensation. So Pusztai's critisim was aired all over the world.
But a few days later again, all over the world, the story was aired that he was an old man (68) who had confused his results, making wrong conclusions. This was however a lie. Now it has been revealed that Blair was forced by President Clinton to sack him and to create a suitable excuse to disregard Pusztais opinion.GE patents invalid - the beginning of the end of genetic engineering35 groups of world leading experts have arrived at a consensus that demolishes the very basis of Gene technology - the belief that genes are carried of isolated traits. 

Extensive research has definitely established that the one-gene-one-trait theory is wrong. Genes are not carriers of isolated traitsThis makes patenting of genes impossible and existing patents will be challenged, shattering the economic basis of gene technology.Non-Target effects underscore the hazardous unpredictability of genetic engineeringNon-target effects are effects of genetic engineering that occur along with the specifially "desired effect", for example the production of Bt-toxin. They are totally unpredictable, are little understood and may occur anywhere in the organism and may have completely unforeseeable consequences to the organism and the environment. 


These effects are very well documented but have got little attention. The Nature Institute in New York has recently unveiled a website dedicated to a Non-target effects. Their conclusion is that for this reason only, genetic enginering is inherently unsafe. They write "Once it [the target effect phenomenon] is known, the frequently heard claim that genetic manipulation of organisms is a "precise science" without dramatic risks will either be voiced no more or will be recognized as dishonestUnderstanding the Nontarget Effects of Genetic Manipulation. at the Nature Institute website These are only a few selected news items among the increasing number of disquieting facts presented at this website.  

Physicians and Scientists for ResponsibleApplication of Science and Technology"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 1734 
"Up to now, living organisms have evolved very slowly, and new forms have had plenty of time to settle in. Now whole proteins will be transposed overnight into wholly new associations, with consequences no one can foretell, either for the host organism, or their neighbors.... ..going ahead in this direction may be not only unwise, but dange- rous. Potentially, it could breed new animal and plant diseases, new sources of cancer, novel epidemics." in Medicine 1967. Higgins Professor of Biology, Harvard University.
(From: 'The Case Against Genetic Engineering' by George Wald, in The Recombinatnt DNA Debate, Jackson and Stich, eds. P. 127-128. ;Reprinted from The Sciences, Sept./Oct. 1976 issue) , which is exactly the same as The latter term was invented by PR firms when it was realized that genetic engineering underscored the fact that the plants were artifcially manipulated. The idea was to create a term that would create less suspicion and doubts among consumers. We use GE because we find it unjustified to support the attempts of PR firms to manipulate the public to believe that genetic engineering is just a harmless modification of food organisms.To get an idea of the site as a whole, you can do the Basic background knowledge about GEA brief and simple introduction to genetics and genetic engineering. 
 - An exellent pedagogical text about genes and genetic engineering for children with nice comic strip illustrations. Also a grown up who forgot most about genes and biology would enjoy it and get a comfortable introduction.

"The cell - a miracle of cooperation"  Gives an idea of how cells work and how little science know about how DNA regulates it.

 with a brief introduction to chromsomes and DNA pedagogical introduction to chromosomes and DNAKnowledge of the hereditary substance, DNA, is very limitedThe function of only 3 percent of DNA is known. Is there sufficient scientific knowledge to ensure safe commercial exploitation of genetically engineered foods?
 A review of the deficiencies of present knowledge.
Independent Scientists Panel (ISP) refutes genetic engineering.
A panel of independent scientists , including members of PSRAST, has made a very comprehensive scientific document evaluating all the safety problems of genetic engineering in an impartial way. An excellent scientific reference document. Published in June 2003.

Brief summary of facts about GE foodsThe Promise of Plant Biotechnology - The Threat of Genetically Modified Organisms A good summary of the increasingly difficult situation of GE food biotechnology.


"Given the serious problems that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) said may occur as
thousands of new genetically modified foods are introduced into
the U.S. food supply without labels, naturally one wonders about
liability insurance for the biotech industry."

"Misleading arguments commonly used by biotech advocatesMessage to investors in Biotechnology. For you who wonder if biotech is a good investment.What to believe about Genetically Engineered Foods?. Four articles giving a good idea of the issue (in Rachel's Environmental and health news January-March 2001).

Why this rapid increase of genetically engineered foods?Expansion without scientific justification Is it progress to exploit Genetically Engineered food?Progress of scientific knowledge is one thing. Its application is another thing that requires careful safety investigation. The theoretical basis of Genetic Engineering was created over 20 years ago. The present understanding of genetics is different in important respects... A general overview of the problems with GE, especially concerning deficient regulatory procedures, revealing a/o the fallacy of the (pesudo)scientific risk assessments that paved way for regulatory approval of releases. A fresh weekly journal article giving a comprehensive picture of the GE issue (May 1999). NOTE: There is an error in the article: It says that PSRAST is a Swedish organization. This is not the case, - it is a 
http://www.thelancet.com/newlancet/sub/issues/vol354no9187/menu_NOD4.html
Genetically Altering The World's FoodA review of the situation in Febr. 1999Splicing Away Regulations Down on the Animal Pharm.An illuminating review of the history and potential future hazards. Published in "The Nation": :http://www.thenation.com/issue/960311/0311wrig.htmGenetically engineered food - Panacea or Pandora's Box?Genetically engineered food - a serious health risk.Do the Genes Justify the Means?Can genetic engineering produce crops that increase food production?The most common argument for genetic engineering of foods is unsubstantiated. Open letter to governments demanding withdrawal of GE foods (2000)1997 State of the World Forum StatementIt proposes a moratorium on commercial releases of genetically engineered products and a comprehensive public enquiry into the legitimate and safe uses of genetic engineering. on the dangers of Genetic Engineering3. Statements by PSRAST on Genetically Engineered FoodOur letter to the Brazilian Government. Demanding a withdrawal of GE foods from the market. Signed by over 140 physicians and scientists. "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 1606 
"Potentially disastrous effects may come from undetected harmful substances in Genetically Modified Foods."
, vice chairman of European Commission scientific committee on animal nutrition. Since long before this statement he has been known as an advocate for food biotechnology.(Daily Mail, UK, 13 Sept 1999). See also "The fact is, it is virtually impossible to even conceive of a testing procedure to assess the health effects of genetically engineered foods when introduced into the food chain, nor is there any valid nutritional or public interest reason for their introduction.microbiologist, medical doctor, and
Professor of Food Safety at Leeds University, famous for his prediction of the dangers of "Mad cow disease" more than seven years ago. Recently he has spoken out strongly against the introduction of genetically engineered foods, because of 'the essentially unlimited health risks'Why unpredictable substances
may appear An introduction along with a text by The Safety of Genetically Engineered FoodsAn interdisciplinary report by ten scientists edited by Dr Jaan Suurkula.The reasons why hazardous substances may be createdNo safety assessment methods are fully reliableInadequate safety assessment of GE foodsThe GE foods on the market have not been reliably tested for safety.The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster - new evidence - New evidence makes it hihgly that genetic engineering caused this tragic accident killing 37 and permanently disabling 1.500 people.Summary of the GE tryptophan catastrophe A summary about the serious accident associated with the use of genetically engineered bacteria for tryptophan manufacture. Plant-Pesticide toxins in GE-foodPesticide resistance genes are popular subjects for genetic engineering of crops. They code for substances that it may be hazardous to ingest.. The inserted gene in the soy may cause long time allergy problems because it is taken up by intestinal bacteria who can continue producing it. Also the promoter associated with the gene can migrate into the bacteria and into your body. The promoter can cause different health problems.
. Liver changes were found in mice fed with GE foods.


  The fate of food genes and the DNA CpG motif and its impact
GE foods contain genetic elements from bacteria. These may be taken up by our bodies.  Cummins warns that they may lead to promotion of inflammation, arthritis and lymphoma (a malignant blood disease).

Immunological reactions to DNA and RNA This article warns for the possibility that fragments of transgenic DNA might provoke chronic allergic or autoimmune disorders including such that cause serious disabling or even lethal disease.

DNA from GM maize found in chicken tissues and in cow milk. All GE foods contain  potentially problematic DNA from the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus that is suspected to constitute a health hazard. These studies indicate that such virus DNA may enter our tissues if we eat GE food.

Research Indicates that Ingested Virus Genes may be taken up by Body Cells The famous studies of the German professor Walter Doerfler has repeatedly demonstrated virus uptake into different tissues.
"Transgenic DNA in Animal Feed" The main conclusions are that DNA is not degraded under most commercial processing conditions.  Current animal feed is likely to contain substantial amounts of undegraded DNA. Components of transgenic DNA may have significant health impacts on livestock and human beings up the food chain.



Horizontal transfer of viral and bacteria DNA facilitated by GE organisms?A
press release about a report presenting important reasons to suspect that
genetically engineered genes may have contributed to the recent appearance
of serious infectious diseases. "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety
Problems"

 




Document Number: 3054 
"Our current knowledge does not provide us
with the means to predict the ecological long-term effects of releasing
organisms into the environment. So it is beyond the competence of the scientific system to answer such a question..."Contracted by STOA (Scientific
and Technological Options Assessment) of the European Parliament. Report
on the release of Genetically Modified Organisms to the European Parliament,Adobe
Acrobat Reader that can be downoaded hereComment on the
EU policy concerning release of GE organismsThe number of possibilities how the release of Genetically Engineered organisms into the environment may upset the ecology is very large. The possible complications are extremely difficult to evaluate. With few exceptions, governments all over the world are allowing the release of GE organisms into nature without requiring careful scientific investigation of the environmental consequences. with the environment with unknown and unpredictable consequences, especially as the released genes cannot be recalled.ESA Statement on Genetically Modified Organisms. The Ecological Society of America represents 7,800 ecological scientists. This statement briefly summarizes potential hazards. In practice it rejects the present approval policy in the U.S., and most other countries, that does not require a careful scrutiny of environmental consequences. Quote:



"... some GMOs can possess genuinely new characteristics that may require greater scrutiny than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. Since long-term ecological impacts of GMOs may be extremely difficult to predict or study prior to commercialization, ESA strongly recommends a cautious approach to releasing GMOs into the environment."

"Is there sufficient knowledge about environmental effects to justify release of GE organisms?""The Environmental Risks of Transgenic Crops: an Agroecological Assessment""Transgenic Crops: An Environmental Assessment" 
An extensive examination by an interdisciplinary team of scientists, prepared by the Henry A. Wallace Center, January 10, 2001.

 By Michelle Marvier. American Scientist, March-April 2001.

Excerpt
from "Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment
of transgenic organisms" by professor Philip RegalPotential environmental risks and hazards of biotechnology, William.M Muir Ph.D. Professor. Breeding and Genetics at Purdue University. He concludes that "The increase in transgene frequency suggests a high risk for spread of the transgenic organism, i.e., the transgene will eventually become fixed".(so called horizontal transfer.) Horizontal transfer of viral and bacteria DNA facilitated by GE organisms?Recent Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho at the Institute of Science in Society reviews recent research confirming her predictions.

Transgenic Transgression of Species Integrity and Species BoundariesThe problem of Antibiotic marker
genes Antibiotic resistance
genes and bacterial resistance to antibioticsBacteria
with Kanamycin resistance genes crossresistant to valuable antibioticsObservations
indicating that antibiotic gene markers may contribute to increased bacterial
resistance to antibioticsNew Scientific Findings confirming that antibiotic markers may be hazardous to healthHazards from inserted virus genesThe Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter - a hazard in GE plants"Cauliflower Mosaic Viral Promoter - A recipe for Disaster?" a scientific article by Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, Joe Cummins
Press release about the article in non-technical language.. This article summarizes recent research showing that the CaMV promoter gene has an unstable region a "recombination hotspot" that greatly increases the risk for generation of new viruses. It is maintained that the promoter may also increase the risk for cancer.
Rebuttals by the authors of critisism of the article:"Risks of Virus Resistant Transgenic Crops"  Mae-Wan Ho, Angela Ryan, Joe Cummins. March 2000. Updates the most recent knowledge. "The available evidence clearly indicates that there are serious potential hazards associated with the use of the CaMV promoter. All GM crops and products containing the CaMV promoter should therefore be withdrawn both from commercial use and from field trials unless and until they can be shown to be safe." For a comprehensive overview of the CaMV problems, see
"Risks Associated with the Use of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus Promoter in Trangenic Crops". Published at the website of NLP Wessex.
"New corn viruses of unclear origin" Two new corn viruses have been discovered in the US. Their origin has not been elucidated. It is discussed whether they may have been generated in GE crops."..... At a meeting in Washington DC last week [Aug 1997], the US Department of Agriculture outlined possible restrictions aimed at reducing the risk of creating harmful new plant viruses .....These include a possible limit on the length of genetic sequences introduced into crop plants and the banning of genes that make functional proteins. The department is also worried about particularly high-risk sequences, such as those that trigger the process of viral replication." [The CaMV DNA in GE crops is such a high risk sequence. It is still widely used in GE crops covering a large part of American fields. /The editor.][The suggested restrictions have not since been implemented to the best of our knowledge. /The editor] New Scientist magazine, 16 August 1997: "Field of genes: They have the biotechnology, but it may be running out of control, and the US is starting to worry" ".......The area of concern specific to viral transgenes [in GM crops] is the potential risks on any interactions between the viral or virus-related sequences being expressed from the transgene and another virus superinfecting that plant. Three main scenarios are usually considered: synergism, recombination and heteroencapsidation..... It is generally considered that recombination plays an important role in the evolution of RNA viruses (see refs. 2023). Evidence is now forthcoming of recombination between superinfecting viral RNA and RNA expressed from a transgene (24) through the aberrant homologous recombination mechanism. ...... It is difficult to devise detailed protocols for the detection of recombinants produced in the field..... There are several examples of heteroencapsidation in transgenic plants, both between viruses of the same group (27,28), and between unrelated virusesDetection of Risks Associated with Coat Protein Transgenics',
Dale et al, Methods in Molecular Biology: Plant Virology Protocols: from Virus Isolation to Transgenic Resistance. New Jersey, Humana Press Inc. 81, 574-555, (1998)
"Sustainability and Ag Biotech". A review of the analysis of agricultural economist Charles Benbrook resulting in the conclusion that GE agriculture brings US agriculture even further away from sustainability than it has been so far.Organic Farming Will Feed the World. Astonishingly, it's more productive than high-tech agriculture


An explanation for the non-scientist of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants. Includes a discussion of potential hazards.Biotechnology and Pest Control: Quick Fix vs. Sustainable ControlVitamin A enhanced GE crops: potential problems. There are potential problems with such vitamin enhancement.
Potential effects on soil fertilityDNA can survive for thousands of years in the soil, head of the department of Zoology at Oxford University, UK. In April 2003, he published a report about this reserach in the journal "The ability of DNA to persist in soils for so long was completely underestimated . . . and illustrates how little we know," and "a great deal more research is needed before we could predict the effect of releasing GE plants...It raises serious issues about the release of altered genes into the environment, such as how long are they going to last, and where will they be able to disperse to."

"Fears raised over DNA survival in soil".  Dominion Post (Wellington); April 25, 2003, quoted by GMWatch.Genetically Engineered Crops - a Threat to Soil Fertility? . A hypothesis, that if found true, would mean that in the worst case irreparable damage to soil ecology might occur due to altered soil microorganisms. A popularized summary of the scientific article with the same name:

"Genetically Engineered Crops -  A Threat to Soil Fertility?""we find that it is unjustifiable to continue the culture of any transgenic crops until it has been established experimentally beyond reasonable doubt that the proposed mechanism may not result in disturbances of soil ecology. "Soil Effects of Transgenic Agriculture: Biological Processes and Ecological Consequences. Soil scientists Neil Macgregor and Max Turner are "...concerned about the unevaluated effects of these technologies and the possible long-term residual effects on essential soil biological processes"
"Genetically Engineered Crops and Soil Fertility". An explanation for laymen how GE crops might damage soil fertility.GE crops with Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) genes suspected to harm soil ecology The Bt toxin is present in every part of a GE plant with Bt genes. It will enter the soil at the decomposition of plant parts not harvested. The toxin was found to persist in the soil and could do harm to important soil micro-organisms. If so, fertility problems may ensue in a significant part of American soils.

  Damaged soil ecology from GE-related herbicide. ISIS Press Release 30/11/03. Roundup (Glyphosate) is the herbicide used along with crops that have been genetically engineered to tolerate it. This herbicide has been found to cause an increase of patogenic fungi in the soil.



Scientists have revealed an increased colonization of the roots of Round-up Ready (RR) soya with the harmful fungus Fusarium. At the same time, large scale cropping with herbicide-tolerant cultivars was found to increase soil-borne plant pathogens; Brazilian soils likewise showed increased microbial activity for several seasons when glyphosate was used. There is clear evidence that repeated glyphosate applications over several seasons increases soil-borne pathogens.New potentially dangerous microorganism found on GM plants. Professor Don Huber at Purdue university has discovered a new microorganism that may be harmful to humans, animals as well as plants. In animals it is associted with decreased fertility and spontaneous abortions. Huber found a connection between the microorganism and GM-plansts where it is found in high concentration in GM animal feed while it is absent or in very low concentrations in non-GM feed.
Based on the scientific evidence currently accumulating, I do not believe it is in the best interests of the agricultural producer or consuming public for regulatory agencies to approve more GMO crops, particularly Roundup Ready alfalfa and sugar beets, until independent research can establish their productivity when predisposed to potentially severe diseases, the irrelevance of the new EM organism, their nutritional equivalency, and their safety. 

The GM pesticide Roundup linked to several plant diseases. Professor Don Huber at Purdue university has noted a conscpicous connection tetween a number of plant diseases and the use of Roundup. The more years Roundup has been used, the more of plant diseases appear. Below wheat after 1 year of Roundup,  and the same crop after 10 years:
Harmful plant health effects of glyphosate (Roundup). This pesticide is the most commonly used one in connection with GM-crops (that have been genetically engineered to be resistant to it).
(Edited excerpt) Extensive research has shown that this potent tool for weed management, glyphosate, is also a strong immobilizer (chelator) of essential plant nutrients to impair nutrient uptake, translocation, and physiological efficiency at only a fraction of the labeled herbicidal rate.
..Glyphosate is a powerful biocide to harm beneficial soil organisms important for nutrient recycling, N-fixation, nutrient availability, and natural disease control with a resultant increase in diseases of corn, soybeans, wheat and other crops. These effects of glyphosate can have deleterious effects on plant nutrition, disease susceptibility, and nutritional quality of the crop Genetically Engineered Crops Damage Wildlife by Jeffrey Smith. A 90% decrease of some farmland bird species has occurredin the UK. A connection with GMO cultivation is suspected as the GM-related pesticides eliminate the plants on which the birds feed. Also other ecological disturbances are mentioned.GE crops may generate new and harmful viruses There is a risk that certain kinds of virus gene parts in GE crops may give rise to new viruses. These may be more infectious and damaging than naturally existing viruses. As such virus genes are present in every cell of practically all kinds of GE crops, their numbers are staggering. Therefore this risk cannot be neglected.

"Gene transfer from GE rapeseed to bacteria and fungi in guts of honey bees". Genes from GE pollen eaten by bees have been found in the bacteria of the bees. A group of scientists warns that such transfer of GE genes to bacteria may have problematic consequences. Such spread of GE genes is completely uncontrollable.

Superweeds
- a problematic complication Genetically
Engineered Crops May Threaten Beneficial Insects Transgenic pollen containing pesticidal GE genes found to harm Monarch butterfly larvaeHerbicide-Resistant Crops-Another GE Threat to Monarchs?GM crops harmful to beneficial insects.Pesiticidal potatoes found to harm ladybirds that contribute importantly to control insect pests.Corn refuge spreads dominant Bt mutants. Research indicates that the "GE free refuge policy" to keep down the development of insects resistant to Br toxin is likely to be ineffective.

Pollen flow from engineered crops-problems for growers.  Spread of pollen from GE Canola fields cause problems to growers in neighboring fieldsSpray drift from Herbicides causes significant losses. The powerful herbicides used in conjunction with herbicide resistant GE crops has caused considerable losses in surrounding non-resistant crops.
For more on ecological problems, see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/enivironmentalproblems.htm
Argentina GM-soya project problematic
"Argentina faces big agronomic problems that it has neither the resources nor the expertise to solve. The country has adopted GM technology more rapidly and more radically than any other country in the world. It didn't take proper safeguards to manage resistance and to protect the fertility of its soils. Based on the current use of [GM] Roundup Ready, I don't think its agriculture is sustainable for more than another couple of years."
US consultant Dr Charles Benbrook, former Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on AgricultureUS Department of Agriculture (USDA) finds GMO crops "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."USDA Report Exposes GM Crop
Economics MythGM Crops Increase Pesticide Use. ISIS Press Release 11/12/03.

A new report from Dr. Charles Benbrook, concludes that the 550 million acres of GM corn, soybeans and cotton planted in the US since 1996 has increased pesticide use (herbicides and insecticides) by about 50 million brittish pounds. Benbrook is a respected agricultural economist and has been the Executive Director of the US National Academy of Sciences Board on Agriculture. "For years weed scientists have warned that heavy reliance on herbicide tolerant crops would trigger ecological changes in farm fields that would incrementally erode the technologys effectiveness. It now appears that this process began in 2001 in the United States in the case of herbicide tolerant crops," said Benbrook.""Monsanto's Roundup-Ready Soy Beans Cracking Up". These widely marketed have been found to crack up in soil temperatures over 40 degrees Celcius (104 F). The stems splitted and opened up to infection. This has caused Soya study concludes that gene insertion reduces yields. This research demonstated that reduced crop yields were specifically caused by genetic engineering.

  Glyphosate Efficacy is Slipping and Unstable Transgene. Dr. Charles M. Benbrook. "RR soybeans clearly require more herbicides than conventional soybeans, despite claims to the contrary." In addition, "There is voluminous and clear evidence that RR soybean cultivars produce 5 percent to 10 percent fewer bushels per acre in contrast to otherwise identical conventional varieties".

  , India. Issue 11, May-June, 2003.




"Reports are pouring in from different parts of the country of a "failed" or "unsatisfactory" harvest of the first commercial transgenic Bt cotton crop. The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture has asked the Centre to re-evaluate the economic viability of Bt cotton. The Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) of the Ministry of Environment and Forests has rejected the use of MECH 915 Bt cotton seeds in Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan."


Genetically Engineered Roundup Ready Soy crops less profitable than conventionally bred varietesA scientific report  based on over 8000 university-based field studies finds lower yields and increased use of herbicide compared to conventionally bred soy.Study Questions Widespread Use of Bt Corn. A study published in the May 2001 Journal, BioScience, questions the widespread use of Bt corn, saying it has not reduced pesticide use or significantly increased yields.

Joel
Bleifuss. More on disappointing results with Biotech crops.For more on yield problems, see http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/yieldproblems.htm
For more information about agricultural problems, we recommend:
"Will GM crops deliver benefits to farmers?" A website with links to numerous articles about agricultural problems with GE crops.
"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 7542 
"The recent expansion of international trade
agreements to include intellectual property rights threatens the sustainability
of local ecosystems, the rights of indigenous peoples, the ability of nations
to provide food security, and protection of the global environment."
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy___________________________________Globalization of Biotechnological Agriculture
and the world hunger problemThird World reactions to globalization attemptsPatenting of life paves the way for
global application biotechnologyThe strongest argument to make governments accept Genetically
Engneered food has been that it will provide crops that increase food production.
This appears to be a scientifically unsubstantiated myth. A recent scientific
report even shows that world hunger is not at all due to food scarcity
but is caused by increasing poverty in developing countries ().
In addition it has not yet been proven that any really valuable crop that
would increase food productivity can be developed with gene technology
(see article on difficulites with GE
think "it will destroy the diversity, the local knowledge and the
sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers have developed for millennia
and that it will thus undermine our capacity to feed ourselves." In addition, global agriculture based on biotechnology
is expected to cause important socioeconomic changes wich increased poverty
as such farming requires good finances. Thereby and by destroying traditions
of sustainable agriculture, it might even lead to increased world hunger
(see Globalization of Biotechnological
Agriculture and the world hunger problemThe
Vancouver Statement On the Globalization
and Industrialization of Agriculture: "Reducing farming to a monocultural, synthetic, transnational
corporate business threatens the health, nourishment, right livelihood,
and spirituality of communities and the earth. It is insane to believe
that we must poison land and water and waste the soil in order to feed
and clothe ourselves. Five decades of the so-called Green Revolution have
not only led to the destruction and contamination of water, soil, biodiversity,
and human communities, but exacerbated hunger worldwide"It
is a myth that world hunger is due to scarcity of foodIncreased
food production is not the solution according to Peter Rosset, director
of the Institute for Food and Development Policy in California. Haven't We Been Here Before? The Green Revolution (5 kB). (Cornerhouse). The green revolution was the breakthrough for industrial agriculture in the Third World. Although it undoubtedly increased food production, it singularly failed to address the problem of world hunger. This is part of the next paper on this list.
Food? Health? Hope?: Genetic Engineering and World Hunger (NOTE: 213 kB). Cornerhouse Briefing. Very comprehensive and informative. Addresses the problems with industrial agriculture including biotechnology from a broad perspective with special reference to world hunger.Can
genetic engineering produce crops that increase food production?
Due to limitations in the technology it is not possible to insert multiple
genes which would be required in order to promote increased food productivity.
There are no indications that successful such manipulations will be possible
in the foreseeable future.Third World reactions to globalization
attemptsIndians
resists genetically engineered cropsA
nationwide network of Indian groups demands a ban on all genetic engineering
trials, a change of the Biosafety regulations to ensure people's participation
in decisions about genetic engineering and a five year moratorium on all
commercial releases and total ban on import of genetic engineered foods
and crops .African
Scientists Condemn Monsanto Latest Tactics and Call for European Support"We do not believe that such companies or gene
technologies will help our farmers to produce the food that is needed in
the 21st century. On the contrary, we think it will destroy the diversity,
the local knowledge and the sustainable agricultural systems that our farmers
have developed for millennia and that it will thus undermine our capacity
to feed ourselves."Biotechnology
from a third world perspectiveTerminator Technology - a potential threat to third world agricultureConcerns about the impact the terminator will have on poor farmers have led the United Nations-funded Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research to recommend that its sixteen member institutes ban the technology in their crop improvement research programs. Covertly, crops using the the highly problematic terminator technology have been released in the US and UK. These crops pose important risks in addition to those of non-terminator GE crops.


An explanation for the non-scientist of a remarkable patent for killing second generation seeds of crop plants. Includes a discussion of potential hazards.Patenting of life paves the way
for global application biotechnologyProblems with the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
agreements The IPR agreements are international agreements that deal
mainly with the right to patent living organisms, which causes many problematic
complications.Consequences
of the EU patent directive.Comprehensive
information by the GAIA foundation that gives an idea of the problems following
from patenting of life based on the IPR agreements.IPR
from a Third World perspective An article
by Dr Vandana ShivaThe links below have been copied from "Introduction
and index to Intellectual
Property Rights (IPR) info sheets" from the Institute for Agriculture
and Trade Policy" and contains selected links to materials at that
website. The
Impact of Intellectual Property Rights on Biodiversityby Kristin Dawkins, Michelle Thom and Carolyn Carr
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy
To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info1@iatp.orgPirates
of Diversity: The Global Threat to the Earth's Seedsby Karen Lehman, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy(July
1994)
To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info3@iatp.orgPatenting
Of Life and Its Implications For Indigenous Peoplesby Debra Harry, Northern Paiute Nation, Nevada(January 1995)
To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info7@iatp.orgReleases
of Genetically Engineered Plants and Their Impacts on Less Developed CountriesIsabelle Meister and Dr. Sue Mayer, Greenpeace International(April
1995)
To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info9@iatp.orgPatent
Nonsense: On the Patenting of Lifeby Dr. Phil Bereano, Council for Responsible Genetics Washington
Biotechnology Action Council
To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info13@iatp.orgby Kristin Dawkins, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy

To receive a copy send email to: ipr-info14@iatp.org"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety
Problems"

 




Document Number: 8759 
"The predominant philosophy behind current regulation can be summarized by the 'No need - don't look - don't see' futile cycle .....this forms a self-reinforcing cycle, a motor for effectively passing with impunity any and every genetically engineered product to the public that the industry so wish. We repeat, the industry have been handed carte blanche to do as they please for maximum profitability, with the regulatory body acting to allay legitimate public fears and opposition." Biology Department, Open University, Milton Keynes, UK.
(Excerpt from Fatal Flaws in Food Safety Assessment)"Over the last fifteen years, I and other scientists have put the FDA on notice about the potential dangers of genetically engineered foods. Instead of responsible regulation we have seen bureaucratic bungling and obfuscation that have left public health and the environment at risk"professor at the University of Minnesota and an internationally recognized biosafety expert. Statement in conjunction with a Lawsuit Challenging FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods at 27 May 1998. See also professor Regal's website: http://biosci.umn.edu/~pregal/phil.htmlA summary of the most important points in this section:That genetically engineered foods are approved at all is  a result of the serious negligence, distortion and sometimes even suppression of evidence that took place when the rules were made. This may surprise you but there is objective evidence behind this statement. (Our principle is not to publish any allegations which cannot be backed up.)

The rules for safety assessments of GE foods were designed  with the purpose of making rapid approval possible. Weighty  scientific reasons for very careful testing have been ignored. The consequence is that none of the GE foods on the market can be considered safe. The approval of these foods is nothing less than blind mass-experimentation with peoples' health  (without even any of the  experimental  design which enables reliable conclusions to be drawn). We conclude that these foods should therefore be withdrawn from the market immediately, before people come to harm.Similarly, GE organisms have been released into the environment without adequate safety assessment. There is far too little knowledge about the environmental effects of GE organisms  for justifying any releases at all. So it cannot be excluded that, in the worst case, the releases might cause damage to soil and plants which can never be repaired. We conclude that all approvals for release should immediately be withdrawn.The GE industry has hired leading PR firms to make  people believe that the GE foods on the market are a boon to mankind. In reality they are of little, if any, benefit, and , they have not been proven to be safe. But the truth is coming out and becoming apparent to the public, resulting in well justified protests from farmers and consumers all over the world.Considerable deficiencies in safety regulations - an overview.The texts and the comments after the links are written so as to give you rapid general idea of the issues. If you are in a hurry, you will get an idea about the safety issues by only reading them throughout this page without clicking on the links.The internationally established method for assessing the safety of GE foods is based on the "principle of substantial equivalence". As you will learn below, this method is unscientific and unreliable. "The fact that this principle has become an internationally established norm is an unacceptable failure of the procedures for developing food safety regulations." This principle is an insufficient basis for safety assessment of food as it may allow harmful foods pass undetected. Foods approved in this way, cannot be considered safe. The GE foods on the market today have all "passed" this deficient approval procedure, which has been internationally accepted. This is remarkable as this principle is based on scientifically untenable assumptions. It has been developed by lawyers only in order to facilitate rapid approval procedures for GE-foods. The inadequacy of Substantial Equivalence for safety assessment Inadequate safety assessment of GE foodsThe approval of Roundup Ready GE-Soy - based on incomplete evidenceA case illustrating the inadequacy of the principle of Substantial Equivalence as applied in practice. "The Problem with the Safety of Roundup Ready Soybeans"
 by Judy Carman. More details about the deficient methods used in the assessment of Roundup Ready soybeans. - Methods that were accepted in the US and in EU as well as  most other countries a sufficient basis for approval! The scientific committee of the European Commission admits lacking safety of Genetically engineered foodsA recently discovered document of the Commission of the European Union verifies our position concerning the unreliability of present safety tests for GE foods.The Novel Food regulation of EU (based on substantial equivalence) jeopardizes the health of the consumersA critique of the European expert recommendations for safety assessment of GE foods in the European Union (EU). The failings of the principle of substantial equivalence in regulating transgenic foodsFatal Flaws in Food safety assessmentCritique of the Joint FAO/WHO Biotechnology and Food Safety Report. Serious weaknesses in the document underlying international regulatory policy in food safety assessment. Testing the safety of genetically engineered foodsExplains what procedures for safety assessment are required to minimize the hazards from unexpected harmful substances in GE foods. The suggested procedures are far more extensive and rigorous than those based on the principle of substantial equivalence as recommended by FAO, FDA and EU.  The fundamental difference between mating and genetic engineeringSafety assessment based on the principle of Substantial Equivalent builds on the assumption that genetic engineering and mating are essentially equivalent. The papers below explain why these methods are fundamentally different, invalidating the very basis of this safety assessment method.Genetic Engineering and Traditional Breeding Methods: A Technical Perspective.Michael Antoniou, Ph.D., Reader in Molecular Biology. Dr Antoniou explains thoroughly why these two methods are, as he writes, "worlds apart". The difference between mating and artificial gene insertionThe Difference Between Traditional Breeding Methods and Genetic Engineering.Michael Antoniou, Joe Cummins, John B Fagan, Mae-Wan Ho, Tore MidtvedtThe above collection of papers demonstrates, beyond the least shadow of any doubt, that the present method for GE food safety assessment has no valid scientific basis. It is too superficial and insensitive to detect the unexpected and potentially dangerous substances that may be generated through genetic engineering. 
The fact that this  pseudoscientific and inadequate approval procedure is accepted by national and international bodies, responsible for food safety, indicates that these don't work adequately, as explained below.Inadequate functioning of governmental bodiesWe expect governmental bodies to responsibly fulfil their duty to protect the public and environment. And we expect governmental experts to be reliable and impartial. Here we present some documented cases indicating that, apparently, industrial interests have flagrantly been favored on the expense of public and environmental safety by suppressing or distorting important scientific facts. New fully transparent procedures are required to ensure impartial assessment.How It Happened That We Don't Regulate Biotech by professor Donella Meadows. A revealing article about scientists systematicaly hiding the truth and lying about important discoveries of hazards due to genetic engineering. This paved the way for approval of genetic engineering without any demands on stringent safety evaluation.
Revolving Doors: Monsanto and the Regulators. From the Ecologist September -98 issue that was trashed by the printing office after threats from Monsanto. Explains how it was possible for GE foods to be approved in spite of insufficient scientific safety assessment. It reveals the close relation between Monsanto and the US government.

Landmark Lawsuit Challenges FDA Policy on Genetically Engineered Foods (May 1998)As USA is the leading country in this field, the decisions of FDA have influenced the decisions world-wide in this field. In this lawsuit this important regulatory body is accused of serious negligence. - "The FDA has placed the interest of a handful of biotechnology companies ahead of their responsibility to protect public health" according one of the plaintiffs..  FDA records support the lawsuit challenging its policy (June 1999) FDA records delivered to the court reveal the agency declared genetically engineered foods to be safe in the face of disagreement from its own experts--all the while claiming a broad scientific consensus supported its stance.200 Health Canada Scientists Speak Out. By Richard Wolfson. The scientists have signed a letter expressing concern about the erosion of safety standards at Health Canada, which is risking the health of Canadians. This includes the approval of GE foods foods for humans without extensive safety testing.
Flawed safety assessment of genetically engineered hormoneInadequate scientific basis for approval of GE (or recombinant) Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) for milk production by the American FDA. This authority concluded in 1993 that rBGH poses no safety problems to humans and animals. Fresh report from the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (Nov 1998), which concluded that there are safety problems from rBGH for animals. It resulted in a governmental decision not to allow the use of rBGH for milk production in Canada: see http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/english/archives/rbst/animals/Monsanto's Hormonal Milk Poses Serious Risks of Breast Cancer  Codex Alimentiarius decided to support rBGH moratorium. By professor Samuel Epstein. This ruling represents the first major blow against the GE industry. The article also summarizes the serious suppression of evidence by Monsanto and the neglectful handling of the case by FDA.
FDA regulation meant to promote rBGH milk resulted in antibiotic resistance. Interests of corporations promoted at the expense of public health.


. A five-point Emergency Response Plan has been formulated by the European Commission, designed to cope if genetically engineered plants result in widespread illness or the death of wildlife. So the European Commission consciously exposes the population of Europe and the ecology to unpredictable and potentially serious hazards in stead of prohibiting their use. The scientific committee of the European Commission admits Genetically engineered foods are not safe. A recently discovered document of the Commission of the European Union agrees with our opinion concerning the unreliability of present safety tests for GE foods. The Commission has obviously known that by approving GE foods, it is exposing the European public to unknown health hazards.Labeling of all GE-foods is necessary to minimize damage from unexpected substances until they are withdrawn from the market (which should be done as soon as possible). This is all the more important as the methods for safety assessment are highly inadequate. A science-based, precautionary approach to the labeling of genetically engineered foods.Codex Alimentarius and food labelingAbout the labeling situation in the international body that has a decisive influence on international labeling policy.. Risk assessment of ecological effectsCurrent knowledge of the long term ecological effects of release of GE organisms is highly insufficient. Therefore there is no scientific basis for judging the hazards from such releases. Faulty risk-analysis methodologyBy Dr Robert Mann. The risk-analysis commonly used to assess the hazards with GE releases is not scientifically tenable.
Scientific principles for ecologically based risk assessment of transgenic organisms, international authority on risk assessment. Scientific articleMetaphysics in genetic engineering: Cryptic philosophy and ideology in the "science" of risk assessment.Comment on the EU policy concerning release of GE organismsBased on a report on the release of Genetically Modified Organisms to the European Parliament by Dr Ren von Schomberg, Contracted by STOA (Scientific and Technological Options Assessment) of the European Parliament. Why safety evaluations may be unreliableWhat you have learnt above is certainly startling. How could it occur that highly deficient safety assessment methods were approved and established by regulatory bodies including FDA and the European Commission? How can enormous amounts of genetically engineered organisms be allowed to be irreversibly released into the environment without any reliable knowledge of their ecological effects?  In spite of knowledge indicating various potentially serious hazards. This situation is due to factors that disturb impartial assessment. Such factors are discussed in the articles in this section."..along with many other scientists and informed citizens, I have grown over the years to be extremely critical of the ways in which the power of biotechnology has been appropriated and developed, especially agricultural and environmental biotechnology. The scientific education of genetic engineers and regulators has been inadequate even to understand the technical challenges of biosafety, let alone to take appropriate precautions and conduct science-based testing. And, it has proved impossible to develop government regulatory programs that are truly science-based and not compromised by political pressures. This dismal situation necessarily leaves individual biotech projects suspect with regard to safety, whether or not any given project proves in fact to be dangerous." http://www.cbs.umn.edu/~pregal/biosafety.htmlPhilip Regal, Professor of Ecology, Evolution, and Behavior, College of Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota. - Towards a "pseudoscientfic world order"?  The successful launch of genetically engineered foods with the aid of a useless safety assessment principle endorsed by leading scientists in national and international expert committees is a very serious warning for us all. It may indicate that we are already on the way towards a "new pseudo-scientific world order" where the short term interests of powerful industrial corporations override global long term ecological and health safety considerations.
The Fallibility of Scientific AuthoritiesThere are a number of factors that may predispose scientific experts to partiality, including the fact that most of the reasearch in this field is supported, sponsored or directly controlled by the Biotechnology industry. In addition, Biotechnology has been made a national issue in some countries, including the USA, resulting in strong political pressures on scientists and regulatory bodies. There are striking similarities with another former "national issue" - Nuclear Energy. A massive majority of leading nuclear energy experts decided that nuclear energy was safe, ignoring and even ridiculizing importants doubts raised by a few corageous scientists and expert engineers who dared to think independently and act responsibly. It turned out that the leading experts were wrong.A general overview of the problems with GE, especially concerning deficient regulatory procedures, revealing a/o the fallacy of the (pesudo)scientific risk assessments that paved way for regulatory approval of releases. Also this article describes (though in greater detail than the one above), the striking and interesting parallells with the history of Nuclear Energy. World renowned scientist lost his job when he warned about GE foods - The Pusztai case This demonstrates that there is a danger of suppression of important facts when industry has a strong influence on science.

Are scientific experts always reliable?A scientific study in New England Journal of Medicine reports corruption of scientists. This is a problem when potentially dangerous products like GE-foods are to be assessed for safety. Procedures to ensure adequate safety assessmentThe Precautionary approach to the safety of new products.Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary PrincipleWhen an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. In this context the proponent of an activity, rather than the public, should bear the burden of proofToday, the opposite is the case for Genetic Engineering. "The uses of scientific uncertainty"This important article explains how the present practice to allow industry to release any product without demands for safety assessment has been a major reason for serious global environmental and health problems. And it presents principles for the application of the precautionary principle.

A suggested procedure for ensuring impartial and reliable safety assessment of commercial applications of scienceA fully transparent impartial evaluation of all possible complications to health and environment is required. The risks have to be carefully weighed against the advantages. The burden of proof of safety must lie entirely on the proponents. If the advantages are minor and the risks incompletely known and potentially serious, approval cannot be justified. "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 6561 
Alternatives to genetic engineering of foodProblems with industrial agricultureFood biotechnology is part of industrial agriculture. This form of farming, originally developed in Europe and America, has become predominant in a large part of the world since the "green revolution" when it was introduced in developing countries. Its "ideology" is to achieve effective productivity at large scale through the use of technological means including machines, chemical fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides. Indeed, it appeared more effective in the short run, but now increasing numbers of complications are reported.
The ground water in regions where industrial agriculture has become increasingly contaminated by the toxic chemicals. In some parts of the USA the drinking water contamination of pesticides is so high that children before the age of 10 have been exposed to the maxium allowable "life dose" of such chemicals. Thousands of farm workers contract chronic health problems or die from the chemicals every year.

The residues of these chemicals in the food may cause cancer and other health problems. Recent research indicates that the combination of different chemicals may enhanced the harmful effect. One study indicates that when two pesticides were combined, their harmful effect was ten times stronger than the effect of each one of them if used separately. As chemicals are mostly combined in farming, this means that the present "safe" levels in food may be considerably too high. In addition, not infrequently, the concentrations of these chemicals in food are above present "safe" levels.
The nitrogen and phoshpate used in fertilizers contaminate the ground water and pollutes rivers and the sea to a problematic extent.
Experts on agriculture and ecology are realizing that this system of agriculture is . This means that it causes accumulation of complications and harmful effects of various kinds that will ultimately make it impossible to continue with it. Already there are increasing signs of declining yields due to soil degradation in regions where this system has been used. And there are indications of harmful health effects of eating food containing these chemicals, see for example "Canadian docs call for total ban on pesticides""Pesticide exposure and your health"Industrial agriculture was launched without careful investigation of its environmental consequences, similarly to genetically engineered crops. Now that it has been clearly established that it is environmentally harmful and unsustainable, its continued use is not justifable considering that there are sustainable alternatives as explained below.
Agricultural economist Charles Benbrook has shown that biothechnological agriculture, using genetically engineered crops will bring US agriculture even further away from sustainability than it has been so far, see "Sustainability and Ag Biotech""Problems with industrial agriculture"Advantages with Sustainable AgricultureSustainable agriculture means, by definition, agriculture that does not deplete natural resources and does not use harmful, artificial substances that cumulate in the environment. Therefore, contrary to industrial agriculture, it can be applied indefinitely without harming the environment. It is the only kind of agriculture that is feasible in the long run. A common word for it is "organic farming"."Current research indicates that organic production levels can be similar to those from non-organic and that it should be possible further to improve production while simultaneously reducing environmental impact.- John Innes Centre, April 19, 2001Organic farming can feed the world, U-M study shows. University of Michigan. 10 July 2007.

In the third world, the yields can be as much as 80% better than that of industrial farming.The lead author of the study, Professor Ivette Perfecto said:The idea that people would go hungry if farming went organic is "ridiculous."
"Corporate interest in agriculture and the way agriculture research has been conducted in land grant institutions, with a lot of influence by the chemical companies and pesticide companies as well as fertilizer companiesall have been playing an important role in convincing the public that you need to have these inputs to produce food," she said."Organic Farming Will Feed the World. This article presents evidence that it is more productive than industrial "Hi-Tech" agriculture. This is a major blow to the main argument for genetic engineering of crops. By Professor George Monbiot.Can organic agriculture feed the world? Ten scientists analyse the value of organic farming.  They find that it has significant advantages to industrial agriculture which is unsustainable due to incremental environmental damage. Moreover it has ruined millions of third world farmers because of its dependence on costly fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. While providing as good or better yields, organic farming has no harmful environmental impact and does not demand costly external inputs making it ideal for poor farmers in developing countries.

"The benefits of organic farming systems are relevant both to developed nations (environmental protection, biodiversity enhancement, reduced energy use and CO emissions) and to developing countries (sustainable resource use, increased crop yields without over-reliance on costly external inputs, environmental and biodiversity protection)."

The sustainable approach to agriculture Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Sustainable Agriculture -- A New Vision. A vison of the possibilities. By UCS.
What is Sustainable Agriculture?
University of California Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program
"Sustainability and Ag Biotech". A condensate of the analysis of agricultural economist Charles Benbrook resulting in the conclusion that GE agriculture brings US agriculture even further away from sustainability than it has been so far.Links to some sustainable agriculture related sitesGenomics is the science of gene mapping. The technology has developed rapidly in recent years and has made it possible to make complete gene maps of organisms. It is expected to be of great value for breeding. In conventional breeding the search for best crossing partners is a tedious and very time consuming trial and error procedure. With genomics it is possible to select breeding partners on the basis of gene maps.  According experts on genomics, it can reduce the number of crossing trials very substantially. "Biotechnology to aid conventional wheat breeding is already attracting 10 to 20 times more effort than the genetic transformation [GE] of the crop", says US-based Tom Crosbie, Monsanto's global head of plant breeding. - "It's a numbers game and ultimately non-transformation biotech offers the greatest potential.""Biotech methods such as gene mapping and molecular markers will transform conventional breeding, effectively turning the lights on where breeders previously worked in the dark", Mr Crosbie adds. Farmers Weekly 25 February 2000 (recieved from Mark Griffiths, NLP-Wessex)Who Controls and Who Will Benefit from Plant Genomics?"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 9003 
How can PSRAST claim to be impartial having taken a position against GE food?How can PSRAST claim to be impartial not mentioning possible benefits of GE foods?I have been looking for scientific documentation about the hazards but have found very little - where is it?Do you think all GE foods are harmful?How dangerous is it to eat GE foods?What GE foods are on the market? (now found on a separate page)  having taken a position against GE food? we claim to be impartial only about the scientific evidence concerning GE foods.And we find that an impartial evaluation strongly speaks against the use of genetic engineering of foods. you can very well take a standpoint against something after an evaluation of facts. We have found that there is not enough knowledge to warrant safe release of GE organisms and safe use of GE foods, see "Is there sufficient scientific knowledge..." we don't claim to be impartial in the question whether it is OK to market products that may threaten the health of people and the environment. In this respect we are strongly partial in favor of safeguarding the health of people and the safety of the environment. We are strictly against any irresponsible commercial application of new technologies.   How can PSRAST claim to be impartial not mentioning possible benefits of GE foods? are of little or questionable benefit as you find in "Traits introduced into foods by genetic engineering". We find potential benefits of  irrelevant as long as it has not been established that this technology is safe. The biotech proponents have claimed many possible benefits. But there is much too little scientific knowledge today to be able to judge whether any and really valuable products will be possible to create  The possible benefits are, from an impartial standpoint, nothing more than unverified hypotheses that are completely irrelevant to the question whether present products should be approved Often media, trying to make an impartial presentation of the issue, have presented yet unrealized but great expectations of the biotech industry on one side and the potential hazards on the other. The expected benefits have much too often been presented as if they were granted and the hazards as "unproven". This has given the public a greatly distorted picture of the situation. Such treatment of the issue is definitely not impartial.Lofty visions of future benefits have had an unduly large influence on the debate and have unfortunately been a significant reason for political decisions supporting an approval, not seldom because it is believed that "the benefits justify taking some risk". The result is that unknown and potentially serious risks with public health and the environment are now being taken for the sake of unproven benefits. I have been looking for scientific documentation about the hazards but have found very little - where is it?As you will find from the article "Is there sufficient scientific knowledge...";  and its links, the problem with GE is the  of knowledge. But there is enough knowledge to say that the hazards are potentially serious and require careful investigation. The industry has in practice extensive control over the research done in applied gene technology. And it has not been supporting research that may yield results that are not of commercial interest. In addition governments spend very little money on research on the safety of GE products. For example in the leading GE country, USA ,the department of Agriculture (USDA), has year after year time been spending a very small part of its budget on safety issues (in year 2000 it was 4 percent of public agricultural research funding of biotechnology). This scarcity of knowledge is the reason why we find it irresponsible to release and use GE products today. Proponents are misusing this situation, saying that the technology is safe as "no evidence of serious environmental harm or harm for humans has been found". But absence of evidence is of course not evidence of absence of harmful effects. It would cost the industry many millions of dollars  of a new transgenic organism to rigorously prove its safety for health only (this figure comes from the drug industry that uses similar methods to assess the safety of a new drug). And it would probably cost as much or perhaps even more  to prove its long-term environmental safety in an exhaustive way. Do you think all GE foods are harmful?Nobody knows. No GE food has been exposed to rigorous safety testing which has to include long term testing in order to be reliable. The most problematic harmful effects that might arise are those that come from unexpected substances that are not acutely poisonous but slowly derange and damage some aspect of the physiology. The reason why they are problematic is that they may be difficult to detect. No research has been done to find out how many out of e.g. one hundred instances of genetic engineering, unexpected substances may appear. What seems to be quite certain is that unexpected substances will appear in some genetically engineered foods. The appearance of unexpected substances has been predicted for molecular biological reasons and there are experimental observations verifying this prediction. Nobody knows how likely it is for these substances to be harmful. But some cases have been discovered experimentally The present scarcity of knowledge might have serious consequences if it turns out that long- term harmful effects are common due to GE foods.The reason why this research has not been done, is that it would probably cost the industry many millions of dollars  of a new transgenic organism to rigorously prove its safety for health only. (This is the cost level in the drug industry that uses similar methods to assess the safety of a new drug - however the costs for reliable food testing will be considerably larger because testing is more difficult). This is the reason why the industry has been lobbying hard and unfortunately very successfully to make the governments accept very low demands on safety assessment. Their argument is that they consider it unnecessary as the foods used are "substantially equivalent" to their natural counterpart. However, this argument has no scientific validity, see "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods"So the approval of GE foods at a large scale today in spite of insufficient research and testing is nothing less than blind experimentation with the health of millions consumers."The safety of GE foods. Reasons to expect hazards and the risk for their appearance"How dangerous is it to eat GE foods?Nobody knows. As said in the answer above, science does not know how likely a GE food is to be harmful. And it is not known how harmful they may be.
But experiments have demonstrated that an unexpected substance may be generated by GE.
The unexpected substance may be produced normally in very small quantities in the metabolism. GE may cause a substantial increase as for example in the case of a yeast producing a  substance in quantities that are toxic and mutagenic Or the unexpected substance may normally neither be produced in the recipient nor in the donor organism. This was the case when a toxin appeared in a tobacco plant engineered to produce gamma-linoleic acid, see A very serious example is the "Showa Denko" GE-tryptophan produced by a bacterium with 4 genes inserted in order to increase productivity. In this case, the damage was severe to those consuming it (37 died and 1500 contracted a chronic painful disorder). Recent evidence has appeared that allowed us to conclude that GE was the cause with  great certainty, see "The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster"These are just a few examples. Theoretically there are many  possibilities for harmful substances to appear. The most problematic  ones are such that are slow-acting, so that an immediate connection with the food is not obvious.It is evident that unexpected harmful substances may appear and  that only rigorous food safety assessment can ensure that genetically engineered food are safe. None of the GE foods on the market have undergone such testing, so none of them are safe. The tryptophan disaster indicates that in the worst case the effects may be serious, but there is much too little knowledge to assess how great the risk is.What GE foods are on the market?This section has been moved to a "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"


 




Document Number: 6065 
What you can do about genetic engineering

We are happy that you have arrived at this page. We think it means that you are sharing our deep concerns about the dissemination of GE foods and other genetically engineered organisms. 



Recently the Biotech companies have greatly intensified their endeavour to disseminate their hazardous products all over the world. This must be stopped before irreparable environmental damage or another "" kind of disaster occurs. Already so much of GE genes have been dispersed that even organic foods in some areas have become polluted by GE genes. 
Recently (June 2007) a consensus was reached among leading scientists that definitely destroyed the one-gene-one-trait concept which is the very fundament of genetic engineering, see 
This confirms the correctness our conclusions from 1998 and underscores the importance of withdrawal of GE foods from the market and stoppping the release of all kinds of GE organisms into the environment.  

Your contributions as suggested below would be very valuable.
Alone, you cannot do very much. Only by cooperating all over the world can we be successful.  Therefore it is good to become organized. 

Hereby we invite you to become member of PSRAST. Membership is open to everybody, not only scientists and physicians. You will find the link to our membership registration at the bottom of every page, but please read on first. Sponsor PSRAST - even a few dollars make a differenceBecause of the huge number of visitors to our site (over 312.000 people during 2006), it is meaningful to spend even a even just a few dollars if you cannot afford more. Seldom can a few dollars do so much as they will have a worldwide impact, because our website is visited by people from over 
We have plans for a great improvement of the website including a great facelift of the design. In addition we will use different approaches to make our website even more known.  This is just part of what you will get for the money. The more we have the more effective will be our impact.

Recently we have established a cooperation with makes it very easy to sponsor us. Paying with Paypal is easier and more secure than with a credit card, so don't hesitate to do it. If you are not a member, it takes only a couple of minutes to register, and the service is for free. Here is the link to the page where you can make a donation: Tell all your contacts about us. Below  is an email template that you can use:Are you aware of the hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods (also called Genetically Modified Foods or GMO:s)? Do you know that it has been experimentally proven that GE foods can damage health and that they have even killed animals? Still these foods are on the market. Do you know that the foremost experts on genes in the world have recently admitted that science knows very little about genes and that scientists therefore cannot predict or imagine what will be the consequences of manipulating the genes of a food plant? Therefore unpredictable harmful substances may appear without their knowing it. And unexpected environmental disturbances may occur.Are you surprised? Or even sceptical about these statements? This may be because the Biotech corporations have spent many millions on misleading propaganda under the disguise of scientific and objective information, often supported by professors bought to advocate their interests. It has made many people wrongly believe that GE foods are good and safe.This is a really serious problem endangering our health and the environment. For more information I suggest you visit one of the world's most popular websites on this topic. It is popular because it is easy to understand and is an impartial evaluataion of the issue. It is the website of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST) at http://psrast.org. If you wonder if its worth doing, I suggest you also read "Why is the PSRAST website so popular?" at http://psrast.org/pop.htmPut a link to us at your websiteHere is the url for your convenience: . Or perhaps you want to enter this text for example:Learn about the hazards of Genetically Engineered foodsGenetically engineered foods are hazardous to your health and to the environmnent. Still they are spread all over the world. Read an excellent website, one of the most popular ones in the world in this field, that explains in a simple way, easy to read, why GE foods are dangerous and how it comes that they are being disseminated in spite of serious warnings  from scientific experts and alarming experimental findings including death of animals eating this food. It is the website of Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST), which you find at http://psrast.orgMention us in relevant blogs, newsgroups, forums, letters to the editor of newspapersMention us anywhere where it is relevant but not where it is unsuitable, because if you irritate people it will be counterproductive. Try to reach as many as possible. Thank you for your willingness to help.
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible Application of Science and Technology (PSRAST)Physicians and Scientists for ResponsibleApplication of Science and Technology"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 7561 
Physicians and Scientists for Responsible ApplicationBecause of spam problems, registration did not work well for quite some time, but now we have found a solution, so you are welcome to register again if we did not respond.You don't need to be a phycisican or scientistYou don't need to have any qualified knowledge of biotechnologyThe larger our number and the more internationally widespread we are, the greater our impact will be. Therefore, don't hesitate to join our network if you agree with our purpose as explained in . However modest your individual contribution may be, it will be important.To the membership registration form"Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"

 




Document Number: 5911 
Because of the huge number of visitors at our website, the number of mails requesting various kinds of information surpasses our capacity to reply to all.Our resources only allow us only to guarantee replies to mails from the following categories:Scientists and scientific organizations
  Non-governmental organizations
If you don't belong to these categories, you are still welcome to contact us, but we cannot guarantee that we will have time and resources to reply.

Please use the email address shown below. To prevent spam, the emailadress is an image, so you cannot copy it to text. For your convenience you can copy the letters below and replace .org in the middle:
If you wish to become a member, please go to the "Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"


 




Document Number: 2166 
Towards a World War III Scenario
Last three or four years have seen a number of books, documentaries and articles on the dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) seeds. Majority has focused on adverse health and environmental impact; almost none on the geo-politics of GM seeds, and particularly seeds as a . Engdahl has addressed this issue but the crop seed is one of the many "Seeds of Destruction" in this book. Engdahl carefully documents how the intellectual foundations of 'eugenics,' mass culling of the sick, coloured, and otherwise disposable races, were actually first established, and even legally approved, in the United States. Eugenics research was financially supported by the Rockefeller and other elite families and first tested on Jews under Nazi Germany. It is purely by chance that world's poorest nations also happen to be best endowed with natural resources. These regions are also the ones with growing population. The fear among European ruling families, increasingly, integrating with economic and military might of the United States, was that if the poor nations became developed, the abundant natural resources, especially oil, gas, and strategic minerals and metals, may become scarcer for the white population. That situation was unacceptable to the white ruling elite. The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming andthe agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, , Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines. The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people." How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae.He describes how the Rockefellers guided the US agriculture policy, used their powerful tax-free foundations worldwide to train an army of bright young scientists in hitherto unknown field of microbiology. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose. Through incremental strategic adjustments within a handful of chemical, food and seed corporations, ably supported by the key persons in key departments of the US Government, behemoths were created that could re-write the regulatory framework in nearly every country. And these seeds of destruction of carefully constructed regulatory framework- to protect the environment and human health- were sown back in the 1920s.Pause to think: a normal healthy person can at the most go without food for perhaps seven days but it takes a full season, say around four months, for a seed to grow into food crop. Just five agri-biz corporations, all US based (Cargill, , Archer Daniels, et al), control global grain trade, and just five control global trade in seeds. , Bayer, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals control genetically engineered seeds. While these powerful oligopolies were being knocked into place, anti-trust laws were diluted to exempt these firms. Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.' Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower." (page 143)The "Green Revolution" was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil and gas based agriculture inputs in which Rockefeller's had main interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. (See my notes, Box 1)It is true that initially Green Revolution technologies led to spurt in farm productivity but at a huge cost of destruction of farmlands, bio-diversity, poisoned aquifers and progressively poor health of the people and was the true agenda of 'the proponents of Green Revolution.'The real impetus came with the technological possibility of gene splicing and insertion of specific traits into unrelated species. Life forms could be altered. But until 1979, the US Government had steadfastly refused to grant patent on life form. That was changed [my comment: helped much by a favorable judgment in the US Supreme Court granting patent protection to oil eating bacteria developed by Dr Ananda Chakraborty]. Life forms could now be patented. To ensure that the world surrendered to the patent regime of the seeds corporations, the  was knocked into shape. How it conducted business was nobody's business, but it forced the world to accept intellectual property right of these corporations. There is opposition but these firms are too determined as Engdahl describes.Engdahl cites the example of a German farmer Gottfried Glockner's experience with GM corn. Glockner planted Bt176 event of Syngenta essentially as feed for his cows. Being a scientist, he started with 10% GM feed and gradually increased the proportion, carefully noting milk yield and any side effects. Nothing much happened in the first three years but when he increased the feed to 100% GM feed, his animals "were having gluey-white feaces and violent diarrhea" and "milk contained blood." Eventually all his seventy cows died. Prof Angelika Hilbeck of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found from Glockner's Bt 176 corn samples Bt toxins were present "in active form and extremely stable." The cows died of high dose of toxins. Not if, but when human food is 100% contaminated should be a sobering thought.In the US unlabelled GM foods were introduced in 1993 and that 70% of the supermarket foods contain GMOs in varying proportions in what should rightly be called world's largest biological experiment on humans. While Engdahl has clearly stated that the thrust of US Government and the agi-biz is control over food especially in the third world, he has left it to the readers to deduce that American and European citizens are also target of that grand agenda. And there are more lethal weapons in the arsenal: Terminator seeds, Traitor seeds, and the ability to destroy small independent farmers at will in any part of the world, and these are powerfully presented in the book. Engdahl provides hard evidences for these  and utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known.It is a complex but highly readable book. It is divided into five parts, each containing two to four short chapters. The first part deals with the political maneuverings to ensure support to Seed and Agri-biz firms, the second deals with what should be widely known as 'The Rockefeller Plan', the third deals with how vertically integrated giants were readied for Washington's silent wars on planet earth, the fourth part deals with how GM seeds were unleashed on unsuspecting farmers, and the final part deals with how the elites is going on destroying food, farmers that would eventually cause mass culling of population. He does not offer any solution; he can't because it is up to the rest of the world, including Europeans and Americans, to wake up and take on these criminals head on. An essential read for anyone who eats and thinks.The Hidden Agenda of Genetic ManipulationGlobal Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2SPECIAL ONLINE AND MAIL ORDER PRICEThis skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you control the people."This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms. The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace.F. William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order,What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)f you want to learn about the socio-political agenda --why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World-- you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria).Order Now: Online or Mail Orderplus s and h (incl. taxes where applicable)Arun  Shrivastava is a frequent contributor to Global Research.Global Research Articles by Arun  ShrivastavaPlease support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers.Your endorsement is greatly appreciatedSubscribe to the Global Research E-NewsletterSpread the word! Forward to a friend! The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not
 necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community 
internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. 
For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca  contains copyrighted material the use of which has not 
always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such 
material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an 
effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social 
issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational 
purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair 
use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.






Document Number: 236
Our main conclusions at a glance

Commercial application of genetical engineering for production of foods cannot be scientifically justified and carries with it unpredictable and potentially serious consequences. 

The reasons are as follows:

The knowledge about the genes and how they work is too incomplete to make it possible to predict and understand all consequences of genetic engineering. 
The knowledge about the health safety of GE foods is seriously incomplete.
The knowledge about the environmental safety of GE organisms is seriously incomplete.
It has been scientifically established that unexpected effects can occur from genetic engineering that are hazardous to health and the surroundings.
Science has established that there is no need for GE organisms for feeding the world or solving nutritional deficiency problems.
Food biotechnology perpetuates environmentally unsustainable industrial agriculture. It is based on chemicals of various kinds that are demonstratedly harmful to health and to the environment.
On the following pages you will find more details explaining our position.






Document Number: 6568
Part I: The threat
GM foods and crops were virtually excluded from the European Union in the 1990s by scientific objections and consumer concerns. But now they are once again being strongly promoted in Europe by the biotechnology industry, putting our health and environment at risk.
Scientists warnings proven correct
When GM crops and foods were first introduced in the 1990s, scientists raised concerns that genetic modification was imprecise and unpredictable. They warned:
GM could create foods that are toxic, allergenic and less nutritious than their non-GM counterparts
GM crops could damage vulnerable wild plant and animal populations and harm biodiversity
GM plants cannot be recalled, but as living organisms will multiply, passing any damaging traits from generation to generation
GM crops could cause irreversible changes to our food supply, with serious effects on the environment and human and animal health.
All these concerns have since been proven correct. European consumers are being exposed to the risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) without their knowledge or consent.
Stealth GMOs in animal feed
European Union (EU) regulations on GM crops and foods are the strictest in the world. They restrict cultivation of GM crops and insist that foods containing GM ingredients are labelled, so that consumers can avoid them if they wish.
However, there is a huge loophole in the EU regulation. Milk, eggs, and meat from animals fed GM feed do not have to be labelled.
The biotechnology industry is exploiting this loophole to push millions of tons of GM crops into the EU food supply, unnoticed by consumers. This is despite the fact that plentiful supplies of GM-free animal feed are available.
Should consumers be worried? A growing body of evidence says that they should. Scientific studies have found that stealth GMOs in the form of animal feed can affect the health of animals. Humans who eat the milk, eggs, and meat of these animals may also be affected. No one knows, as the studies have not been done.
Whats wrong with GM feed?
Health risks and ethical problems posed by GM animal feed include:
Milk and meat from GM-fed animals may be less wholesome. Laboratory studies show that GM feed can disturb animals body functions and make them sick (see Part II).
Anecdotal reports from some farmers suggest that animals fed GM crops can suffer ill effects. But these have not been followed up by detailed studies on farm animals.
GM DNA in feed is taken up by the animals organs. Small amounts of GM DNA appear in the milk and meat that people eat [1, 2, 3]. The effects on the health of the animals and the people who eat them have not been researched.
GM feed may create superbugs. GM feed can contain genes for antibiotic resistance that can be taken up by gut bacteria. These may then turn into superbugs  bacteria that cannot be controlled by antibiotics.
The use of GM animal feed is hidden from consumers. As products are not labelled, consumers have no way of knowing that they are eating milk, eggs and meat from GM-fed animals and that they are probably eating GM material in those products.
The use of GM feed raises animal welfare concerns because GM feed can harm the health of animals.
EU ignores risks
Despite these facts, the European Commission continues to approve GM crops for food and animal feed (more than 24 to date). The GM industry continues to lobby to change GM regulations in its favour.
What you can do
1. Write to supermarkets:
Tell them that you do not want to eat foods made with GM ingredients or derived from animals fed GM feed.
Thank them for continuing to use only non-GM ingredients in their products.
Ask them to stop allowing their suppliers of milk, eggs and meat to use GM feed.
Ask them at the very least to clearly label food products (milk, eggs, meat) derived from animals fed GM crops so that you can avoid them.
2. Write to your MP, MEP or political representative:
Tell them to require products from GM-fed animals to be labelled.
Tell them that a decade of experience shows that GM and non-GM/organic agriculture cannot co-exist and that they must do everything in their power to protect Europe from irreversible contamination with GMOs.
For supermarket and MP addresses and for details on what you can do, go to www.banGMfood.org
Part II: The science
1. GM is not just another natural method of plant breeding
GM proponents have always claimed that GM is just an extension of natural plant breeding. This is false.
Natural reproduction or breeding can only occur between closely related forms of life (e.g. cats with cats, NOT cats with dogs; wheat with wheat, NOT wheat with tomatoes or fish). In this way, the genes that offspring inherit from parents, which carry information for all parts of the body, are passed down the generations in an orderly way.
GM is totally different. It is a laboratory technique that re-programmes the plant with completely new properties by inserting artificial gene units into its DNA blueprint (plan). These artificial gene units are created by joining fragments of DNA, usually derived from multiple organisms including viruses, bacteria, plants and animals. For example, the GM gene in the herbicide resistant soya beans grown since 1996 is pieced together from a plant virus, a soil bacterium and a petunia plant.
The GM transformation process of plants is crude, imprecise and causes widespread mutations resulting in major changes to the plants DNA blueprint [4], unnaturally altering its functioning in unpredictable and potentially harmful ways [5]. As detailed below, adverse effects include poorer crop performance, toxic effects, allergic reactions, and damage to the environment.
2. GM foods have not been proven safe to eat
It is often claimed that people have been eating GM foods in the USA and elsewhere for ten years without ill effects and that this proves that the products are safe. But this claim is scientifically indefensible. GM foods are not labelled in the US and other nations where they are widely eaten and consumers are not monitored for health effects. Because of this, any health effects from a GM food would have to meet unusual conditions before they would be noticed. The health effects would have to:
occur immediately after eating a food that was known to be GM (in spite of its not being labelled). This kind of response is called acute toxicity.
cause symptoms that are completely different from common diseases. If GM foods caused a rise in common or slow-onset diseases like allergies or cancer, nobody would know what caused the rise.
be dramatic and obvious to the naked eye. Nobody examines our body tissues with a microscope for harm after eating a GM food. But just this type of examination is needed to give early warning of problems such as pre-cancerous changes.
To detect more subtle effects on health, or effects that take time to show up (chronic effects), long-term controlled studies on larger populations are required. But no such studies have been done.
Under these conditions, moderate or slow-onset health effects of GM foods could take decades to become known, just as it took decades for the damaging effects of trans-fats (another type of artificial food) to be recognized. Slow poison effects from trans-fats have caused millions of premature deaths across the world [6].
At present GM foods account for only a small part of the US diet (maize is less than 15% and soya bean products are less than 5%). This is another reason why any harmful effects of GM foods will be slow to surface and less obvious.
The biotech industry likes to claim that GM foods are the most tested foods in history. But GM foods are not properly tested for human safety before they are released for sale [7, 8]. The only published study directly testing the safety of a GM food on humans found potential problems9 but was never followed up.
Nevertheless, there are signs that all is not well with food in the USA. A report by the US Centers for Disease Control shows that food-related illnesses increased 2- to 10-fold in the years between 1994 (just before GM food was commercialised) and 1999 [10]. Is there a link with GM food? No one knows, because studies on humans have not been done.
Ben Miflin, former director of the Institute of Arable Crops at Rothamsted, UK, and a proponent GM crops... argues that, under current monitoring conditions, any unanticipated health impact of such foods would need to be a monumental disaster to be detectable [11].
3. Studies show harmful effects of GM foods on animals
Farm animals have been raised on GM feed for many years. Does this mean that GM feed is safe for animals and humans? Certainly it means that ill effects may not show up immediately. But laboratory studies designed to assess longer-term and more subtle health effects of GM feed on animals do show harmful health effects.
Mouse and rat feeding studies:
Rats fed GM tomatoes developed stomach ulcerations [12]
Offspring of rats fed GM soya had 4 times the death rate of rats fed non-GM soya [13]
Liver, pancreas and testes function was disturbed in mice fed GM soya [14, 15, 16]
GM peas caused allergic reactions in mice [17]
Rats fed GM oilseed rape developed enlarged livers, often a sign of toxicity [18]
GM potatoes fed to rats caused excessive growth of the lining of the gut similar to a pre-cancerous condition [8, 19]
Rats fed insecticide-producing GM maize grew more slowly, suffered problems with liver and kidney function, and showed higher levels of certain fats in their blood [20]
Rats fed GM insecticide-producing maize over three generations suffered damage to liver and kidneys and showed alterations in blood biochemistry [21]
Old and young mice fed with GM insecticide-producing maize showed a marked disturbance in immune system cell populations and in biochemical activity [22]
Mice fed GM insecticide-producing maize over four generations showed a buildup of abnormal structural changes in various organs (liver, spleen, pancreas), major changes in the pattern of gene function in the gut, reflecting disturbances in the chemistry of this organ system (e.g. in cholesterol production, protein production and breakdown) and, most significantly, reduced fertility [23]
Mice fed GM soya over their entire lifetime (24 months) showed more acute signs of ageing in their liver [24]
Rabbits fed GM soya showed enzyme function disturbances in kidney and heart [25].
Feeding studies with farm animals:
There are very few studies of this type that have looked directly at the long-term effects on farm animals. However, even these have shown problems:
GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract of sheep. This raises the possibility that antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes can move into gut bacteria [26], a process known as horizontal gene transfer. Horizontal gene transfer can lead to antibiotic resistant disease-causing bacteria (superbugs) and may lead to Bt insecticide being produced in the gut with potentially harmful consequences. For years, regulators and the biotech industry claimed that horizontal gene transfer would not occur with GM DNA, but this research challenges this claim
Sheep fed Bt insecticide-producing GM maize over three generations showed disturbances in the functioning of the digestive system of ewes and in the liver and pancreas of their lambs [27].
Do these animal feeding studies highlight potential health problems for people who eat GM foods?
Yes. Before food additives and new medicines can be tested on human subjects, they have to be tested on mice or rats. This is the scientifically established and generally accepted standard for safety testing. If toxic effects are found in these initial animal experiments, then the drug would most likely be disqualified for human use. Only if animal studies revealed no harmful effects, would the drug be further tested on human volunteers.
If animal tests with a drug were to yield results similar to those seen in the GM feeding studies, the drug would most likely be disqualified for further development. But these GM crops were approved as safe for human consumption. Clearly, the government is using far less rigorous standards for GM crops than for new medicines.
Based on the existing evidence, approvals of GM products for human and animal consumption should be revoked and their status re-evaluated.
4. GM foods are not more nutritious but can be toxic or allergenic
There are no commercially available GM foods with improved nutritional value. Currently available GM foods are no better and in some cases are less nutritious than natural foods. Examples include:
GM soya had 1214% lower amounts of cancer-fighting isoflavones than non-GM soya [28]
Oilseed rape engineered to have vitamin A in its oil had highly reduced vitamin E and altered oil-fat composition [29]
Human volunteers fed a single GM soya bean meal showed that GM DNA can survive processing and is detectable in the digestive tract. There was evidence of horizontal gene transfer to gut bacteria [9, 30]. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance and Bt insecticide genes from GM foods into gut bacteria is an extremely serious issue. This is because the modified gut bacteria could become resistant to antibiotics or become factories for Bt insecticide. While Bt in its natural form has been safely used for years as an insecticide in farming, Bt toxin genetically engineered into plant crops has been found to have potential ill health effects on laboratory animals [31, 32, 33]
In the late 1980s, a food supplement produced using GM bacteria was toxic [34], initially killing 37 Americans and making more than 5,000 others seriously ill.
Several experimental GM food products (not commercialised) were found to be harmful:
People allergic to Brazil nuts had allergic reactions to soya beans modified with a Brazil nut gene [35]
The GM process itself can cause harmful effects. GM potatoes caused toxic reactions in multiple organ systems [8, 19]. GM peas caused a 2-fold allergic reaction  the GM protein was allergenic and stimulated an allergic reaction to other food components [17]. This raises the question of whether GM foods cause an increase in allergies to other substances.
5. GM foods are not the answer to the world food crisis
The root cause of hunger is not a lack of food, but a lack of access to food. The poor have no money to buy food and increasingly, no land on which to grow it. Hunger is fundamentally a social, political, and economic problem, which GM technology cannot address.
Recent reports from the World Bank and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation have identified the biofuels boom as the main cause of the current food crisis [36, 37]. But GM crop producers and distributors continue to strongly promote the expansion of biofuels. This shows that their priority is to make a profit, not to feed the world.
GM companies focus on producing cash crops for animal feed and biofuels for affluent countries, not food for people.
GM crops contribute to the expansion of industrial agriculture and the decline of the small farmer around the world. This is a serious development as there is abundant evidence that small farms are more efficient than largeones, producing more crops per hectare of land [38, 39, 40, 41, 42].
The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry. Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, Hope for Africa lies in political reforms, The Independent (London), 8 September 2008
6. GM crops do not increase yield potential
At best, GM crops have performed no better than their non-GM counterparts, with GM soya beans giving consistently lower yields for over a decade [43]. Controlled comparative field trials of GM/non-GM soya suggest that 50% of the drop in yield is due to the genetic disruptive effect of the GM transformation process [44]. Similarly, field tests of Bt insecticide-producing maize hybrids showed that they took longer to reach maturity and produced up to 12% lower yields than their non-GM counterpart [45].
A US Department of Agriculture report confirms the poor yield performance of GM crops, saying, GE crops available for commercial use do not increase the yield potential of a variety. In fact, yield may even decrease.... Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of GE crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative [46].
The failure of GM to increase yield potential was emphasised in 2008 by the United Nations International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report [47]. This report on the future of farming, authored by 400 scientists and backed by 58 governments, concluded that GM is not likely to contribute significantly to increasing yield potential in the future.
7. GM crops will not counter the effects of climate change
Climate change brings sudden and extreme changes in weather. Our crop base needs to be flexible and diverse in order to adapt. GM technology offers just the opposite  a narrowing of crop diversity and an inflexible technology that requires years and millions in investment for each new variety.
GM companies have patented plant genes involved in tolerance to drought, heat, flooding, and salinity  but have not produced a single new crop with these properties. This is because these functions are highly complex and involve many different genes working together in a precise way. It is beyond existing GM technology to engineer crops with these sophisticated gene networks for improved tolerance traits.
Conventional natural cross-breeding, which works holistically, is much better adapted to achieving this aim, using the many varieties of virtually every common crop that tolerate drought, heat, flooding, and salinity (see section 10).
8. GM crops can harm the environment
Two kinds of GM crops dominate the marketplace:
Crops that resist broad-spectrum (kill-all) herbicides such as Roundup  claimed to enable farmers to spray herbicide less frequently to kill weeds but without killing the crop
Crops that produce the insecticide Bt toxin  claimed to reduce farmers need for chemical insecticide sprays. 
On this basis, GM proponents say GM crops will help the environment, but this claim does not stand up to analysis. On the contrary, growing GM crops has been found to harm the environment.
GM crops do not decrease herbicide use:
The most commonly grown herbicide-resistant GM crops are engineered to be resistant to Roundup. But the increasing use of Roundup has led to the appearance of numerous weeds resistant to this herbicide [48]. Roundup resistant weeds are now common and include pigweed [49], ryegrass [50], and marestail [51]. As a result, in the US, an initial drop in average herbicide use after GM crops were introduced has been followed by a large increase as farmers changed their farming practices and weeds developed resistance to herbicide [52, 53]. The appearance of resistant weeds has led to farmers being advised to use increasingly powerful mixtures of herbicides and not Roundup alone [54, 55].
"I stood side-by-side with a North Carolina [GM] grower looking at a field overrun with glyphosate-resistant weeds. He said that [glyphosate resistant] pigweed isn't his No. 1 problem; it's his No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 problems. It was at the point where he was determining whether or not that property could be used for farming. Chuck Foresman, manager of weed resistance strategies for Syngenta, Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008 [49]
A Canadian government study in 2001 showed that after just 4-5 years of commercial growing, herbicide-resistant GM oilseed rape (canola) had cross-pollinated to create superweeds resistant to up to three different broad-spectrum herbicides. These superweeds have become a serious problem for farmers both within [56, 57] and outside their fields [58].
In addition, GM oilseed rape has also been found to cross-pollinate with and pass on its herbicide resistant genes to related wild plants, for example, charlock and wild radish/turnip. This raises the possibility that these too may become superweeds and difficult for farmers to control [59]. The industrys response has been to recommend use of higher amounts and complex mixtures of herbicides [54, 55] and to start developing crops resistant to additional or multiple herbicides.
Insecticide-producing crops tie farmers to a chemical treadmill:
Bt insecticide-producing GM crops have led to resistance in pests, resulting in rising chemical applications [60, 61, 62].
In China and India, Bt cotton was initially effective in suppressing the boll weevil. But secondary pests, especially mirids and mealy bugs, that are highly resistant to Bt toxin, soon took its place. The farmers suffered massive crop losses and had to apply costly pesticides, wiping out their profit margins [63, 64, 65, 66].
Growing GM crops harms wildlife:
Farm-scale trials sponsored by the UK government showed that the growing of herbicide-resistant GM crops (sugar beet, oilseed rape) can reduce wildlife populations [67, 68].
Argentina  GM-led environmental and social disaster:
In Argentina, the massive conversion of agriculture to GM soya production has had disastrous effects on rural social and economic structures. It has damaged food security and caused a range of environmental problems, including the spread of herbicide-resistant weeds, soil depletion, and increased pests and diseases [69, 70].
GM crops harm non-target insects and organisms:
Bt insecticide-producing GM crops harm non-target insect populations, including butterflies [71, 72, 73] and beneficial pest predators [74]. Bt insecticide released from GM crops can be toxic to water life [75] and soil organisms [76].
9. GM and non-GM crops cannot co-exist in European agriculture
The biotech industry argues that European farmers should be able to choose to plant GM crops if they wish. It says GM and non-GM crops can peacefully co-exist. But the idea of choice is a myth. Experience in North America has shown that coexistence of GM and non-GM crops rapidly results in widespread contamination of non-GM crops. Contamination occurs through cross-pollination, spread of GM seed by farm machinery, and inadvertent mixing during storage. The entry of GM crops into a country removes all choice  everyone is gradually forced to grow GM crops or to have their non-GM crop contaminated.
Here are a few examples:
GM rice grown for only one year in field trials was found to have widely contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks [77]. Contaminated rice was found as far away as Africa, Europe, and Central America
In Canada, contamination from GM oilseed rape has made it virtually impossible to cultivate organic, non-GM oilseed rape [78]
US courts reversed the approval of GM alfalfa because it threatened the existence of non-GM alfalfa through cross-pollination [79]
Organic maize production in Spain has dropped significantly as the acreage of GM maize production has increased, because of cross-pollination problems [80]
In 2007 alone, there were 39 new instances of GM contamination in 23 countries, and 216 incidents have been reported since 2005 [81].
10. There are better alternatives to GM
Many authoritative sources, including the IAASTD report on the future of agriculture [47], have concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger and climate change, because better alternatives are available. These go by many names, including integrated pest management (IPM), organic, sustainable, low-input, non-chemical pest management (NPM) and agroecological farming, but extend beyond the boundaries of any particular category. Projects employing these sustainable strategies in the developing world have produced dramatic increases in yields and food security [82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87].
Strategies employed include:
Sustainable, low-input, energy-saving practices that conserve and build soil, conserve water, and enhance natural pest resistance and resilience in crops
Innovative farming methods that minimise or eliminate costly chemical pesticides and fertilizers
Use of thousands of traditional varieties of each major food crop, which are naturally adapted to stresses such as drought, heat, harsh weather conditions, flooding, salinity, poor soil, and pests and diseases [88]
Use of existing crops and their wild relatives in traditional breeding programmes to develop varieties with useful traits
Programmes that enable farmers to cooperatively preserve and improve traditional seeds
Use of beneficial and holistic aspects of modern biotechnology, such as Marker Assisted Selection (MAS), which uses the latest genetic knowledge to speed up traditional breeding [89]. Unlike GM technology, MAS can safely produce new varieties of crops with valuable, genetically complex properties such as enhanced nutrition, taste, yield potential, resistance to pests and diseases, and tolerance to drought, heat, salinity, and flooding [90].
Conclusion
From the beginning, industry and governments around the world have overstated the benefits of GM crops. They claimed that GM crops would:
benefit the environment by reducing use of herbicides and insecticides
help farmers
solve the food crisis
feed the hungry by increasing crop yields
produce more nutritious food.
Above all, they claimed that they were safe to eat and for the environment.
But an accumulating body of scientific evidence and on-the-ground experience with GM crops over the last ten years shows that this technology has failed to live up to any of these promises. On the contrary, GM crops have been scientifically proven to increase chemical inputs over the long term. They have been shown to deliver yields that are no better, and in some cases worse, than conventional varieties.
Most seriously, GM crops have been shown to pose risks to human and animal health and to cause social and environmental problems. With the availability of proven, energy-efficient and safe ways of meeting the current and future food needs of the world, GM crops are a waste of resources and a risk that is not worth taking.
If you want to print this article as a six-sided A4 leaflet that includes campaigning information on how to take action against GM foods, download a PDF. If you want to print this article as a six-sided A4 leaflet without the campaigning information, download a PDF.
References
(1) Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Agodi A. et al. Int J Hyg Environ Health, 209: 81-88, 2006.

(2) Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Mazza R. et al. Transgenic Res., 14: 775-784, 2005.

(3) Detection of Transgenic and Endogenous Plant DNA in Digesta and Tissues of Sheep and Pigs Fed Roundup Ready Canola Meal. Mazza R. et al. J Agric Food Chem. 54: 1699-1709, 2006.

(4) The Mutational Consequences of Plant Transformation. Latham J.R. et al. J Biomed Biotech. 2006, Article ID 25376, 1-7, 2006.

(5) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: Analysis and biosafety implications. Wilson A.K. et al. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 23: 209-234, 2006.

(6) Experts Weigh In: Will Trans Fat Bans Affect Obesity Trends? Meir Stampfer. DOC News, Volume 4 (Number 5): p. 1, 1 May 2007.

(7) Safety testing and regulation of genetically engineered foods. Freese W and Schubert D. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev., 21: 299-324, 2004.

(8) Pusztai A. and Bardocz S. GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks. In: Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals, eds. R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek and T. Zebrowska, Elsevier Limited, pp. 513-540, 2006.

(9) Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Netherwood T. et al. Nat Biotech., 22: 204-209, 2004.

(10) Food related illness and death in the United States. Mead P.S. et al. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 5: 607-625, 1999.

(11) Long-term effect of GM crops serves up food for thought. Nature, 398: 651-653, 1999.

(12) Food Safety  Contaminants and Toxins. Unpublished study reviewed in J.P.F. DMello, CABI Publishing, 2003.

(13) Genetically modified soya leads to the decrease of weight and high mortality rate of rat pups of the first generation. Ermakova I.V. EcosInform, 1: 4-9, 2006.

(14) Fine structural analysis of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on GM soybean. Malatesta M. et al. Eur J Histochem., 47: 385-388, 2003.

(15) Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Malatesta M et al. Cell Struct Funct., 27: 173-180, 2002.

(16) Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Vecchio L. et al. Eur J Histochem., 48: 448-454, 2004.

(17) Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. Prescott V.E. et al. J Agric Food Chem., 53: 9023-9030, 2005.

(18) Biotechnology Consultation Note to the File BNF No 00077. Office of Food Additive Safety, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, US Food and Drug Administration, 4 September 2002.

(19) Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. Ewen S.W. and Pusztai A. The Lancet, 354: 1353-1354, 1999.

(20) New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Sralini, G.-E. et al. Arch. Environ Contam Toxicol., 52: 596-602, 2007.

(21) A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Kilic A and Akay MT. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 46: 1164-1170, 2008.

(22) Intestinal and Peripheral Immune Response to MON810 Maize Ingestion in Weaning and Old Mice. Finamore A et al. J. Agric. Food Chem., 56: 11533-11539, 2008.

(23) Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Velimirov A et al. Bundesministerium fr Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008, Austria, 2008.

(24) A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Malatesta M. et al. Histochem Cell Biol., 130: 967-977, 2008.

(25) Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. R. Tudisco et al. Animal Science, 82: 193-199, 2006.

(26) Fate of genetically modified maize DNA in the oral cavity and rumen of sheep. Duggan P.S. et al. Br J Nutr., 89: 159-166, 2003.

(27) A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Trabalza-Marinucci M. et al. Livestock Science, 113: 178-190, 2008.

(28) Alterations in clinically important phytoestrogens in genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant soybeans. Lappe M.A. et al. J Med Food, 1: 241-245, 1999.

(29) Seed-specific overexpression of phytoene synthase: increase in carotenoids and other metabolic effects. Shewmaker CK et al. Plant J, 20: 401-412, 1999.

(30) The fate of transgenes in the human gut. Heritage J. Nat Biotech., 22: 170-172, 2004.

(31) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac Protoxin is a Potent Systemic and Mucosal Adjuvant. Vzquez RI et al. Scand J Immunol., 49: 578-584, 1999.

(32) Intragastric and intraperitoneal administration of Cry1Ac protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis induces systemic and mucosal antibody responses in mice. Vzquez-Padrn, RI et al. Life Sci., 64: 1897-1912, 1999.

(33) Cry1Ac Protoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis sp. kurstaki HD73 Binds to Surface Proteins in the Mouse Small Intestine. Vzquez-Padrn, RI et al. Biochem Biophys Res Comm.,271: 54-58, 2000.

(34) Eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome and tryptophan production: a cautionary tale. Mayeno A.N and Gleich G.J. Tibtech, 12: 346-352, 1994.

(35) Identification of a Brazil-nut allergen in transgenic soybeans. Nordlee J.E. et al. N England J Med., 334: 688-692, 1996.

(36) A Note on Rising Food Prices. Donald Mitchell. World Bank report, 2008.

(37) Soaring Food Prices: Facts, Perspectives, Impacts and Actions Required. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation conference and report, Rome, 3-5 June 2008.

(38) Small Is Beautiful: Evidence of Inverse Size Yield Relationship in Rural Turkey. nal, FG. The Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, October 2006, updated December 2008.

(39) Farm Size, Land Yields and the Agricultural Production function: An Analysis for Fifteen Developing Countries. Cornia, G. World Development, 13: 513-34, 1985.

(40) Rural market imperfections and the farm size-productivity relationship: Evidence from Pakistan. Heltberg, R. World Development 26: 1807-1826, 1998.

(41) Is there a future for small farms? Hazell, P. Agricultural Economics, 32: 93-101, 2005.

(42) Is Small Beautiful?: Farm Size, Productivity and Poverty in Asian Agriculture. Fan S and Chan-Kang C. Agricultural Economics, 32: 135-146, 2005.

(43) Evidence of the Magnitude and Consequences of the Roundup Ready Soybean Yield Drag from University-Based Varietal Trials in 1998. Benbrook C. Benbrook Consulting Services Sandpoint, Idaho. Ag BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper, Number 1, 13 Jul 1999.

(44) Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Elmore R.W. et al. Agronomy Journal, 93: 408-412, 2001.

(45) Development, yield, grain moisture and nitrogen uptake of Bt corn hybrids and their conventional near-isolines. Ma B.L. and Subedi K.D. Field Crops Research, 93: 199-211, 2005.

(46) The Adoption of Bioengineered Crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May 2002.

(47) International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD); Beintema, N. et al., 2008.

(48) Glyphosate-Resistant Weeds: Current Status and Future Outlook. Nandula V.K et al. Outlooks on Pest Management, August 2005: 183-187.

(49) Syngenta module helps manage glyphosate-resistant weeds. Delta Farm Press, 30 May 2008.

(50) Resistant ryegrass populations rise in Mississippi. Robinson R. Delta Farm Press, Oct 30, 2008.

(51) Glyphosate Resistant Horseweed (Marestail) Found in 9 More Indiana Counties. Johnson B and Vince Davis V. Pest & Crop, 13 May 2005.

(52) Genetically Engineered Crops and Pesticide Use in the United States: The First Nine Years. Benbrook CM.BioTech InfoNet Technical Paper Number 7, October 2004.

(53) Agricultural Pesticide Use in US Agriculture. Center for Food Safety, May 2008.

(54) A Little Burndown Madness. Nice G et al. Pest & Crop, 7 Mar 2008.

(55) To slow the spread of glyphosate resistant marestail, always apply with 2,4-D. Pest & Crop, issue 23, 2006.

(56) Genetically-modified superweeds "not uncommon". Randerson J. New Scientist, 05 February 2002.

(57) Elements of Precaution: Recommendations for the Regulation of Food Biotechnology in Canada. An Expert Panel Report on the Future of Food Biotechnology prepared by The Royal Society of Canada at the request of Health Canada Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Environment Canada, 2001.

(58) Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. Knispel AL et al. Weed Science, 56: 72-80, 2008.

(59) Do escaped transgenes persist in nature? The case of an herbicide resistance transgene in a weedy Brassica rapa population. Warwick SI et al. Molecular Ecology, 17: 1387-1395, 2008.

(60) First report of field resistance by the stem borer, Busseola fusca (Fuller) to Bt-transgenic maize. Rensburg J.B.J. S. Afr J Plant Soil., 24: 147-151,2007.

(61) Resistance of sugarcane borer to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. Huang F et al. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 124: 117-123, 2007.

(62) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Tabashnik BE et al. Nat Biotech., 26: 199-202, 2008.

(63) Transgenic cotton drives insect boom. Pearson H. NatureNews. Published online 25 July 2006.

(64) Bt-cotton and secondary pests. Wang S et al. Int. J. Biotechnology, 10: 113-121, 2008.

(65) India: Bt cotton devastated by secondary pests. Bhaskar Goswami. Grain, 01 Sept 2007.

(66) Bt cotton not pest resistant. Gur Kirpal Singh Ashk. The Times of India, 24 Aug 2007.

(67) Transgenic crops take another knock. Giles J. NatureNews, published online: 21 March 2005.

(68) Effects on weed and invertebrate abundance and diversity of herbicide management in genetically modified herbicide-tolerant winter-sown oilseed rape. Bohan DA et al. Proc R Soc B, 272: 463-474, 2005.

(69) Argentina's bitter harvest. Branford S. New Scientist, 17 April 2004.

(70) Rust, resistance, run down soils, and rising costs  Problems facing soybean producers in Argentina. Benbrook C.M. AgBioTech InfoNet, Technical Paper No 8, Jan 2005.

(71) Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae. Losey J.E. et al. Nature, 399: 214, 1999.

(72) Field deposition of Bt transgenic corn pollen: lethal effects on the monarch butterfly. Hansen L. C. and J. Obrycki J. Oecologia, 125: 241-245, 2000.

(73) The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilionidae). Lang A and Vojtech E. Basic and Applied Ecology, 7: 296-306, 2006.

(74) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on nontarget invertebrates. Marvier M. et al. Science, 316: 1475-1477, 2007.

(75) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Rosi-Marshall E.J. et al. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 104: 16204-16208, 2007.

(76) Impact of Bt Corn on Rhizospheric and Soil Eubacterial Communities and on Beneficial Mycorrhizal Symbiosis in Experimental Microcosms. M. Castaldini M. et al. Appl Environ Microbiol., 71: 6719-6729, 2005.

(77) Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace, 2007.

(78) Organic farmers seek Supreme Court hearing. Press release, Organic Agriculture Protection Fund Committee, Saskatoon, Canada, 1 August 2007.

(79) The United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Case 3:06-cv-01075-CRB Document 199 Filed 05/03/2007: Memorandum and Order Re: Permanent Injunction.

(80) Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Binimelis, R., Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 21: 437-457, 2008.

(81) Biotech companies fuel GM contamination spread. Greenpeace International, 29 February 2008.

(82) Applying Agroecology to Enhance the Productivity of Peasant Farming Systems in Latin America. Altieri M.A. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 197-217, 1999.

(83) More Productivity with Fewer External Inputs: Central American Case Studies of Agroecological Development and their Broader Implications. Bunch R. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 219-233, 1999.

(84) Can Sustainable Agriculture Feed Africa? New Evidence on Progress, Processes and Impacts. Pretty J. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 1: 253-274, 1999.

(85) Organic Agriculture and Food Security in Africa. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, United Nations Environment Programme, 2008.

(86) Ecologising rice-based systems in Bangladesh. Barzman M. & Das L. ILEIA Newsletter, 2: 16-17, 2000.

(87) Genetic diversity and disease control in rice. Zhu Y et al. Nature, 406: 718-722, 2000.

(88) Lost Crops of Africa, Vol.1: Grains. National Research Council (Washington DC, USA) Report, 1996.

(89) Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Collard BCY and Mackill DJ. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 557-572, 2008.

(90) Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Witcombe J.R. et al. Phil Trans R Soc B, 363: 703-716, 2008.






Document Number: 9882

10 reasons why we dont need GM foods			
Download as a PDF
If you want to print this article as an A4 leaflet, download a PDF.
Genetically modified (GM) foods are often promoted as a way to feed the world. But this is little short of a confidence trick. Far from needing more GM foods, there are urgent reasons why we need to ban them altogether.
1. GM foods wont solve the food crisis
A 2008 World Bank report concluded that increased biofuel production is the major cause of the increase in food prices.[1] Biofuels are crops grown for fuel rather than food. GM giant Monsanto has been at the heart of the lobbying for biofuels  while profiting enormously from the resulting food crisis and using it as a PR opportunity to promote GM foods!
The climate crisis was used to boost biofuels, helping to create the food crisis; and now the food crisis is being used to revive the fortunes of the GM industry.  Daniel Howden, Africa correspondent, The Independent (UK)[2]
The cynic in me thinks that theyre just using the current food crisis and the fuel crisis as a springboard to push GM crops back on to the public agenda. I understand why theyre doing it, but the danger is that if theyre making these claims about GM crops solving the problem of drought or feeding the world, thats bullshit.  Prof Denis Murphy, head of biotechnology, University of Glamorgan, Wales[3]
2. GM crops do not increase yield potential
Despite the promises, GM has not increased the yield potential of any commercialised crops.[4] In fact, studies show that the most widely grown GM crop, GM soya, has suffered reduced yields.[5]
A report that analyzed nearly two decades worth of peer reviewed research on the yield of the primary GM food/feed crops, soybeans and corn (maize), reveals that despite 20 years of research and 13 years of commercialization, genetic engineering has failed to significantly increase US crop yields. The author, former US EPA and US FDA biotech specialist Dr Gurian-Sherman, concludes that when it comes to yield, Traditional breeding outperforms genetic engineering hands down.[6]
Lets be clear. As of this year [2008], there are no commercialized GM crops that inherently increase yield. Similarly, there are no GM crops on the market that were engineered to resist drought, reduce fertilizer pollution or save soil. Not one.  Dr Doug Gurian-Sherman[7]
3. GM crops increase pesticide use
US government data shows that in the US, GM crops have produced an overall increase, not decrease, in pesticide use compared to conventional crops.[8]
The promise was that you could use less chemicals and produce a greater yield. But let me tell you none of this is true.  Bill Christison, President of the US National Family Farm Coalition[9]
4. There are better ways to feed the world
A major UN/World Bank-sponsored report compiled by 400 scientists and endorsed by 58 countries concluded that GM crops have little to offer global agriculture and the challenges of poverty, hunger, and climate change, because better alternatives are available. In particular, the report championed agroecological farming as the sustainable way forward for developing countries.[10]
5. Other farm technologies are more successful
Integrated Pest Management and other innovative low-input or organic methods of controlling pests and boosting yields have proven highly effective, particularly in the developing world.[11] Other plant breeding technologies, such as Marker Assisted Selection (non-GM genetic mapping), are widely expected to boost global agricultural productivity more effectively and safely than GM.[12] [13]
The quiet revolution is happening in gene mapping, helping us understand crops better. That is up and running and could have a far greater impact on agriculture [than GM].  Prof John Snape, head of the department of crop genetics, John Innes Centre[14]
6. GM foods have not been shown to be safe to eat
Genetic modification is a crude and imprecise way of incorporating foreign genetic material (e.g. from viruses, bacteria) into crops, with unpredictable consequences. The resulting GM foods have undergone little rigorous and no long-term safety testing. However, animal feeding tests have shown that GM foods have toxic effects, including abnormal changes in organs, immune system disturbances, accelerated ageing, and changes in gene expression.[15] Very few studies have been published on the direct effects on humans of eating a GM food. One such study found unexpected effects on gut bacteria, but was never followed up.[16]
It is claimed that Americans have eaten GM foods for years with no ill effects. But these foods are unlabeled in the US and no one has monitored the consequences. With other novel foods like trans fats, it has taken decades to realize that they have caused millions of premature deaths.[17]
We are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.  Dr Suzanne Wuerthele, US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) toxicologist
7. People don't want GM foods  so they're hidden in animal feed
As a spokesperson for Asgrow, a subsidiary of Monsanto, said, "If you put a label on genetically engineered food, you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."[18] The GM industry has got around the problem of consumer rejection of GM foods by hiding them in animal feed. Meat, eggs and dairy products from animals raised on the millions of tons of GM feed imported into Europe do not have to be labelled. Some studies show that contrary to GM and food industry claims, animals raised on GM feed ARE different from those raised on non-GM feed.[19]  Other studies show that if GM crops are fed to animals, GM material can appear in the resulting products[20] and affect the animals health.[21] So eating these stealth GMOs may affect the health of consumers.
8. GM crops are a long-term economic disaster for farmers
A 2009 report showed that GM seed prices in America have increased dramatically, compared to non-GM and organic seeds, cutting average farm incomes for US farmers growing GM crops. The report concluded, At the present time there is a massive disconnect between the sometimes lofty rhetoric from those championing biotechnology as the proven path toward global food security and what is actually happening on farms in the US that have grown dependent on GM seeds and are now dealing with the consequences.[22]
9. GM and non-GM cannot co-exist
GM contamination of conventional and organic food is increasing. An unapproved GM rice that was grown for only one year in field trials was found to have extensively contaminated the US rice supply and seed stocks.[23] In Canada, the organic oilseed rape industry has been destroyed by contamination from GM rape.[24] In Spain, a study found that GM maize has caused a drastic reduction in organic cultivations of this grain and is making their coexistence practically impossible.[25]
The time has come to choose between a GM-based, or a non-GM-based, world food supply.
If some people are allowed to choose to grow, sell and consume GM foods, soon nobody will be able to choose food, or a biosphere, free of GM. Its a one way choice, like the introduction of rabbits or cane toads to Australia; once its made, it cant be reversed.  Roger Levett, specialist in sustainable development[26]
10. We cant trust GM companies
The big biotech firms pushing their GM foods have a terrible history of toxic contamination and public deception.[27] GM is attractive to them because it gives them patents that allow monopoly control over the worlds food supply. They have taken to harassing and intimidating farmers for the crime of saving patented seed or stealing patented genes  even if those genes got into the farmers fields through accidental contamination by wind or insects.[28]
Farmers are being sued for having GMOs on their property that they did not buy, do not want, will not use and cannot sell.  Tom Wiley, North Dakota farmer[29]
References
1. Donald Mitchell, 2008. A Note on Rising Food Prices. World Bank. http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Environment/documents/2008/07/10/Biofuels.PDF
2. Daniel Howden, 2008. Hope for Africa lies in political reforms. The Independent, 8 September. http://www.independent.co.uk:80/opinion/commentators/daniel-howden-hope-for-africa-lies-in-political-reforms-922487.html
3. Rob Lyons, 2008. GM: its safe, but its not a saviour. Spiked Online, 7 July. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/5438/
4. Jorge Fernandez-Cornejo and William D. McBride, 2002. The adoption of bioengineered crops. US Department of Agriculture Report, May. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer810/aer810.pdf
5. R.W. Elmore et al., 2001.  Glyphosate-resistant soyabean cultivar yields compared with sister lines. Agronomy Journal 93, 2001: 408412.
6. Doug Gurian-Sherman, 2009. Failure to Yield: Evaluating the Performance of Genetically Engineered Crops. Union of Concerned Scientists. http://tiny.cc/eqZST
7. Doug Gurian-Sherman, 2008. Genetic engineering  A crop of hyperbole. The San Diego Union Tribune, 18 June. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080618/news_lz1e18gurian.html
8. Charles Benbrook, Ph.D., 2009. Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years. The Organic Center, November. http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=159
9. Bill Christison, 1998. Family Farmers Warn of Dangers of Genetically Engineered Crops. In Motion magazine, 29 July. http://www.inmotionmagazine.com/genet1.html
10. N. Beintema et al., 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD). http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713
11. N. Beintema et al., 2008. International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development: Global Summary for Decision Makers (IAASTD). http://www.agassessment.org/index.cfm?Page=IAASTD%20Reports&ItemID=2713
12. B.C.Y. Collard and D.J. Mackill, 2008. Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363: 557572.
13. J.R. Witcombe et al., 2008. Breeding for abiotic stresses for sustainable agriculture. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363: 703716.
14. John Snape, 2002. Gene mapping the friendly face of GM technology. Farmers Weekly, 1 March: 54.
15.  Memorandum to Linda Kahl on the Flavr Savr tomato (Pathology Review PR152; FDA Number FMF000526): Pathology Branch's evaluation of rats with stomach lesions from three four-week oral (gavage) toxicity studies (IRDC Study Nos. 677002, 677004, and 677005) and an Expert Panel's report. F.A. Hines. US Department of Health & Human Services, 1993.
 Witness Brief  Flavr Savr tomato study in Final Report (IIT Research Institute, Chicago, IL 60616 USA) cited by Dr Arpad Pusztai before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification: New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification, 2000.
 V.E. Prescott, P.M. Campbell, A. Moore, et al. 2005. Transgenic expression of bean alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas results in altered structure and immunogenicity. J Agric Food Chem 53: 90239030.
 M. Malatesta, M. Biggiogera, E. Manuali, M.B.L. Rocchi, B. Baldelli, G. Gazzanelli, 2003. Fine structural analyses of pancreatic acinar cell nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. European Journal of Histochemistry 47: 385388.
 M. Malatesta et al., 2002. Ultrastructural morphometrical and immunocytochemical analyses of hepatocyte nuclei from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Cell Struct Funct 27: 173-180
 L. Vecchio et al., 2004. Ultrastructural analysis of testes from mice fed on genetically modified soybean. Eur J Histochem 48: 448-454
 M. Malatesta et al., 2008. A long-term study on female mice fed on a genetically modified soybean: effects on liver ageing. Histochem Cell Biol 130: 967-977
 S.W. Ewen and A. Pusztai, 1999. Effects of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on rat small intestine. The Lancet 354: 13531354
 Sralini, G.-E. et al., 2007. New Analysis of a Rat Feeding Study with a Genetically Modified Maize Reveals Signs of Hepatorenal Toxicity. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 52: 596602.
 R. Tudisco R, P. Lombardi, F. Bovera et al., 2006. Genetically modified soya bean in rabbit feeding: Detection of DNA fragments and evaluation of metabolic effects by enzymatic analysis. Animal Science 82:193199.
 F.B. Brasil, L.L. Soares, T.S. Faria et al., 2009. The impact of dietary organic and transgenic soy on the reproductive system of female adult rat. Anat Rec (Hoboken) 292: 587594.
 A. Pusztai, S. Bardocz, 2006. GMO in animal nutrition: Potential benefits and risks. In: R. Mosenthin, J. Zentek, T. Zebrowska, eds. 2006. Biology of Nutrition in Growing Animals 4: 513540.
  G.E. Sralini, D. Cellier, J. Spiroux de Vendomois, 2007. New analysis of a rat feeding study with a genetically modified maize reveals signs of hepatorenal toxicity. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 52: 596602.
  A. Kilic, M.T. Akay, 2008. A three generation study with genetically modified Bt corn in rats: Biochemical and histopathological investigation. Food Chem Toxicol 46: 11641170.
 J.S. de Vendomois, F. Roullier, D. Cellier, G.E. Sralini, 2009. A comparison of the effects of three GM corn varieties on mammalian health. Int J Biol Sci 5:706726.
 A. Finamore, M. Roselli, S. Britti S et al., 2008. Intestinal and peripheral immune response to MON810 maize ingestion in weaning and old mice. J Agric Food Chem 56: 1153311539.
  A. Velimirov, C. Binter, J. Zentek, 2008. Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice. Familie und Jugend Report, Forschungsberichte der Sektion IV Band 3/2008.
 M. Trabalza-Marinucci, G. Brandi, C. Rondini, et al., 2008. A three-year longitudinal study on the effects of a diet containing genetically modified Bt176 maize on the health status and performance of sheep. Livestock Science 113: 178190.
16. T. Netherwood et al., 2004. Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract.  Nature Biotechnology 22: 204209.
17. Paula Hartman Cohen, 2006. Trans Fats: The story behind the label. Harvard Public Health Review. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/rvw_spring06/rvwspr06_transfats.html
18. Anil Netto,2000.  Consumer groups for mandatory labelling of GM food. IPS News, 13 March. http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/groups.htm
19. Jack A. Heinemann, PhD, 2009. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed. Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July. http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
20.  R. Sharma et al., 2006. Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA in digesta and tissues of sheep and pigs fed Roundup Ready canola meal. J Agric Food Chem 54: 16991709.
 R. Mazza et al., 2005. Assessing the transfer of genetically modified DNA from feed to animal tissues. Transgenic Res 14: 775784.
 A. Agodi et al., 2006. Detection of genetically modified DNA sequences in milk from the Italian market. Int J Hyg Environ Health 209: 8188.
 T. Ran, L. Mei, W. Lei, L. Aihua, H. Ru, S. Jie, 2009. Detection of transgenic DNA in tilapias (Oreochromis niloticus, GIFT strain) fed genetically modified soybeans (Roundup Ready). Aquaculture Research 40: 13501357.
21.   R. Tudisco, V. Mastellone, M.I. Cutrignelli, et al., 2010. Fate of transgenic DNA and evaluation of metabolic effects in goats fed genetically modified soybean and in their offsprings. Animal 4: 16621671. 
 Jack A. Heinemann, PhD, 2009. Report on animals exposed to GM ingredients in animal feed. Prepared for the Commerce Commission of New Zealand, 24 July. http://bit.ly/4HcJuJ
22. Charles Benbrook, 2009. The magnitude and impacts of the biotech and organic seed price premium. The Organic Center, December. http://www.organic-center.org/reportfiles/Seeds_Final_11-30-09.pdf
23. E. Neal Blue, 2007. Risky business: Economic and regulatory impacts from the unintended release of genetically engineered rice varieties into the rice merchandising system of the US. Report for Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/international/press/reports/risky-business.pdf
24. Soil Association, 2002. Seeds of doubt: North American farmers experience of GM crops. http://www.soilassociation.org/seedsofdoubt
25. R. Binimelis, 2008. Coexistence of plants and coexistence of farmers: Is an individual choice possible? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 21: 437457.
26. Roger Levett, 2008. Choice: Less can be more. Food Ethics magazine 3: 11. http://www.foodethicscouncil.org/node/384
27. See, for example, Marie-Monique Robins documentary film, Le Monde Selon Monsanto (The World According to Monsanto), ARTE, 2008; and the website of the NGO, Coalition Against Bayer-Dangers, www.cbgnetwork.org
28.  BBC News Online 2000. GM firm sues Canadian farmer, 6 June. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/779265.stm
  Center for Food Safety, 2007. Monsanto vs. US Farmers: November 2007 Update. Washington, DC and San Francisco, CA, November.
29. Stephen Leahy, 2004. Monsanto seed police scrutinize farmers. InterPress Service, 15 January. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0115-04.htm






Document Number: 8855
Last three or four years have seen a number of books, documentaries and articles on the dangers of Genetically Modified (GM) seeds. Majority has focused on adverse health and environmental impact; almost none on the geo-politics of GM seeds, and particularly seeds as a weapon of mass destruction. Engdahl has addressed this issue but the crop seed is one of the many "Seeds of Destruction" in this book.

Engdahl carefully documents how the intellectual foundations of 'eugenics,' mass culling of the sick, coloured, and otherwise disposable races, were actually first established, and even legally approved, in the United States. Eugenics research was financially supported by the Rockefeller and other elite families and first tested on Jews under Nazi Germany.

It is purely by chance that world's poorest nations also happen to be best endowed with natural resources. These regions are also the ones with growing population. The fear among European ruling families, increasingly, integrating with economic and military might of the United States, was that if the poor nations became developed, the abundant natural resources, especially oil, gas, and strategic minerals and metals, may become scarcer for the white population. That situation was unacceptable to the white ruling elite.

The central question that dominated the minds of the ruling clique was population reduction in resource rich countries but the question was how to engineer mass culling all over the world without generating powerful backlash as it was bound to happen. When the US oil reserves peaked in 1972 and it became a net oil importer, the situation became alarming and  the agenda took the centre stage. Kissinger, one of the key strategists of Nixon, nurtured by the Rockefellers, prepared what is known as National Security Study Memo (NSSM#200), in which he elaborated his plan for population reduction. In this Memo he specifically targets thirteen countries: Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia,  Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey, Thailand, and The Phillipines.

The weapon to be used was food; even if there was a famine food would be used to leverage population reduction. Kissinger is on record for stating, "Control oil, you control nations; control food and you control the people." How a small group of key people transformed the elitist philosophy, of controlling food to control people, into realistic operational possibility within a short time is the backdrop of Engdahl's book, the central theme running from the beginning till the end with the Rockefellers and Kissinger, among others, as the key dramatis personae.

He describes how the Rockefellers guided the US agriculture policy, used their powerful tax-free foundations worldwide to train an army of bright young scientists in hitherto unknown field of microbiology. He traces how the field of Eugenics was renamed "genetics" to make it more acceptable and also to hide the real purpose. Through incremental strategic adjustments within a handful of chemical, food and seed corporations, ably supported by the key persons in key departments of the US Government, behemoths were created that could re-write the regulatory framework in nearly every country. And these seeds of destruction of carefully constructed regulatory framework- to protect the environment and human health- were sown back in the 1920s.


Pause to think: a normal healthy person can at the most go without food for perhaps seven days but it takes a full season, say around four months, for a seed to grow into food crop. Just five agri-biz corporations, all US based (Cargill, Bunge, Archer Daniels, et al), control global grain trade, and just five control global trade in seeds. Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, and Dow Chemicals control genetically engineered seeds. While these powerful oligopolies were being knocked into place, anti-trust laws were diluted to exempt these firms. Engdahl writes, "It was not surprising that the Pentagon's National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq  War, issued a paper declaring: 'Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.' Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world's only superpower." (page 143)

The "Green Revolution" was part of the Rockefeller agenda to destroy seed diversity and push oil and gas based agriculture inputs in which Rockefeller's had main interest. Destruction of seed diversity and dependence on proprietary hybrids was the first step in food control. (See my notes, Box 1)

It is true that initially Green Revolution technologies led to spurt in farm productivity but at a huge cost of destruction of farmlands, bio-diversity, poisoned aquifers and progressively poor health of the people and was the true agenda of 'the proponents of Green Revolution.'

The real impetus came with the technological possibility of gene splicing and insertion of specific traits into unrelated species. Life forms could be altered. But until 1979, the US Government had steadfastly refused to grant patent on life form. That was changed [my comment: helped much by a favorable judgment in the US Supreme Court granting patent protection to oil eating bacteria developed by Dr Ananda Chakraborty]. Life forms could now be patented. To ensure that the world surrendered to the patent regime of the seeds corporations, the World Trade Organization was knocked into shape. How it conducted business was nobody's business, but it forced the world to accept intellectual property right of these corporations. There is opposition but these firms are too determined as Engdahl describes.

"The clear strategy of Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and the Washington Government backing them was to introduce the GMO seeds in every corner of the globe, with priority on defenceless ..African and developing countries," write Engdahl (page 270). However, Engdahl also describes how US and Canadian farmlands came under GMOs. It was suspected that GMO could pose serious threat to human and animal health and the environment, yet efforts at independent biosafety assessment were discontinued. Scientists carrying out honest studies were vilified. Reputed scientific establishments were silenced or made to toe the line that was supportive of the Rockefeller's food control and mass culling agenda. The destruction of the credibility of scientific institution is yet another seed of destruction in Engdahl's book.   

Engdahl cites the example of a German farmer Gottfried Glockner's experience with GM corn. Glockner planted Bt176 event of Syngenta essentially as feed for his cows. Being a scientist, he started with 10% GM feed and gradually increased the proportion, carefully noting milk yield and any side effects. Nothing much happened in the first three years but when he increased the feed to 100% GM feed, his animals "were having gluey-white feaces and violent diarrhea" and "milk contained blood." Eventually all his seventy cows died. Prof Angelika Hilbeck of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology found from Glockner's Bt 176 corn samples Bt toxins were present "in active form and extremely stable." The cows died of high dose of toxins. Not if, but when human food is 100% contaminated should be a sobering thought.

In the US unlabelled GM foods were introduced in 1993 and that 70% of the supermarket foods contain GMOs in varying proportions in what should rightly be called world's largest biological experiment on humans. While Engdahl has clearly stated that the thrust of US Government and the agi-biz is control over food especially in the third world, he has left it to the readers to deduce that American and European citizens are also target of that grand agenda. And there are more lethal weapons in the arsenal: Terminator seeds, Traitor seeds, and the ability to destroy small independent farmers at will in any part of the world, and these are powerfully presented in the book. Engdahl provides hard evidences for these seeds of final destruction and utter decimation of world civilizations as we have known.

It is a complex but highly readable book. It is divided into five parts, each containing two to four short chapters. The first part deals with the political maneuverings to ensure support to Seed and Agri-biz firms, the second deals with what should be widely known as 'The Rockefeller Plan', the third deals with how vertically integrated giants were readied for Washington's silent wars on planet earth, the fourth part deals with how GM seeds were unleashed on unsuspecting farmers, and the final part deals with how the elites is going on destroying food, farmers that would eventually cause mass culling of population. He does not offer any solution; he can't because it is up to the rest of the world, including Europeans and Americans, to wake up and take on these criminals head on. An essential read for anyone who eats and thinks.   

Seeds of Destruction

The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

by F. William Engdahl

Global Research, 2007 ISBN 978-0-937147-2-2

SPECIAL ONLINE AND MAIL ORDER PRICE  US$17.00 (list price $24.95)



This skillfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. "Control the food and you control the people."

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO.  Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical World of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Engdahl's carefully argued critique goes far beyond the familiar controversies surrounding the practice of genetic modification as a scientific technique. The book is an eye-opener, a must-read for all those committed to the causes of social justice and World peace.

 

 





 F. William Engdahl is a leading analyst of the New World Order, author of the best-selling book on oil and geopolitics, A Century of War: Anglo-American Politics and the New World Order, His writings have been translated into more than a dozen languages. 

 

 

What is so frightening about Engdahl's vision of the world is that it is so real. Although our civilization has been built on humanistic ideals, in this new age of "free markets", everything-- science, commerce, agriculture and even seeds-- have become weapons in the hands of a few global corporation barons and their political fellow travelers. To achieve world domination, they no longer rely on bayonet-wielding soldiers. All they need is to control food production. (Dr. Arpad Pusztai, biochemist, formerly of the Rowett Research Institute Institute, Scotland)

If you want to learn about the socio-political agenda --why biotech corporations insist on spreading GMO seeds around the World-- you should read this carefully researched book. You will learn how these corporations want to achieve control over all mankind, and why we must resist... (Marijan Jost, Professor of Genetics, Krizevci, Croatia)

The book reads like a murder mystery of an incredible dimension, in which four giant Anglo-American agribusiness conglomerates have no hesitation to use GMO to gain control over our very means of subsistence... (Anton Moser, Professor of Biotechnology, Graz, Austria).






Document Number: 6342
"Ecological Society Of America Recommends Cautious Approach To Releasing Genetically Modified Organisms Into The Environment. Potential Negative Impacts Listed"
Ecological Society Of America 
June 7, 2001
Although genetically modified organisms have a role to play in the globe's future, scientists and governments should proceed with caution as they release these organisms into the environment, according to researchers at the Ecological Society of America.

These cautionary words were issued as part of an official statement on GMOs which the Society released today in Washington, DC.

"It's important to recognize that some GMOs can possess genuinely new characteristics that may require much greater scrutiny in terms of scientific research than organisms produced by traditional techniques of plant and animal breeding. In particular, we really need more peer-reviewed research on the potential environmental effects of GMOs," says Diana Wall. Wall, who is the Director of the Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory at Colorado State University, served as Chair of the ad hoc committee which developed the GMO statement approved by the Society's Governing Board.

The Ecological Society of America is a professional, scientific society founded in 1915. ESA members are leaders in ecological research and education. They hail from academia, government agencies, industry, and non-profit organizations and work to provide the ecological knowledge needed to contribute to environmental problem solving across the globe. The Society is perhaps best known for publishing three scientific, peer-reviewed research journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, and Ecological Monographs.

Cases of particular concern which were cited in the ESA statement include instances where an organism can persist without human intervention. Also of concern: the exchange of genetic material between GMOs and unaltered organisms within the environment. Some GMOs may also be given traits which would provide an advantage over native species in some environments.

Pointing to these concerns, the ESA recommends an assessment of environmental risk for all GMOs in order to minimize the potentially negative ecological effects they may have. The potentially negative effects could include:

* creating new or more vigorous pests and pathogens

* exacerbating the effects of existing pests through hybridization with related transgenic plants or animals

* harm to non-target species, such as soil organisms, non-pest insects, birds and other animals

* disruptive effects on biotic communities

* irreparable loss or changes in species diversity and genetic diversity within a species.

"ESA urges scientifically-based risk assessment of GMOs and standards appropriate for product testing and release into the environment," says the Society's statement. "The ESA is committed to providing scientific information that can aid in the development of GMOs with neutral or beneficial ecological effects." To read the full statement, visit the ESA website at: http://esa.sdsc.edu/statement0601.htm

The Ecological Society of America (ESA) is a scientific, non-profit, 7,800-member organization founded in 1915. Through ESA reports, journals, membership research, and expert testimony to Congress, ESA seeks to promote the responsible application of ecological data and principles to the solution of environmental problems. ESA publishes three scientific, peer-reviewed journals: Ecology, Ecological Applications, and Ecological Monographs. Information about the Society and its activities is published in the Society's quarterly newsletter, ESA NewSource, and in the quarterly Bulletin.

Note: Above Story adapted from news release issued by Ecological Society Of America. In quoting, please credit Ecological Society Of America as the original source. You may also wish to include the following link in any citation: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010605073428.htm


 




Document Number: 6852 
Consensus among leading experts - genes are not carriers of isolated traits
The result of genetic engineering is therefore inherently unpredictable
Gene technology is based on the belief that genes are carriers of single traits. So it was believed that you can transfer traits by transferring single genes. Now it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt that this is wrong through research organized by the United States National Human Genome Research InstituteGenes are not carriers of single traitsAn exhaustive four-year effort by 35 groups of scientists from all over the world has resulted in the conclusion that it is proven beyond any doubt that genes work in a different way than believed when gene technology was conceived in 1973. The genes work in networks where the effect of every gene is decided by the interaction with many other genes as well with its environment. 
So the one-gene-one-trait concept, the very basis of gene technology, is fundamentally wrong
Gene technology is inherently unpredictable and therefore unsafeThe conclusion that genes work in networks that decide the behaviour of genes shatters the very basis of every risk assessment of all kinds of commercial biotechnology products including genetically engineered foods. The risk assessment policies have been based on the assumption that insertion of gene means just an addition of a specific trait and nothing else.

But the new understanding means that completely unpredictable effects can result from the insertion of a gene. This possibility has not been considered in present risk assessments. See our article "Inadequate safety assessment of GE foods"
We have pointed out that gene tech cannot work safely since long and are happy to find that ultimately an authoritative body of leading scientists agrees about the complex network nature of gene behavior that makes genetic engineering unpredictable. This definitely confirms our long held position genetically engineered foods and other biotech products may contain unpredictable hazardous substances. As the safety testing has not taken this into account, foods and other biotech products may contain dangerous substances. 

Therefore it is only a matter of time before a catastrophe occurs due to the absence of rigorous safety testing. Already one serious catastrophe has occured which most probably was caused by GE causing the unexpected appearance of a very poisonous substance in a food supplement, which killed 37 and permanently disabled 1500 people, see "The Showa Denko Tryptophan disaster""An example of fatal substantial equivalence" where we demonstrate the uselessness of present approval procedures. 
Consequently all biotech products that are used as food or feed or are released into the environment for other purposes have to be withdrawn from the market."Incomplete knowledge about DNA".New Findings Challenge Established Views on Human Genome. The original press release. NIH news, June 13, 2007."Change to gene theory raises new challenges for biotech". A good newspaper article summarizing the important points. International Herald Tribune, July 3, 2007."Genetically Engineered Food - Safety Problems"




Document Number: 2049 
FAQs
What's a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process of taking genes from one species and inserting them into another in an attempt to obtain a desired trait or characteristic, hence they are also known as transgenic organisms. This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same. 

But haven't growers been grafting trees, breeding animals, and hybridizing seeds for years?

Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries unique risks. 

In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to get a new variety, but is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

With genetic engineering, scientists can breach species barriers set up by nature. For example, they have spliced fish genes into tomatoes. The results are plants (or animals) with traits that would be virtually impossible to obtain with natural processes, such as crossbreeding or grafting.

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations: 

Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
Jellyfish genes lit up pigs' noses in the dark.
Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.
Current field trials include:

Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)
What is a gene?

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a center called a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, half of which is normally inherited from the mother and half from the father. Short sequences of DNA are called genes. These genes operate in complex networks that are finely regulated to enable the processes of living organisms to happen in the right place and at the right time.

How is genetic engineering done?

Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers have to find ways to force the DNA from one organism into another. These methods include:

Using viruses or bacteria to "infect" animal or plant cells with the new DNA.
Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special gun into the cells.
Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.
Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.
Is genetic engineering precise?

The technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the transfer of new genes can disrupt the finely controlled network of DNA in an organism.

Current understanding of the way in which DNA works is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.

Does the biotech industry hold any promise?

Genetic modification of plants is not the only biotechnology. The study of DNA does hold promise for many potential applications, including medicine. However, the current technology of GM foods is based on obsolete information and theory, and is prone to dangerous side effects. Economic interests have pushed it onto the market too soon. 

Moreover, molecular marker technologies - so called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) used with conventional breeding shows much promise for developing improved crop varieties, without the potentially dangerous side effects of direct genetic modification.

GMOs in Foods:

What kinds of traits have been added to food crops?

Although there are attempts to increase nutritional benefits or productivity, the two main traits that have been added to date are herbicide tolerance and the ability of the plant to produce its own pesticide.  These results have no health benefit, only economic benefit.

Herbicide tolerance lets the farmer spray weed-killer directly on the crop without killing it.    

Crops such as Bt cotton produce pesticides inside the plant. This kills or deters insects, saving the farmer from having to spray pesticides. The plants themselves are toxic, and not just to insects. Farmers in India, who let their sheep graze on Bt cotton plants after the harvest, saw thousands of sheep die!

Why do genetically engineered foods have antibiotic resistant genes in them?

The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so the genetic engineers attach "marker genes" that are resistant to antibiotics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA. These marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.

What are the problems created through genetic engineering of food and crops?

Genetic engineers continually encounter unintended side effects – GM plants create toxins, react to weather differently, contain too much or too little nutrients, become diseased or malfunction and die. When foreign genes are inserted, dormant genes may be activated or the functioning of genes altered, creating new or unknown proteins, or increasing or decreasing the output of existing proteins inside the plant. The effects of consuming these new combinations of proteins are unknown.

What foods are GM?

Currently commercialized GM crops in the U.S. include soy (91%), cotton (88%), canola (88%), corn (85%), Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%), zucchini and yellow squash (small amount), and tobacco (Quest® brand). About half of the sugar beets grown for sugar in 2008 were GM and current projections are that about 90% grown in 2009 will be GM.

What are other sources of GMOs?

Products derived from the above, including oils from all four, soy protein, soy lecithin, cornstarch, corn syrup and high fructose corn syrup among others. Also:

meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed (and the majority of the GM corn and soy is used for feed);
dairy products from cows injected with rbGH (a GM hormone);
food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses; and
honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen.
The Health Dangers:

What are the potential dangers of eating GM foods?

There are a number of dangers that broadly fall into the categories of potential toxins, allergens, carcinogens, new diseases, antibiotic resistant diseases, and nutritional problems.  

View all 65 health risks of GM foods, excerpted from Jeffrey Smith's comprehensive book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Other References 

Hasn't research shown GM foods to be safe?

No. The only feeding study done with humans showed that GMOs survived inside the stomach of the people eating GMO food. No follow-up studies were done.

Various feeding studies in animals have resulted in potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, damaged immune systems, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy or increased density of the liver, odd shaped cell nuclei and other unexplained anomalies, false pregnancies and higher death rates.

But aren't the plants chemically the same, whether or not they are GM?

Most tests can't determine the differences at the level of the DNA. And, even if they appear to be the same, eyewitness reports from all over North American describe how several types of animals, including cows, pigs, geese, elk, deer, squirrels, and rats, when given a choice, avoid eating GM foods.

Haven't people been eating GM foods without any ill effect?

The biotech industry says that millions have been eating GM foods without ill effect. This is misleading. No one monitors human health impacts of GM foods. If the foods were creating health problems in the US population, it might take years or decades before we identified the cause.

What indications are there that GM foods are causing problems?

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent.

In March 2001, the Center for Disease Control reported that food is responsible for twice the number of illnesses in the U.S. compared to estimates just seven years earlier. This increase roughly corresponds to the period when Americans have been eating GM food.

Without follow-up tests, which neither the industry or government are doing, we can't be absolutely sure if genetic engineering was the cause.   

What about GM hormones in milk?

Milk from rBGH-treated cows contains an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer, but no one is tracking this in relation to cancer rates.

Why do genetically engineered foods have antibiotic resistant genes in them?

The techniques used to transfer genes have a very low success rate, so the genetic engineers attach "marker genes" that are resistant to antibiotics to help them to find out which cells have taken up the new DNA. That way scientist can then douse the experimental GMO in antibiotics and if it lives, they have successful altered the genes. The marker genes are resistant to antibiotics that are commonly used in human and veterinary medicine. Some scientists believe that eating GE food containing these marker genes could encourage gut bacteria to develop antibiotic resistance.

But is there any documented instance of adverse effects of GMOs on people?

One epidemic was rare, serious, and fast acting, and therefore more easily discovered. Called EMS, it was traced to a GM brand of the food supplement L-tryptophan. In the 1980's, the contaminated brand killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness or disability in about 5,000-10,000 others.

Why are children particularly susceptible to the effects of GM foods?  

Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods for the same reasons that they also face the greatest risk from other hazards like pesticides and radiation, these include:

Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most.
Children are more susceptible to allergies.
Children are more susceptible to problems with milk.
Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems.
Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases.
How dangerous, or potentially dangerous, are GM foods relative to other food dangers, e.g., pesticides, irradiation, additives, preservatives?

Since so little research has been done on the safety of GM foods, it is not possible to rank its risks. Unlike the others, GM crops persist in the environment, and may continue to pose risks to health for centuries.

In addition, transfer of transgenes to gut bacteria may present long-term chronic exposure, since the foreign protein may continued to be produced inside of us after we no longer consume the GM food.

Dangers to the environment and traditional agriculture:

What is the effect of growing GM crops on the environment?

Studies have shown that pesticide-producing crops contaminate nearby streams, possibly affecting aquatic life. They may harm beneficial insects too.
 
As weeds adapt to herbicides, they develop resistance and evolve into what are called "super weeds."  When that happens, herbicide use increases and the benefits of herbicide resistant crops are diminished, if not lost.
Can the growing of GM crops effect nearby crops?

Pollen from GM crops can contaminate nearby crops of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate.  In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate.

Why is there an effort to create GM-free agricultural zones?

Using identity preservation (IP), farmers keep crop varieties separate from others to meet purity requirements of their buyers. Contamination is a key challenge to IP growers. Unwanted varieties may cross-pollinate or get mixed up in the seed, harvest equipment, or during storage and transport.

Some farm regions create entire zones that exclude unwanted varieties, where all the farms, and if possible all collection and distribution points, only handle approved grain.

Have any local efforts in the US been successful?

There are local efforts throughout the U.S. that are raising public awareness, changing laws, and creating commitments to non-GM ingredients. Most notably, voters in Mendocino and Marin Counties in California passed a ballot initiative to ban GM crops.

Officials in Trinity County and Arcata, California have passed ordinances banning the outdoor cultivation of GM crops as well. But since then, a California law was passed prohibiting this type of local initiative. 

In March 2008, voters at the Montville, Maine, annual town meeting overwhelmingly passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of  GM crops in their community.

Is it possible that organically grown crops can be infected by GM genes?

Yes. Organic standards do not allow the use of GM seeds and therefore steps are taken to try to prevent contamination. Tests are not required, although some vigilant organic companies require them. According to the organic standards, contamination by cross-pollination is not disallowed, but some companies reject contaminated product above some small amount such as 0.1%.  

Organic canola farmers in Canada sued biotech companies, since cross-pollination has made it impossible for them to grow organic, non-GM canola.

Is the Natural Foods Industry doing something to insure the purity of its products?

Right now there are efforts underway for an industry wide clean up of foods labeled organic and non-GMO. A handful of noble companies took it upon themselves to ensure that consumers could rest assured that their organic and non-GMO foods are truly free of modified genes. They established The Non-GMO Project, which has created an industry-wide consensus-based set of standards and a third-party verification process with testing for GMO content.

Companies began to enroll their products in the spring of 2008 and the first "non-GMO" seals for companies who fully comply with the protocols will be issued in 2009.

Government Regulation:

Q. Hasn't the FDA said that GM foods are safe?

The biotech industry claims that the FDA has thoroughly evaluated GM foods and found them safe. This is untrue. The FDA does not require safety studies. Instead, if the makers of the GM foods claim that they are safe, the agency has no further questions.

Q. Didn't the scientists at the FDA study GM foods themselves?

No.  The FDA relies solely on information supplied by the biotech companies.

Q. What kind of information did the companies provide?

Calgene, the makers of the first GM crop, the FlavrSavr tomato, was the only company to submit detailed raw data from animal feeding studies to the FDA.  The rest provide only summaries and conclusions. Industry research can be rigged; data often is omitted or distorted.

In the FlavrSavr tests, lab rats refused to eat the tomatoes and had to be force-fed. Several developed stomach lesions, and seven of forty died within two weeks. Still, the tomato was approved, but has since been taken off the market.

Q. Based on the information that was supplied, did the FDA scientist have concerns? 

Agency scientists did warn that GM foods might create toxins, allergies, nutritional problems, and new diseases that might be difficult to identify. Internal FDA memos reveal that the scientists urged their superiors to require long-term safety testing to catch these hard-to-detect side effects.

Q. What did the FDA do about these concerns?

Nothing was done that would protect consumers.  In fact, in the case of genetically modified bovine growth hormone, some FDA scientists who expressed concerns were harassed, stripped of responsibilities, or fired. The remaining whistleblowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency

Q. How could the government approve dangerous foods? 

A close examination reveals that industry manipulation and political collusion – not sound science – was the driving force.

The FDA official in charge ignored all warnings of the FDA staff scientists. The official, a former outside attorney for Monsanto, was a political appointee specifically to a new FDA post on GM policy, and left shortly after to become vice president at Monsanto.

Q. Why aren't foods with GMOs at least labeled here?

The same political influence and money that got them past the FDA has prevented any labeling laws from being passed.  However, President Obama had indicated support for labeling laws during his campaign.

Q. So do the biotech companies always get everything they want?

No. The biotech companies have fallen far short of their goals due to consumer resistance. The GM potatoes and tomatoes were taken off the market, and other GM crops, although approved, were never commercialized.

Concerned consumers in Europe were able to get major companies to commit to eliminate GMOs within one week.  This was done with only a small percentage of the overall population.  Businesses do not want to lose even a portion of their customer base.  Everyone can vote with his or her pocketbook!

In 1998 the industry tried to get the USDA to let GM products pass as organic. During the public comment period, the Department received over 275,000 irate letters of protest from citizens, a public response unprecedented in the USDA's history. Thanks to this public protest, GM products cannot be labeled organic in the USA.

Around the World

Q. What about in neighboring countries? 

In Canada, government scientists also complained that they were being pressured to approve the GM hormone, which is injected into cows to increase milk supply. They were concerned about human health impacts. They testified that the drugs maker, Monsanto, offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve it. They also reported that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office.

Mexico has resisted GMOs, but contamination has still occurred.

Other stories of pressure, bribes, and threatened whistleblowers are reported through the history of GM foods and their approval, research, and promotion around the world.

Q. What is happening with GM foods in the rest of the world?

All over the world, regions and even nations are demanding an end to GM crop cultivation. Twenty-two countries in Europe have regions wanting to be GM-free. States in Australia, regions in New Zealand and Brazil, the countries of Venezuela, Zambia, Sudan, Angola, and others, all want to be GM-free. Thus, world markets are shrinking.

In 2009, Germany joined France, Hungary, Italy, Greece, Austria, Poland and Romania in baning Monsanto's Mon 810 GM corn because of its documented hazards to biodiversity and human health. In 2007 over three million Italians signed a petition, declaring their opposition to GM crops in their country. In Europe over 175 regions and over 4,500 municipalities have declared themselves GM-free zones. In Spain alone this includes over 50 municipalities and regions like Asturias, the Canary Islands and the Basque country.

Europe has greater rejection of GMOs due to a more balanced reporting by their press on the health and environmental dangers. In Europe, at least 174 regions, more than 4,500 councils and local governments have declared themselves GM free.

Q. Have any GM foods been banned?

The rules of the World Trade Organization (which the US and other 150 countries are members of) explicitly prohibit countries from banning GM products. Therefore, countries that ban them do so at great risk. If this weren't the case, no doubt many countries would already have done so.

Some countries have banned GM crops entirely or not approved certain GM crops that are approved elsewhere. 

In the US, GM wheat was not approved when wheat farmers banned together because they were concerned that contamination would seriously hurt exports.  So the reason was economic, not safety.






Document Number: 915
GMOs in Food

Here is a summary of crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of May, 2010:

Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.:

(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percentage that is genetically modified.)

Soy (91%) Cotton (71%) Canola (88%) Corn (85%) Sugar Beets (90%) Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%) Alfalfa (at Supreme Court), Zucchini and Yellow Squash (small amount) Tobacco (Quest® brand)

Other Sources of GMOs: 
• Dairy products from cows injected with the GM hormone rbGH
• Food additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents, including the
  sweetener aspartame (NutraSweet®) and rennet used to make hard cheeses
• Meat, eggs, and dairy products from animals that have eaten GM feed
• Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen
• Contamination or pollination caused by GM seeds or pollen

Some of the Ingredients That May Be Genetically Modified: Vegetable oil, vegetable fat and margarines (made with soy, corn, cottonseed, and/or canola)

Ingredients derived from soybeans: Soy flour, soy protein, soy isolates, soy isoflavones, soy lecithin, vegetable proteins, textured vegetable protein (TVP), tofu, tamari, tempeh, and soy protein supplements.

Ingredients derived from corn: Corn flour, corn gluten, corn masa, corn starch, corn syrup, cornmeal, and High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS).

Complete List of Invisible Ingredients

Some of the Foods That May Contain GM Ingredients:

Infant formula
Salad dressing
Bread
Cereal
Hamburgers and hotdogs
Margarine
Mayonnaise
Crackers
Cookies
Chocolate
Candy
Fried food
Chips
Veggie burgers
Meat substitutes
Ice cream 

Frozen yogurt
Tofu
Tamari?and Soy sauce
Soy cheese
Tomato sauce
Protein powder
Baking powder 
Any sugar not 100% Cane
Confectioner's glaze
Alcohol
Vanilla (may contain corn syrup)
Peanut butter
Enriched flour
Past
Malt
White vinegar
Non-Food Items That May Contain GM Ingredients:
Cosmetics
Soaps
Detergents
Shampoo
Bubble bath








Document Number: 111
The GE Process

What is a GMO?

A GMO (genetically modified organism) is the result of a laboratory process where genes from the DNA of one species are extracted and artificially forced into the genes of an unrelated plant or animal. The foreign genes may come from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Because this involves the transfer of genes, GMOs are also known as “transgenic” organisms.

This process may be called either Genetic Engineering (GE) or Genetic Modification (GM); they are one and the same.

What is a gene?

Every plant and animal is made of cells, each of which has a center called a nucleus. Inside every nucleus there are strings of DNA, half of which is normally inherited from the mother and half from the father. Short sequences of DNA are called genes. These genes operate in complex networks that are finely regulated to enable the processes of living organisms to happen in the right place and at the right time. 

How is genetic engineering done?

Because living organisms have natural barriers to protect themselves against the introduction of DNA from a different species, genetic engineers must force the DNA from one organism into another. Their methods include:

Using viruses or bacteria to "infect" animal or plant cells with the new DNA.
Coating DNA onto tiny metal pellets, and firing it with a special gun into the cells.
Injecting the new DNA into fertilized eggs with a very fine needle.
Using electric shocks to create holes in the membrane covering sperm, and then forcing the new DNA into the sperm through these holes.
Is genetic engineering precise?

The technology of genetic engineering is currently very crude. It is not possible to insert a new gene with any accuracy, and the transfer of new genes can disrupt the finely controlled network of DNA in an organism.

Current understanding of the way in which DNA works is extremely limited, and any change to the DNA of an organism at any point can have side effects that are impossible to predict or control. The new gene could, for example, alter chemical reactions within the cell or disturb cell functions. This could lead to instability, the creation of new toxins or allergens, and changes in nutritional value.

But haven't growers been grafting trees, breeding animals, and hybridizing seeds for years?

Genetic engineering is completely different from traditional breeding and carries unique risks.

In traditional breeding it is possible to mate a pig with another pig to get a new variety, but is not possible to mate a pig with a potato or a mouse. Even when species that may seem to be closely related do succeed in breeding, the offspring are usually infertile—a horse, for example, can mate with a donkey, but the offspring (a mule) is sterile.

With genetic engineering, scientists can breach species barriers set up by nature. For example, they have spliced fish genes into tomatoes. The results are plants (or animals) with traits that would be virtually impossible to obtain with natural processes, such as crossbreeding or grafting.

What combinations have been tried?

It is now possible for plants to be engineered with genes taken from bacteria, viruses, insects, animals or even humans. Scientists have worked on some interesting combinations:

Spider genes were inserted into goat DNA, in hopes that the goat milk would contain spider web protein for use in bulletproof vests.
Cow genes turned pigskins into cowhides.
Jellyfish genes lit up pigs' noses in the dark.
Artic fish genes gave tomatoes and strawberries tolerance to frost.
Field trials have included:

Corn engineered with human genes (Dow)
Sugarcane engineered with human genes (Hawaii Agriculture Research Center)
Corn engineered with jellyfish genes (Stanford University)
Tobacco engineered with lettuce genes (University of Hawaii)
Rice engineered with human genes (Applied Phytologics)
Corn engineered with hepatitis virus genes (Prodigene)
Potatoes that glowed in the dark when they needed watering.
Human genes were inserted into corn to produce spermicide.
Does the biotech industry hold any promise?

Genetic modification of plants is not the only biotechnology. The study of DNA does hold promise for many potential applications, including medicine. However, the current technology of GM foods is based on obsolete information and theory, and is prone to dangerous side effects. Economic interests have pushed it onto the market too soon.

Moreover, molecular marker technologies - so called Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) used with conventional breeding - show much promise for developing improved crop varieties, without the potentially dangerous side effects of direct genetic modification. 






Document Number: 8782
Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA's plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.

"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"

He said yes.

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.

"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends—I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor—assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I'm wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they've been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it's time to put it back into the laboratory until they've done their homework."

The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.

Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.

He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances and protections.

At this point in his answer, Secretary Vilsack, who has a history of favoring GMOs—and even appears to be more pro-GMO than his Bush administration predecessors—was trying to sound even handed. Then he made a tragic mistake.

After a slight pause, he added in a warm tone, "I will tell you that the world is very concerned about the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people."

Moans, groans, hisses, even boos. Not rowdy, mind you. But clearly agitated.

You see, the people in the room were among the top experts at actually feeding the world. They included numerous PhDs who had spent their careers looking deeply into the issue. Among those present were several of the authors of the authoritative IAASTD report. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, is the most comprehensive evaluation of world agriculture ever. It was a three-year collaborative effort with 900 participants and 110 countries, and was co-sponsored by all the majors, e.g. the World Bank, FAO, UNESCO, WHO. The behemoth effort evaluated the last 50 years of agriculture, and prescribed the methods that were now needed to meet the development and sustainability goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.

And GMOs was not one of those needed methods! It was clear to the experts that the current generation of GMOs did not live up to the hype continuously broadcast by biotech companies and their promotional East Coast wing—the federal government.

In fact, the night before Vilsack addressed the conference, the same audience heard a keynote by Hans Herren, the co-chairman of the IAASTD report, during which he reiterated that biotechnology was not up to the task. And this morning, Hans Herren was in the room when Vilsack tried to play the feed-the-world card. Bad move.

Vilsack responded to the crowd's rejection by saying, "And well you all can disagree with this, but I am just telling you this. As I travel the world, I am just telling you what people are telling me. They are very concerned about this."

Thus, he distanced himself from the contentious, and fallacious, argument. He was just reporting what others had told him.

And that may in fact be his problem with understanding the serious health and environmental dangers of GMOs in general, if he is simply, as he says, repeating what others—Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont—have told him over and over again.

It's true that I have mutual friends of Tom Vilsack who like and respect him and believe him to be reasonable and thoughtful. I have seen this myself, but not on the GMO issue.

Perhaps the reaction of the experts this morning will help to jar him out of his GMOs-feed-the-world mindset. Unfortunately, he is now deeply immersed in the second of this week's food conferences here in Des Moines, the World Food Prize. It features the major GMO promoters from around the world, including Bill Gates (who gives tens of millions to GMO development in Africa), and top executives of DuPont and Syngenta. Expect to hear constant chatter about how GMOs are the solution to world hunger which, unfortunately, may undue any of the restructuring that this morning's run-in with reality may have awakened.

In the meantime, if there are Q & A sessions at meetings where Secretary Vilsack is speaking or attending, I'll do my best to get to a mic.







Document Number: 3582
Health Risks

In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) stated that, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with genetically modified (GM) food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, faulty insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. The AAEM has asked physicians to advise all patients to avoid GM foods.[1]

Starting in 1996, Americans have been eating genetically modified (GM) ingredients in most processed foods. Why isn't the FDA protecting us?

In 1992, the Food and Drug Administration claimed they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods. Therefore they are safe to eat, and absolutely no safety studies were required. But internal memos made public by a lawsuit[2] reveal that their position was staged by political appointees who were under orders from the White House to promote GMOs. In addition, the FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, the former attorney for Monsanto, the largest biotech company, and later their vice president.

In reality, FDA scientists had repeatedly warned that GM foods can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored.

Today, the same biotech companies who have been found guilty of hiding toxic effects of their chemical products are in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. Industry-funded GMO safety studies are too superficial to find most of the potential dangers, and their voluntary consultations with the FDA are widely criticized as a meaningless façade.[3]

GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, and canola, have had foreign genes forced into their DNA. The inserted genes come from species, such as bacteria and viruses, which have never been in the human food supply.

Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers. It uses imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding, and is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.[4] Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a "gene gun" into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant.

Widespread, unpredictable changes

The genetic engineering process creates massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant's DNA.[5] Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their behavior.[6] Even the inserted gene can be damaged or rearranged,[7] and may create proteins that can trigger allergies or promote disease.

GM foods on the market

There are eight GM food crops. The five major varieties—soy, corn, canola, cotton, and sugar beets—have bacterial genes inserted, which allow the plants to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. Farmers use considerably more herbicides on these GM crops and so the food has higher herbicide residues. About 68% of GM crops are herbicide tolerant.

The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide, found in GM corn and cotton. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (for Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into the plant’s DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide tolerant.

There is also Hawaiian papaya and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crookneck squash, which are engineered to resist a plant virus.

Growing evidence of harm from GMOs

GM soy and allergic reactions

Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced.[8]
A skin prick allergy test shows that some people react to GM soy, but not to wild natural soy.[9]
Cooked GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen.[10]
GM soy also contains a new unexpected allergen, not found in wild natural soy.[11]
Bt corn and cotton linked to allergies

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms,[12] and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses[13] and damaged intestines.[14] Moreover, the Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated.

Farm workers throughout India are getting the same allergic reactions from handling Bt cotton[15] as those who reacted to Bt spray.[16] Mice[17] and rats[18] fed Bt corn also showed immune responses.

GMOs fail allergy tests

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol,[19] the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail those tests—because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.[20]

GMOs may make you allergic to non-GM foods

GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice.[21] If it also impairs your digestion, you may become sensitive and allergic to a variety of foods.
Mice fed Bt-toxin started having immune reactions to formerly harmless foods.[22]
Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other foods.[23] (The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally done before a GMO gets on the market. Only this advanced test, which is never used on the GMOs we eat, revealed that the peas could actually be deadly.)
GMOs and liver problems

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers.[24]
The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier.[25]
GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult.[26] The changes reversed after they switched to non-GM soy.[27]
GMOs, reproductive problems, and infant mortality

More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks.[28]
Male rats[29] and mice[30] fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice.
The DNA of mouse embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM soy[31]
The longer mice were fed GM corn, the less babies they had, and the smaller their babies were.[32]
Babies of female rats fed GM soy were considerably smaller, and more than half died within three weeks (compared to 10% of the non-GM soy controls).[33]
Female rats fed GM soy showed changes in their ovaries and uterus.
By the third generation, most hamsters fed GM soy were unable to have babies.
Bt crops linked to sterility, disease, and death

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and reproductive problems.[34]
Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.[35]
About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.[36]
Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.[37]
The stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may lead to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.[38]

Functioning GM genes remain inside you

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[39] This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins produced continuously inside us.

If the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases, resistant to antibiotics.
If the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.
Animal studies show that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into the fetus.[40]
GM food supplement caused deadly epidemic

In the 1980s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed about 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000-10,000 people. The source of contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production.[41] The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only identified because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related illnesses and no long-term animal studies. Heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling with the health of our nation for their profit.

Help end the genetic engineering of our food supply

When the tipping point of consumer concern about GMOs was achieved in Europe in 1999, within a single week virtually all major food manufacturers committed to remove GM ingredients. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is designed to reach a similar tipping point in the US soon.

Our growing network of manufacturers, retailers, healthcare practitioners, organizations, and the media, is informing consumers of the health risks of GMOs and helping them select healthier non-GMO alternatives with our Non-GMO Shopping Guides.

Start buying non-GMO today. Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.

Download your free Non-GMO Shopping Guide or ShopNoGMO iPhone App

Membership in our Campaign for Healthier Eating in America is free. Contributing members receive a free educational gift. Donations to the Institute for Responsible Technology are tax-deductible.








Document Number: 8555
Higher Risks for Children

Children face the greatest risk from the potential dangers of GM foods:

Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most
Children are more susceptible to allergies
Children are more susceptible to problems with milk
Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems
Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases
Young, fast-developing bodies are influenced most

Children's bodies develop at a fast pace and are more likely to be influenced and show the effects of genetically modified (GM) foods. That is why independent scientists used young adolescent rats in their GM feeding studies. The rats showed significant health damage after only 10 days, including damaged immune systems and digestive function, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and potentially pre-cancerous cell growth in the intestines.

Children are more susceptible to allergies

Children are three to four times more prone to allergies than adults. Infants below two years old are at greatest risk-they have the highest incidence of reactions, especially to new allergens encountered in the diet. Even tiny amounts of allergens can sometimes cause reactions in children. Breast fed infants can be exposed via the mother's diet, and fetuses may possibly be exposed in the womb. Michael Meacher, the former minister of the environment for the UK, said, "Any baby food containing GM products could lead to a dramatic rise in allergies." GM corn is particularly problematic for children, as they generally eat a higher percentage of corn in their diet. Further, allergic children often rely on corn protein. Mothers using cornstarch as a talc substitute on their children's skin might also inadvertently expose them via inhalation.

Children are more susceptible to problems with milk

Milk and dairy products from cows treated with the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH) contain an increased amount of the hormone IGF-1, which is one of the highest risk factors associated with breast and prostate cancer. The Council on Scientific Affairs of the American Medical Association called for more studies to determine if ingesting "higher than normal concentrations of [IGF-1] is safe for children, adolescents, and adults." Sam Epstein, M.D., Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and author of eight books, wrote, "rbGH and its digested products could be absorbed from milk into blood, particularly in infants, and produce hormonal and allergic effects." He described how "cell-stimulating growth factors . . . could induce premature growth and breast stimulation in infants, and possibly promote breast cancer in adults." Dr. Epstein pointed out that the hormones in cows could promote the production of "steroids and adrenaline-type stressor chemicals . . . likely to contaminate milk and may be harmful, particularly to infants and young children."

Children are more susceptible to nutritional problems

A 2002 report by the UK's Royal Society, said that genetic modification "could lead to unpredicted harmful changes in the nutritional state of foods." They therefore recommended that potential health effects of GM foods be rigorously researched before being fed to pregnant or breast-feeding women, elderly people, those suffering from chronic disease, and babies. Likewise, according to former minister Meacher, unexpected changes in estrogen levels in GM soy used in infant formula "might affect sexual development in children," and that "even small nutritional changes could cause bowel obstruction."

Children are in danger from antibiotic resistant diseases

Children prone to ear and other infections are at risk of facing antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, due to the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM food. The British Medical Association cited this as one reason why they called for a moratorium of GM foods.







Document Number: 8985
GM Hormones in Dairy

Although banned in most other industrialized nations due to the health risks to humans and harm to the animals, Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rBGH or rBST) is still injected into dairy cows in the US to increase milk-production.

So why was rBGH approved? The approval of rBGH in our country is a story of fired whistleblowers, manipulated research, and a corporate takeover of the US Food and Drug Administration. US dairies, responding to the health concerns of consumers by not injecting their herds, now battle for their right to label their milk as rBGH-free. For those familiar with the history of this controversial drug, and Monsanto, this is no surprise. Monsanto’s past is plagued with toxic disasters, lawsuits and cover-ups.


Your Milk on Drugs -
Just Say No! (8:54 min)

Also available for
Purchase
The Health Hazards in Milk from Cows Injected with rBGH

Milk from rBGH-treated cows has much higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone considered to be a high risk factor for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and other cancers. IGF-1 levels in milk from treated cows with rBGH can be up to 10 times higher. Studies suggest that pre-menopausal women below 50 years old with high levels of IGF-1 are seven times more likely to develop breast cancer. Men are four times more likely to develop prostate cancer. IGF-1 is implicated in lung and colon cancer.

Milk from rBGH-treated cows with its heightened IGF-1 levels also likely increases the rate of fraternal twin births in humans. In the United States, the number of fraternal twins grew at twice the rate as that in the United Kingdom, where rBGH is banned.

Milk from cows injected with rBGH also has lowered nutritional value, increased antibiotics and more pus from infected udders. Cows given rBGH experience higher rates of mastitis, a painful udder infection. When treated with antibiotics that are also used for people, bacteria resistant to these antibiotics end up in the milk, air, soil and water, resulting in increased antibiotic resistance in humans, a major health problem.


The Health Risks of rbGH
Labels that Lie

Within the US, many school systems have banned milk products from injected cows and dairies have refused to inject their cow with it. But a milk carton from Maine’s Oakhurst Dairy stating, “Our Farmers’ Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones” became the subject of controversy when on July 3, 2003 the dairy was sued by Monsanto over their labels. Oakhurst eventually settled, agreeing to add a sentence saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from [rBGH]-treated and non- treated cows. But it’s a statement that is not true. Both Monsanto and FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows. Higher amounts of pus and antibiotic residues in the milk were noted are as well. This misleading addition to the label was written by the FDA’s deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, previously Monsanto’s outside attorney who, after running policy at the FDA, became vice president of Monsanto. Could this revolving door between Monsanto and the government regulators (i.e. the movement from positions as biotech leaders to government policymaker and back again) be the one of the reasons why the FDA isn’t protecting US consumers?


Flawed FDA Approval
Bribes, Fired Scientists and Corporate Hijacking of the FDA and Health Canada

In the late 1980s, one FDA scientist was fired after expressing concerns about possible health problems related rBGH-treated cows. Other like-minded FDA scientists at the FDA had been stripped of responsibilities or forced out. Remaining FDA whistle-blowers had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest at the agency. In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before their Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rBGH, even though they believed it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug. Monsanto responded to the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) story about the alleged bribe, claiming that the scientists misunderstood an offer for research money. (Eventually in 2005, Monsanto was fined for offering bribes to 140 Indonesians, as the company tried to gain approval for their genetically modified cotton.)

Muscling the Media—Fox News Intimidated 

In 1989, Monsanto’s PR firm created “the Dairy Coalition,” a group that included researchers funded by Monsanto, to pressure editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to stop reporting on the health concerns about rBGH.


Fox News Report (10min)
The potential link between rBGH and cancer was one of the topics revealed in a four-part news series set to air in February of 1997 by a Tampa-based Fox TV station. Just before the series was to air, however, Fox received threatening letters from Monsanto’s attorney, threatening “dire consequences for Fox News.” The show was postponed indefinitely. The reporters who had created the series later testified that they were offered hush money to leave the station and never speak about the story again. They declined. Read the full detail in this exerpt from Jeffrey Smith's Seeds of Deception.

Progress and New Battles

Over the past few years, several organizations have worked to raise awareness of the rBGH issue, such as the Campaign For Safe Food launched by the Oregon Chapter of the Physicians for Social Responsibility. Getting attention to the rBGH issue was slow at first, but by educating consumers about the health dangers associated with rBGH and producers making rBGH-free brands readily available, we have seen a widespread consumer demand for rBGH free dairy products. Within the last two years, Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and about 40 of the 100 top dairies removed rBGH products as consumer concerns reached a tipping point on this issue.

Having failed to gain a complete ban on "rBGH-free" labeling from the FDA, Monsanto has now gone to the state level by claiming the labels are an "unfair restraint of trade" even with the FDA disclaimer. Also, in an effort to turn public opinion their way, Monsanto has been trying to promote rBGH as having a positive effect on the environment. Of course their position is based on the “bad science” that they have perfected. The reality is that rBGH is anything but green.

The Next Big Consumer Tidal Wave Will be the Complete Rejection of Remaining
GMOs in Food Products, and You Can be a Part of It

The market rejection of rBGH demonstrates that consumers are still at the top of the food chain, dictating the direction of this fight. We expect to see the same tipping point kick GM foods out of the US food supply. Almost 87 million consumers in the United States believe that all GM foods aren’t safe, but can’t always avoid them because they don’t know how. By directing the purchasing power of the tens of millions of health-conscious shoppers, we can reach a new tipping point and push GMOs out of the entire food supply.

Here are a couple of things you can do to help. First, view the rBGH free dairy products section of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide and share this with friends. Then, sign on to participate in The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America and you will join the swell that is rising out of the natural food aisles and building into tidal wave of GMO rejection throughout the entire food industry. Adding your name to the Campaign’s growing list of supporters not only addresses you and your family’s health concerns, but also influences the decisions of food manufacturers, distributors, and retailers nationwide.

Finally, we invite you to have house party showings of the new film, The World According to Monsanto, which is a part of a packaged two DVD set that includes Your Milk on Drugs - Just Say No! The World According to Monsanto, takes a hard look at Monsanto’s campaign of deception and use of coercive tactics to gain market supremacy. A showing of these two films together is sure to motivate every viewer to take steps to stop GMOs.






Document Number: 58
Dangers to the Environment

From the beginning, many scientists have had concerns that the release of these new organisms with their engineered DNA could have dire consequences. Those consequences not only affect the natural “wild” environment, but also conventional and organic agriculture. 

Companies are also working with the genetic manipulation of trees to produce commercial benefits such as more rapid growth. There are experiments with “pharma-crops,” trying to get plants to “grow” medicines or ingredients for medicines.

Crosspollination 

Pollen from GM crops and trees can contaminate nearby crops and wild plants of the same type, except for soy, which does not cross-pollinate. In fact, virtually all heritage varieties of corn in Mexico (the origin of all corn) have been found to have some contamination. Canola and cotton also cross-pollinate.

GM sugar beets are a member of the chard family and therefore have even more potential targets for contamination through crosspollination. No one knows what might happen if DNA containing pharmaceutical properties are spread to wild plants.

Toxicity

Studies have shown that pesticide-producing crops contaminate nearby streams, possibly affecting aquatic life. The bt toxin produced by these GM crops are far stronger than any found in nature, and are produced throughout the plant.

They may harm beneficial insects. And, it has been found that previously insignificant insects which are not targeted by the GM varieties develop into pests. Then pesticide spraying resumes, on top of the potential build-up of the extra strong bt toxin in the soil. This has occurred in China, India as well as in the US.

“Super Weeds”

As weeds adapt to herbicides, they develop resistance and evolve into what are called "super weeds." When that happens, herbicide use increases and the benefits of herbicide resistant crops are diminished, if not lost.

Impact on Sustainable Agriculture

Organic standards do not allow the use of GM seeds and therefore steps are taken to try to prevent contamination. Tests are not required, although some vigilant organic companies require them. According to the organic standards, contamination by cross-pollination is not disallowed, but some companies reject contaminated product above some small amount such as 0.1%.

Organic canola farmers in Canada sued biotech companies, since cross-pollination has made it impossible for them to grow organic, non-GM canola.

GM-free agricultural zones

Using identity preservation (IP), farmers keep crop varieties separate from others to meet purity requirements of their buyers. Contamination is a key challenge to IP growers. Unwanted varieties may cross-pollinate or get mixed up in the seed, harvest equipment, or during storage and transport.

Some farm regions create entire zones that exclude unwanted varieties, where all the farms, and if possible all collection and distribution points, only handle approved grain.

Voters in Mendocino and Marin Counties in California passed ballot initiative to ban GM crops. Officials in Trinity County and Arcata, California have passed ordinances banning the outdoor cultivation of GM crops as well. But since then, a California law was passed prohibiting this type of local initiatives.

In March 2008, voters at the Montville, Maine, annual town meeting overwhelmingly passed a binding ordinance banning the cultivation of GM crops in their community






Document Number: 7668
Scrambling and Gambling with the Genome

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

“With genetic engineering, transferring genes from one species’ DNA to another is just like taking a page out of one book and putting it between the pages of another book.” This popular analogy is used often by advocates of genetically modified (GM) food. The words on the page are made up of the four letters, or molecules, of the genetic code, which line up in “base pairs” along the DNA. The inserted page represents a gene, whose code produces one or more proteins. The book is made up of chapters, which represent chromosomes—large sections of DNA.

The analogy makes the process of genetic engineering appear to be as simple and precise as inserting a new page. A groundbreaking report, however, shreds the book analogy. Genome Scrambling – Myth or Reality?, written by three scientists at the UK-based Econexus, reveals that the process of genetic engineering results in widespread mutations—within the inserted gene, near its insertion, and in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the genome—and that these are overlooked by many scientists and regulators. [1]

The report is an extensive review of research that overturns the central arguments by biotech advocates—that the technology is precise, predictable, and safe, and that current studies are adequate. On the contrary, it demonstrates that GM crops represent a significant gamble to public health and the environment (see www.econexus.info).

Gene Insertion Methods Create Mutations, Fragments, and Multiple Copies

There are two popular methods for creating GM crops; both create mutations. The first method uses Agrobacterium—bacteria that contain circular pieces of DNA called plasmids. One section of this plasmid is designed to create tumors. Under normal conditions, Agrobacterium infects a plant by inserting that tumor-creating portion into the plant’s DNA. Genetic engineers, however, replace the tumor-creating section of the plasmid with one or more genes. They then use the altered Agrobacterium to infect a plant’s DNA with those foreign genes.

The second method of gene insertion uses a gene gun. Scientists coat thousands of particles of tungsten or gold with gene sequences and then shoot these into thousands of plant cells. Years ago, the sequences that were shot into cells usually included both the genes that were intended for transfer (gene cassette) as well as extraneous DNA from the plasmid used in the creation and propagation of the cassettes in bacteria. This is true for most GM foods currently on the market. These days, many scientists take the added step of eliminating the extraneous, mostly bacterial DNA and coat the particles just with the cassette.

With both methods of gene insertion, scientists speculate that the process triggers a wound response in the plant cell, which helps its DNA integrate the foreign gene. With the gene gun technique, only a few cells out of thousands incorporate the foreign gene.

According to the book analogy, a single, intact, foreign page (gene) is inserted. That’s the intention. In reality, most transformed DNA end up with multiple copies of the foreign gene, incomplete genes and/or gene fragments. Sections of the inserted genes are commonly changed, rearranged, or deleted during the insertion process. In addition, extraneous pieces of plasmid DNA sometimes end up interspersed within and around the inserted gene or scattered throughout the genome.

Mutations Near the Site of Insertion

In addition to the changes made in the material that is inserted, the sections of the plant’s DNA near the insertion site are almost always messed up in some way. This effect, called insertional mutagenesis or insertion mutation, has been known for years, but it wasn’t until 2003 that a large-scale systematic analysis was conducted. Researchers looked at insertions into 112 Arabidopsis thaliana plants—a species used often in plant research. [2] Although the study may not accurately reflect what happens in edible crop plants, it is the only large study at this point.

Plants were selected that had single copies of the foreign gene, which were inserted using Agrobacterium. Of the 112 plants, 80 (71%) had small mutations near the insertion site. These included deletions of 1-100 base pairs and/or insertions of 1-100 extraneous base pairs. The inserted sequences came from the foreign gene, extraneous parts of the plasmid, or other parts of the plant’s DNA.

The remaining 32 plants (29%) had large scale insertions, rearrangements, duplications and/or deletions. In two plants, parts of whole chromosomes had broken off and translocated into another section of the DNA.

Another study using the same plant species also found that a section of DNA at least 40,000 base pairs long had translocated from one chromosome to another. In fact, that long section had duplicated itself, since it was also found intact in its original position. [3] A third study identified a deletion of 75,800 base pairs, which probably contained 13 genes. [4]

The above studies used the Agrobacterium insertion method. There have been astoundingly few studies analyzing insertion mutations resulting from the gene gun method, but the research that has been conducted consistently demonstrate large scale disruptions of the DNA. According to the Econexus report, “The vast majority of the insertion events created via particle bombardment [gene gun] are extremely complex, with multiple copies of transgenic DNA inserted at a single insertion-site.”1 They contain large amounts of extraneous DNA, including multiple fragments of the foreign gene and/or small or large fragments of plant DNA interspersed with the inserted genes. In one study, scientists found 155 separate breaks indicating recombinations of the inserted genetic material. [5]According to the Econexus report, in the rare cases where only a single copy of the foreign gene is inserted, they “turn out to contain fragments of superfluous DNA and/or they appear to be associated with large deletions and/or rearrangements of the target plant DNA.” 1

One study on gene gun insertion revealed that DNA of an oat plant contained the full sequence of the foreign gene plasmid, a small stretch in which oat DNA was mixed up with foreign plasmid DNA, a partial copy of the plasmid, and another section with oat and plasmid sequences scrambled together. [6] Analysis also indicated that the plant’s DNA on either side of the insertion contained rearrangements or deletions. There were also two other insertions elsewhere in the DNA. One included a rearranged section of the plasmid (296 base pairs), scrambled plant DNA on either side, and the deletion of 845 base pairs. The study employed DNA sequence analysis, the most thorough method for evaluating insertion mutations. In practice, it is rarely used. Instead, genetic engineers traditionally rely on the less precise Southern blot test, which picks up only major changes in DNA sequence. When this test had been applied to the oat DNA above, it indicated the presence of only a single intact inserted gene. It failed to identify the other two insertions and all of the mutations and fragments. This means that on the whole, biologists who create GM plants have no idea of the extent to which their creations may produce unintended side effects do to scrambled DNA.

Location, Location, Location

Neither gene insertion method can “aim” the foreign gene into a particular location in the DNA. Furthermore, scientists rarely conduct experiments to find out where exactly the inserted genes end up. But in the real estate of the DNA, location is vital. The functioning of the foreign gene can change dramatically, depending on where in the genome it is located. The side-effects of gene insertion can be significantly influenced by location as well.

Even though only an estimated 1-10% of plant DNA constitutes the genes, Agrobacterium insertions end up inside functioning gene sequences between 35%-58% of the time. (The percentage for gene guns is unknown.) Genes are also inserted in other areas that influence gene expression. In either case, insertions can significantly disrupt the normal functioning of the plant’s genes.

(One reason why insertions end up inside genes so often is that in order for the foreign genes to function, they need to be located within the regions of the host DNA that are “active,” that allow gene expression. To figure out which inserted genes end up in these portions of the DNA, scientists typically add an antibiotic resistant marker (ARM) gene to the genetic cassette. After insertion, they apply antibiotics to all the cells, killing those that don’t have a functioning ARM gene in their DNA. Since the active region of the DNA is also where the plant’s functioning genes are located, those that survive this selection process are more likely to have foreign genes lodged inside the host genes.)

Mutations Throughout the DNA

Once genes are inserted into a plant cell’s DNA, scientists typically grow the cell into a fully functioning plant using a method called tissue culture. Unfortunately, this artificial method of plant propagation results in widespread mutations throughout the genome. In fact, tissue culture is sometimes used specifically to create mutations in plant DNA. These mutations can influence the crops’ height, resistance to disease, oil content, number of seeds, and many other traits. [7], [8]

Genetically modified cells that undergo tissue culture can have even more mutations throughout the genome than cultured non-GM cells. It is unclear why gene insertion has this effect, but scientists speculate that it may, in part, come from unsuccessful insertions or insertions of small fragments.

Taken together, the process of gene insertion combined with tissue culture typically results in hundreds or thousands of mutations, including small deletions, substitutions, or insertions in the genetic code. The changes are vast. Two studies suggested that 2-4% of the genome of a GM plant was different than non-GM controls. [9], [10] Furthermore, estimates are based on detection methods that miss many mutations such as short deletions and insertions and most base pair substitutions. Thus, the actual degree of gene disruption is probably greater.

These genome-wide mutations are found in every GM plant analyzed. Astoundingly, these types of mutations are not evaluated in commercially released GM food crops.

If the original GM plant is crossed (mated) with other lines over and over, many of these small, genome-wide mutations will get corrected. It is unknown, however, how many mutations still persist in food crops. Furthermore, the propagation of certain species, such as the GM potato that was on the market years ago, probably did not undergo any outcrossing, and it is likely to contain all of the mutations created during insertion and tissue culture.

Mutations Can Have Serious Consequences

Mutations and extraneous insertions carry risk. They can permanently turn genes on or off, alter their function, and/or change the structure or function of the protein that they create. A single mutation can influence many genes simultaneously. Thus, the insertion process might cause the over production of toxins, allergens, carcinogens, or anti-nutrients, reduce the nutritional quality of the crop, or change the way that the plant interacts with its environment. And because of our limited understanding of the DNA, even if we knew which parts of it were disrupted, we wouldn’t necessarily know the consequences.

In addition, the insertion of bacterial plasmid DNA into plant DNA creates another serious risk. Similarities in the genetic sequence between the plasmid and the DNA of bacteria found in the gut of humans or animals or in the soil might significantly increase the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer. This means that genes from the plant may transfer into the DNA of the soil or gut bacteria. The only human feeding study on genetic engineering confirmed that the genes inserted into GM soybeans do transfer into the bacteria inside human intestines.

Advocates of biotechnology often defend the safety of their products by claming that modern methods of plant breeding other than genetic engineering are used on a wide scale, have a history of safe use and create comparable mutations. The Econexus report reveals that everything about this argument is pure speculation and is not supported by scientific literature. There is no evidence that these modern methods are used widely, are consistently safe, or create mutations of the same kind or frequency as genetic engineering.

In reality, many biotech scientists are unaware of the massive quantity of mutations that are generated by the GM transformation process (gene insertion and tissue culture). In fact, the regulatory agencies that approve GM foods operate as if the insertion process has no impact on safety. [11],  [12] They do not require extensive evaluation of the mutations and therefore the extent of these in approved GM food crops has not been identified. The few studies that have been conducted revealed many significant problems. GM varieties contain truncated or multiple fragments of the inserted gene and extraneous or scrambled DNA. One GM corn variety contained a fragment from a gene that was supposed to be inserted into a different GM variety. The protein produced by the foreign genes can also be truncated, altered, or fragmented. And many significant differences between GM and non-GM crops have been observed, which may result from the insertion process. An approved GM squash, for example, contains 68 times less beta-carotene and four times more sodium than non-GM squash. GM soybeans have much higher levels of a potential allergen and anti-nutrient. But GM crops are tested for only a handful of nutrients or known toxins, and therefore the true impact of gene mutations is not known. Furthermore, GM plants are grown in vast amounts. Undetected alterations may result in harm to the environment or human health on an unprecedented scale. With so little known about the impact of gene insertion, and with so much at risk, applying genetic engineering to food and crops is a huge gamble.

Revised Book Analogy

With genome scrambling in mind, let’s revise the book analogy as follows:

The DNA is like a large book with the letters consisting of the four molecules that make up the genetic code. Located throughout the book are special one- to two-page passages, called genes, which describe characters called proteins (including enzymes). The book is divided into chapters called chromosomes.

When a single foreign page (gene) is inserted through the process called genetic engineering, the book goes through a profound transformation. There are typos throughout, in hundreds or thousands of places. Letters are switched here and there; words and sentences are scrambled, deleted, repeated or reversed. Long and short passages from one part of the book may be relocated or repeated elsewhere, and bits of text from entirely different books show up from time to time. As you get close to the inserted page, things get really strange. The story becomes indecipherable. The text includes random letters and sections of inserted foreign text, and several pages are missing. The inserted page may actually be multiple identical pages, partial pages, or small bits of text, sections that are misspelled, deleted, inverted, and scrambled. As a result of changes in the story line throughout the book, several characters (proteins) act differently, sometimes switching roles from heroes to villains, or vice versa. It all makes you wonder about the comment made by the biotech advocate as he handed you the volume, “It’s just the same old book, only with a single page added.”








Document Number: 6761
Why This Talk Transforms

What is not shown is Jeffrey asking the audience at the beginning, "Please rate yourself from 1-100 how vigilant you are at avoiding genetically modified (GM) brands." Using a show of hands by category, most audiences fall in the least vigilant range (1-20). But by the end of Jeffrey's fast-paced multimedia presentation—EVERYTHING changes.

After the audience hears about:

The thousands of sick, sterile, and dead livestock, accompanied by unambiguous photos of severely damaged organs in animals fed GM food (e.g. testicles actually changed color),
How eating a GM corn chip might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories (it's true), and
The heavy handed ways the industry covers up GM food dangers,
Jeffrey asks the final question, "Now rate yourself how vigilant you will be NEXT week at avoiding GMOs." The audience is transformed—ready to change lifelong eating habits on-the-spot.

This happens every time. At one medical conference, for example, all 250 physicians shifted to the highest category of vigilance (80-100) after just 26 minutes! The presentation is that powerful.

We know this video changes peoples' diets. And we know that with a few million people avoiding GM brands, the food companies would scramble to replace all GM ingredients (follow the tipping point strategic plan in the video). So please forward this email to your friends, post the video on your Facebook page or website, blog about it, or buy a stack of DVDs (as low as $3 each), pass them out, and run it over to your local access TV station.

The time for action is now.
Don't sit back, relax, and enjoy. Sit up, take notice, and reclaim a healthier non-GMO food supply.






Document Number: 4387
Doctors Warn: Avoid Genetically Modified Food

by Jeffrey M. Smith

On May 19th, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks.”[1] They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling. AAEM’s position paper stated, “Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food,” including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, “There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation,” as defined by recognized scientific criteria. “The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies.”

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, “I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods.” Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.”

Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, President of AAEM, says, “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions.” World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava goes one step further. After reviewing more than 600 scientific journals, he concludes that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are a major contributor to the sharply deteriorating health of Americans.

Pregnant Women And Babies At Great Risk

Among the population, biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute warns that “children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods. He says without adequate studies, the children become “the experimental animals.”[2]

The experience of actual GM-fed experimental animals is scary. When GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to a 10% death rate among the control group fed natural soy.[3] The GM-fed babies were also smaller, and later had problems getting pregnant.[4]

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue.[5] Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.[6] Even the embryos of GM fed parent mice had significant changes in their DNA.[7] Mice fed GM corn in an Austrian government study had fewer babies, which were also smaller than normal.[8]

Reproductive problems also plague livestock. Investigations in the state of Haryana, India revealed that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died. In the US, about two dozen farmers reported thousands of pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn.[9]

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food Designed To Produce Toxin

GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce their own built-in pesticide in every cell. When bugs bite the plant, the poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Biotech companies claim that the pesticide, called Bt—produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis—has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert Bt genes into corn and cotton, so the plants do the killing.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,[10] has properties of an allergen, and unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.[11],[12]

The exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers throughout India, from handling Bt cotton.[13] In 2008, based on medical records, the Sunday India reported, “Victims of itching have increased massively this year…related to BT cotton farming.”[14]

Gmos Provoke Immune Reactions

AAEM states, “Multiple animal studies show significant immune dysregulation,” including increase in cytokines, which are “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation”—all on the rise in the US.

According to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai, changes in the immune status of GM animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies.”[15] Even Monsanto’s own research showed significant immune system changes in rats fed Bt corn.[16] A November 2008 by the Italian government also found that mice have an immune reaction to Bt corn.[17]

GM soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties,[18] GM soy has up to seven times more trypsin inhibitor—a known soy allergen,[19] and skin prick tests show some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.[20] Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. Perhaps the US epidemic of food allergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals Dying In Large Numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin.…most probably Bt-toxin.”[21] In a small follow-up feeding study by the Deccan Development Society, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died within 30 days; those that grazed on natural cotton plants remained healthy.

In a small village in Andhra Pradesh, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On January 3rd, 2008, the buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All 13 were sick the next day; all died within 3 days.[22]

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines.[23]

In lab studies, twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; 7 of 20 rats fed a GM tomato developed bleeding stomachs; another 7 of 40 died within two weeks.[24] Monsanto’s own study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs of rats fed Bt corn, according to top French toxicologist G. E. Seralini.[25]

Worst Finding Of All—GMOs Remain Inside Of Us

The only published human feeding study revealed what may be the most dangerous problem from GM foods. The gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function.[26] This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Put more plainly, eating a corn chip produced from Bt corn might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When evidence of gene transfer is reported at medical conferences around the US, doctors often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems among their patients over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Warnings By Government Scientists Ignored And Denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems even in the early 1990s. According to documents released from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, gene transfer to gut bacteria, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests.[27] But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies to determine if their foods are safe. Mr. Taylor later became Monsanto’s vice president.

Dangerously Few Studies, Untraceable Diseases

AAEM states, “GM foods have not been properly tested” and “pose a serious health risk.” Not a single human clinical trial on GMOs has been published. A 2007 review of published scientific literature on the “potential toxic effects/health risks of GM plants” revealed “that experimental data are very scarce.” The author concludes his review by asking, “Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?”[28]

Famed Canadian geneticist David Suzuki answers, “The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”[29]

Dr. Schubert points out, “If there are problems, we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.” If GMOs happen to cause immediate and acute symptoms with a unique signature, perhaps then we might have a chance to trace the cause.

This is precisely what happened during a US epidemic in the late 1980s. The disease was fast acting, deadly, and caused a unique measurable change in the blood—but it still took more than four years to identify that an epidemic was even occurring. By then it had killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan.

If other GM foods are contributing to the rise of autism, obesity, diabetes, asthma, cancer, heart disease, allergies, reproductive problems, or any other common health problem now plaguing Americans, we may never know. In fact, since animals fed GMOs had such a wide variety of problems, susceptible people may react to GM food with multiple symptoms. It is therefore telling that in the first nine years after the large scale introduction of GM crops in 1996, the incidence of people with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled, from 7% to 13%.[30]

To help identify if GMOs are causing harm, the AAEM asks their “members, the medical community, and the independent scientific community to gather case studies potentially related to GM food consumption and health effects, begin epidemiological research to investigate the role of GM foods on human health, and conduct safe methods of determining the effect of GM foods on human health.”

Citizens need not wait for the results before taking the doctors advice to avoid GM foods. People can stay away from anything with soy or corn derivatives, cottonseed and canola oil, and sugar from GM sugar beets—unless it says organic or “non-GMO.” There is a pocket Non-GMO Shopping Guide, co-produced by the Institute for Responsible Technology and the Center for Food Safety, which is available as a download, as well as in natural food stores and in many doctors’ offices.

If even a small percentage of people choose non-GMO brands, the food industry will likely respond as they did in Europe—by removing all GM ingredients. Thus, AAEM’s non-GMO prescription may be a watershed for the US food supply.

International bestselling author and independent filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology and the leading spokesperson on the health dangers of GMOs. His first book, Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on the subject. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, identifies 65 risks of GMOs and demonstrates how superficial government approvals are not competent to find most of them. He invited the biotech industry to respond in writing with evidence to counter each risk, but correctly predicted that they would refuse, since they don’t have the data to show that their products are safe.






Document Number: 7545
Composite Book Review—Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods

Author: Jeffrey M. Smith
Publisher: Yes! Books, www.GeneticRoulette.com; hardcover; 336 pages; $27.95

In his foreword to Genetic Roulette, former UK government environment minister Michael Meacher says, “This is the authentic book on genetic modification that the world has been waiting for.…The case presented is absolutely a smoking shotgun that should stop in its tracks any dabbling with GM foods, whether by individual families, food companies, or indeed nations.” Best-selling author John Robbins says, “Genetic Roulette is dynamite. It totally explodes the complacency and apathy that has been allowing genetically engineered foods to creep into our food supply.” And GMO experts Arpad Pusztai and Susan Bardocz write, “Jeffrey Smith’s Genetic Roulette destroys the myth that genetically modified organisms are safe and will give sleepless nights to uncritical supporters of GMOs.…It is a real treasure and the most important GMO source book for policy makers, scientists, and the public.”

According to Molecules of Emotion author Candace Pert, PhD, Genetic Roulette’s author “Jeffrey Smith is the leading world expert in the understanding and communication of the health issues surrounding genetically modified foods.” Indeed, his first book Seeds of Deception became the #1 rated and best-selling book on GMOs. Seeds made a huge impact and is credited with influencing legislation and changing the global debate on the subject. Now, in Genetic Roulette, Smith has answered the human health risk question as he calls for an immediate ban on GM product by consumers and governments.

65 Dangers at a Glance Read Easily Across Two-page Spreads

Joan Dye Gussow, author of This Organic Life and professor emeritus of Nutrition and Education at Columbia University, says Genetic Roulette is “remarkably thorough, well-written, brilliantly designed, and deeply disturbing.” She urges people to, “Read this book, or skim it—a feat the author has enabled with a format that allows for scanning or thorough reading.” The format Gussow describes consists of 65 two-page spreads, each dedicated to a different adverse finding or theoretical risk of GM foods. The left side’s executive summary offers knowledge at a glance. Flip through the pages in a few minutes and you will be struck by reports of hundreds of people with toxic or allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile or dead animals, and countless ways in which GM foods are inherently dangerous and virtually untested.

Read the detailed explanations on the right side, to learn that lab animals fed GM soy had altered sperm cells and embryos, and a five-fold increase in infant mortality, or that genes might transfer from GM corn to turn your intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories—for the long-term. These and other meticulously documented revelations shred the baseless arguments used by the biotech industry to defend their products.

Masterful Recipe for Decision-making

Cancer Prevention Coalition chairman Samuel Epstein, MD, describes the book as “The most comprehensive, well-documented and highly readable exposé on the serious health dangers of GM foods.” Meacher says, “What has long been needed is not more polemic, but the facts, the unvarnished detail that provides the evidence on which people can make up their own minds. This book is it.” In fact, it presents a masterful recipe for decision-making; the 65 two-page spreads offer a kind of safety checklist—risks and findings that must be responded to. Pediatrician and author Alan Greene of DrGreene.com says, “We ought either to satisfy ourselves with solid scientific answers to the concerns clearly laid out in Genetic Roulette—or we should change the way we eat.”

The Book Sounds the Alarm with Parents and Schools

The book explains why children and newborns are most at risk from potential allergens, toxins, and nutritional problems associated with GM foods. Jordan Rubin, best-selling author of The Maker’s Diet, says, “As a health educator and parent of a young child, I will do everything within my power to keep these dangerous genetically modified foods out of the cupboards and refrigerators and off of the kitchen tables of those I care about. The best way I can do that is to strongly recommend the book.” Robyn O’Brien, founder of AllergyKids and mother of four, says “The health risks associated with these new foods have the potential to impact every child in America—not just those with food allergies.” She says the book is a “must read” for parents. And Dr. Richard Beall, director of the Carolina International School, says, “I urge school administrators to read Genetic Roulette and take preventive action to protect the long-term health of your students.”

Genetic Roulette Hits Mainstream Influence and May Force GM Food Bans

Beginning in April 2007, organizations around the world will present Genetic Roulette to government officials as evidence that GM foods are unsafe and need to be banned immediately. The prominence of U.S. Senator Jon Tester’s supporting quote on the back cover indicates that Smith is aiming for decision makers at the highest level. Meacher says, “I believe it will inspire leaders in many different arenas to take action.”

Officials can’t simply use the excuse that their national regulatory agencies ensure GM food safety, because part two of Genetic Roulette shows just the opposite. Government assessments are not competent to even identify most of the potential health problems. Furthermore, part 3 exposes in great detail how GM food producers rig their studies in order to avoid showing problems. And part four dismantles the “feed the world’ argument as baseless PR hype.

Frances Moore Lappé, author of Democracy’s Edge and Diet for a Small Planet, says thanks to Smith’s “tireless investigations, we need wonder no longer why corporations spreading GMOs are so secretive, why they’ve spent hundreds of millions to keep us from even knowing which foods contain GMOs. They don’t want us to examine the shoddy science, the suppressed evidence, and, most of all, the real health risks that GMOs present.”

Meacher writes, “Jeffrey Smith is one of the great campaigners of our age, a relentless pursuer of the truth, a fearless advocate in the corporate world of secret influence, and a ceaseless promoter of the public interest across the world. He is the modern David against the GM Goliath. This book may well provide the slingshot to change the global course of events this century.”


“I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic. Genetic Roulette tells you why you must avoid genetically engineered foods to stay healthy.”
—John H. Boyles, MD, ear, nose, and throat, and allergy specialist

“When I worked at Monsanto, I warned both scientists and executives that our GM foods may cause disease, but no one was even willing to listen, let alone investigate the unpredicted side effects. For them, it was all about profit. Now our whole population is threatened by the serious dangers described in Genetic Roulette.”
—Kirk J. Azevedo, DC






Document Number: 8212
Genetically Modified Foods: Toxins and Reproductive Failures

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Rhetoric from Washington since the early 1990s proclaims that genetically modified (GM) foods are no different from their natural counterparts that have existed for centuries. But this is a political, not a scientific assertion. Numerous scientists at the FDA consistently described these newly introduced gene-spliced foods as cause for concern. In addition to their potential to produce hard-to-detect allergies and nutritional problems, the scientists said that “The possibility of unexpected, accidental changes in genetically engineered plants” might produce “unexpected high concentrations of plant toxicants.”[1] GM crops, they said, might have “Increased levels of known naturally occurring toxins,…appearance of new, not previously identified” toxins, and an increased tendency to gather “toxic substances from the environment” such as “pesticides or heavy metals.” They recommended testing every GM food “before it enters the marketplace.”[2] But the FDA was under orders from the first Bush White House to promote the biotechnology industry, and the political appointee in charge of agency policy was Monsanto’s former attorney—later their vice president. The FDA policy ignored the scientists’ warnings and allowed GM food crops onto the market without any required safety studies.

From the few safety tests that have been conducted, the results are disturbing—lab animals fed GM diets show damage to virtually every system studied. Reports from farmers are even less encouraging—thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals are traced to GM feed.[3]

GM Diet Shows Toxic Reactions in Digestive Tract

The very first crop submitted to the FDA’s voluntary consultation process, the FlavrSavr tomato, showed evidence of toxins. Out of 20 female rats fed the GM tomato, 7 developed stomach lesions.[4] The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,”[5] which is their normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain.”[6] The political appointees, however, did not require that the tomato be withdrawn.[*]

According to Arpad Pusztai, PhD, one of the world’s leading experts in GM food safety assessments, the type of stomach lesions linked to the tomatoes “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent [blood clots].”[7] Pusztai believes that the digestive tract should be the first target of GM food risk assessment, because the gut is the first (and largest) point of contact with the foods; it can reveal various reactions to toxins. He was upset, however, that the research on the FlavrSavr never looked passed the stomach to the intestines. Other studies that did look found problems.

Mice were fed potatoes with an added bacterial gene, which produced an insecticide called Bt-toxin. Scientists analyzed the lower part of their small intestines (ileum) and found abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth.[8] Rats fed potatoes engineered to produce a different type of insecticide (GNA lectin from the snowdrop plant) also showed proliferative cell growth in both the stomach and intestinal walls (see photo—click here for larger image).[9] Although the guts of rats fed GM peas were not examined for cell growth, the intestines were mysteriously heavier; possibly resulting from such growth.[10] Cell proliferation can be a precursor to cancer and is of special concern.

GM Diets Cause Liver Damage

The state of the liver—a main detoxifier for the body—is another indicator of toxins.

Rats fed the GNA lectin potatoes described above had smaller and partially atrophied livers.[11] 
Rats fed Monsanto’s Mon 863 corn, engineered to produce Bt-toxin, had liver lesions and other indications of toxicity.[12] 
Rabbits fed GM soy showed altered enzyme production in their livers as well as higher metabolic activity.[13] 
The livers of rats fed Roundup Ready canola were 12%–16% heavier, possibly due to liver disease or inflammation.[14] 
And microscopic analysis of the livers of mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans revealed altered gene expression and structural and functional changes.[15] Many of these changes reversed after the mice diet was switched to non-GM soy, indicating that GM soy was the culprit. The findings, according to molecular geneticist Michael Antoniou, PhD, “are not random and must reflect some ‘insult’ on the liver by the GM soy.” Antoniou, who does human gene therapy research in King’s College London, said that although the long-term consequences of the GM soy diet are not known, it “could lead to liver damage and consequently general toxemia.”[16] 
Higher Death Rates and Organ Damage

Some studies showed higher death rates in GM-fed animals. In the FlavrSavr tomato study, for example, a note in the appendix indicated that 7 of 40 rats died within two weeks and were replaced.[17] In another study, chickens fed the herbicide tolerant “Liberty Link” corn died at twice the rate of those fed natural corn.[18] But in these two industry-funded studies, the deaths were dismissed without adequate explanation or follow-up.

In addition, the cells in the pancreas of mice fed Roundup Ready soy had profound changes and produced significantly less digestive enzymes;[19] in rats fed a GM potato, the pancreas was enlarged.[20] In various analyses of kidneys, GM-fed animals showed lesions, toxicity, altered enzyme production or inflammation. Enzyme production in the hearts of mice was altered by GM soy.[21] And GM potatoes caused slower growth in the brain of rats.[22]

Reproductive Failures and Infant Mortality

In both mice and rats fed Roundup Ready soybeans, their testicles showed dramatic changes. In rats, the organs were dark blue instead of pink (see photo —click here for larger image).[23] In mice, young sperm cells were altered.[24] Embryos of GM soy-fed mice also showed temporary changes in their DNA function, compared to those whose parents were fed non-GM soy.[25]

More dramatic results were discovered by a leading scientist at the Russian National Academy of sciences. Female rats were fed GM soy, starting two weeks before they were mated.

Over a series of three experiments, 51.6 percent of the offspring from the GM-fed group died within the first three weeks, compared to 10 percent from the non-GM soy group, and 8.1 percent for non-soy controls.
“High pup mortality was characteristic of every litter from mothers fed the GM soy flour.”[26] 
The average size and weight of the GM-fed offspring was quite a bit smaller.[27] 
In a preliminary study, the GM-fed offspring were unable to conceive.[28] 
After the three feeding trials, the supplier of rat food used at the Russian laboratory began using GM soy in their formulation. Since all the rats housed at the facility were now eating GM soy, no non-GM fed controls were available for subsequent GM feeding trials; follow-up studies were canceled. After two months on the GM soy diet, however, the infant mortality rate of rats throughout the facility had skyrocketed to 55.3 percent (99 of 179).[29]

Farmers Report Livestock Sterility and Deaths

About two dozen farmers reported that thousands of their pigs had reproductive problems when fed certain varieties of Bt corn. Pigs were sterile, had false pregnancies, or gave birth to bags of water. Some cows and bulls also became sterile. Bt corn was also implicated by farmers in the deaths of cows, horses, water buffaloes, and chickens. [30] 

When Indian shepherds let their sheep graze continuously on Bt cotton plants, within 5–7 days, one out of four sheep died. There was an estimated 10,000 sheep deaths in the region in 2006, with more reported in 2007. Post mortems on the sheep showed severe irritation and black patches in both intestines and liver (as well as enlarged bile ducts). Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin…most probably Bt-toxin.”[31]

Dangerous Denial

The warnings of the FDA scientists appear to have come true. But we were not supposed to know about their concerns. The agency’s internal memos were only made public due to a lawsuit. Instead, we were supposed to believe the official FDA policy, claiming that the agency is not aware of information showing that GM foods are meaningfully different. This statement, crafted by political appointees, directly contradicts the scientific consensus at the FDA.

Nearly every independent animal feeding safety study on GM foods shows adverse or unexplained effects. But we were not supposed to know about these problems either—the biotech industry works overtime to try to hide them. Industry studies described above, for example, are neither peer-reviewed nor published. It took lawsuits to make two of them available. And adverse findings by independent scientists are often suppressed, ignored, or denied. Moreover, researchers that discover problems from GM foods have been fired, stripped of responsibilities, deprived of tenure, and even threatened. The myth that GM crops are the same safe food we have always eaten continues to circulate.

With the overwhelming evidence of problems since their introduction in 1996, however, it is likely that GM foods are contributing to the deterioration of health in the United States. Without human clinical trials or post-marketing surveillance, we can’t tell which worsening health statistic may be due to these foods. But we also can’t afford to wait until we find out. GM foods must be removed from our diet immediately. Fortunately, more and more people are making healthy non-GM choices for themselves and their family. To learn which foods are genetically modified and how to protect yourself, visit www.GeneticRoulette.com.


[*] Calgene had submitted data on two lines of GM tomatoes, both using the same inserted gene. They voluntarily elected to market only the variety that was not associated with the lesions. This was not required by the FDA, which did not block approvals on the lesion-associated variety. The FlavrSavr tomato has since been taken off the market. After the FlavrSavr, no other biotech company has submitted such detailed data to the FDA. And the superficial summaries they do present to the agency are dismissed by critics as woefully inadequate to judge safety.

from July 2007 Spilling the Beans newsletter






Document Number: 8823
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies—Genetically Engineered Soybeans

The huge jump in childhood food allergies in the US is in the news often[1], but most reports fail to consider a link to a recent radical change in America’s diet. Beginning in 1996, bacteria, virus and other genes have been artificially inserted to the DNA of soy, corn, cottonseed and canola plants. These unlabeled genetically modified (GM) foods carry a risk of triggering life-threatening allergic reactions, and evidence collected over the past decade now suggests that they are contributing to higher allergy rates.

Food Safety Tests Are Inadequate To Protect Public Health

Scientists have long known that GM crops might cause allergies. But there are no tests to prove in advance that a GM crop is safe.[2] That’s because people aren’t usually allergic to a food until they have eaten it several times. “The only definitive test for allergies,” according to former FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, “is human consumption by affected peoples, which can have ethical considerations.”[3] And it is the ethical considerations of feeding unlabeled, high-risk GM crops to unknowing consumers that has many people up in arms.

The UK is one of the few countries that conducts a yearly evaluation of food allergies. In March 1999, researchers at the York Laboratory were alarmed to discover that reactions to soy had skyrocketed by 50% over the previous year. Genetically modified soy had recently entered the UK from US imports and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”[4]

Critics of GM foods often say that the US population is being used as guinea pigs in an experiment. But experiments have the benefit of controls and measurement. In this case, there is neither. GM food safety experts point out that even if a someone tried to collect data about allergic reactions to GM foods, they would not likely be successful. “The potential allergen is rarely identified. The number of allergy-related medical visits is not tabulated. Even repeated visits due to well-known allergens are not counted as part of any established surveillance system.”[5] Indeed, after the Canadian government announced in 2002 that they would “keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians”[6] to see if GM foods had any adverse reactions, they abandoned their plans within a year, saying that such a study was too difficult.

Genetic Engineering May Provoke Increased Allergies To Soy

The classical understanding of why a GM crop might create new allergies is that the imported genes produce a new protein, which has never before been present. The novel protein may trigger reactions. This was demonstrated in the mid 1990s when soybeans were outfitted with a gene from the Brazil nut. While the scientists had attempted to produce a healthier soybean, they ended up with a potentially deadly one. Blood tests from people who were allergic to Brazil nuts showed reactions to the beans.[7] It was fortunately never put on the market.

The GM variety that is planted in 89% of US soy acres gets its foreign gene from bacteria (with parts of virus and petunia DNA as well). We don’t know in advance if the protein produced by bacteria, which has never been part of the human food supply, will provoke a reaction. As a precaution, scientists compare this new protein with a database of proteins known to cause allergies. The database lists the proteins’ amino acid sequences that have been shown to trigger immune responses. If the new GM protein is found to contain sequences that are found in the allergen database, according to criteria recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others, the GM crop should either not be commercialized or additional testing should be done. Sections of the protein produced in GM soy are identical to known allergens, but the soybean was introduced before the WHO criteria were established and the recommended additional tests were not conducted.

If this protein in GM soybeans is causing allergies, then the situation may be made much worse by something called horizontal gene transfer (HGT). That’s when genes spontaneously transfer from one species’ DNA to another. While this happens often among bacteria, it is rare in plants and mammals. But the method used to construct and insert foreign genes into GM crops eliminates many of the natural barriers that stop HGT from occurring. Indeed, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that portions of the gene inserted into GM soy ended up transferring into the DNA of human gut bacteria. Furthermore, the gene was stably integrated and it appeared to be producing its potentially allergenic protein. This means that years after people stop eating GM soy, they may still be exposed to its risky protein, which is being continuously produced within their intestines.

Genetic Engineering Damaged Soy DNA, Creating New (Or More) Allergens

Although biotech advocates describe the process of genetic engineering as precise, in which genes—like Legos—cleanly snap into place, this is false. The process of creating a GM crop can produce massive changes in the natural functioning of the plant’s DNA. Native genes can be mutated, deleted, permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of protein expression. This collateral damage may result in increasing the levels of an existing allergen, or even producing a completely new, unknown allergen within the crop. Both appear to have happened in GM soy.

Levels of one known soy allergen, trypsin inhibitor, were up to 27% higher in raw GM soy. In addition, although cooking soybeans normally reduces the amount of this protein, the trypsin inhibitor in GM varieties appears to be more heat resistant. Levels in cooked GM soy were nearly as high as those found in raw soy, and up to seven times higher when compared to cooked non-GM soy.[8] This suggests that this allergen in GM soy may be more likely to provoke reactions than when consumed in natural varieties.

Another study verified that GM soybeans contain a unique, unexpected protein, not found in non-GM soy controls. Moreover, scientist tested the protein and determined that it reacted with the antibody called IgE. This antibody in human blood plays a key role in a large proportion of allergic reactions, including those that involve life-threatening anaphylactic shock. The fact that the unique protein created by GM soy interacted with IgE suggests that it might also trigger allergies.

The same researchers measured the immune response of human subjects to soybeans using a skin-prick test—an evaluation used often by allergy doctors. Eight subjects showed a reaction to GM soy; but one of these did not also react to non-GM soy. Although the sample size is small, the implication that certain people react only to GM soy is huge, and might account for the increase in soy allergies in the UK.

Increased Herbicides On GM Crops May Cause Reactions

By 2004, farmers used an estimated 86% more herbicide on GM soy fields compared to non-GM.[9] The higher levels of herbicide residue in GM soy might cause health problems. In fact, many of the symptoms identified in the UK soy allergy study are among those related to glyphosate exposure. [The allergy study identified irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, chronic fatigue, headaches, lethargy, and skin complaints, including acne and eczema, all related to soy consumption. Symptoms of glyphosate exposure include nausea, headaches, lethargy, skin rashes, and burning or itchy skin. It is also possible that glyphosate’s breakdown product AMPA, which accumulates in GM soybeans after each spray, might contribute to allergies.]

GM Soy Might Impede Digestion, Leading To Allergies

If proteins survive longer in the digestive tract, they have more time to provoke an allergic reaction. Mice fed GM soy showed dramatically reduced levels of pancreatic enzymes. If protein-digesting enzymes are less available, then food proteins may last longer in the gut, allowing more time for an allergic reaction to take place. Such a reduction in protein digestion due to GM soy consumption could therefore promote allergic reactions to a wide range of proteins, not just to the soy. No human studies of protein digestion related to GM soy have been conducted.

Soy Linked To Peanut Allergies

There is at least one protein in natural soybeans that has cross-reactivity with peanut allergies.[10] That means that for some people who are allergic to peanuts, consuming soybeans may trigger a reaction. While it is certainly possible that the unpredicted side effects from genetic engineering soybeans might increase the incidence of this cross-reactivity, it is unlikely that any research has been conducted to investigate this. GM soy was introduced into the US food supply in late 1996. We are left only to wonder whether this had an influence on the doubling of US peanut allergies from 1997 to 2002.

Eating GM Foods Is Gambling With Our Health

The introduction of genetically engineered foods into our diet was done quietly and without the mandatory labeling that is required in most other industrialized countries. Without knowing that GM foods might increase the risk of allergies, and without knowing which foods contain GM ingredients, the biotech industry is gambling with our health for their profit. This risk is not lost on everyone. In fact, millions of shoppers are now seeking foods that are free from any GM ingredients. Ohio-based allergy specialist John Boyles, MD, says, “I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it—unless it says organic.”[11]

Organic foods are not allowed to contain GM ingredients. Buying products that are certified organic or that say non-GMO are two ways to limit your family’s risk from GM foods. Another is to avoid products containing any ingredients from the seven food crops that have been genetically engineered: soy, corn, cottonseed, canola, Hawaiian papaya and a little bit of zucchini and crook neck squash. This means avoiding soy lecithin in chocolate, corn syrup in candies, and cottonseed or canola oil in snack foods.

Fortunately, the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will soon make your shopping easier. This Consumer Non-GMO Education Campaign is orchestrating the clean out of GM ingredients from foods and the natural products industry. The campaign will circulate helpful non-GMO shopping guides to organic and natural food stores nationwide. The Campaign will provide consumers with regular GM food safety updates that explain the latest discoveries about why, Healthy Eating Means No GMOs.

Safe eating.








Document Number: 4491
Genetically Engineered Foods May Cause Rising Food Allergies—Genetically Engineered Corn

By Jeffrey M. Smith

The biotech industry is fond of saying that they offer genetically modified (GM) crops that resist pests. This might conjure up the image of insects staying away from GM crop fields. But “resisting pests” is just a euphemism for contains its own built-in pesticide. When bugs take a bite of the GM plant, the toxin splits open their stomach and kills them.

The idea that we consume that same toxic pesticide in every bite is hardly appetizing. But the biotech companies and the Environmental Protection Agency—which regulates plant produced pesticides—tell us not to worry. They contend that the pesticide called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is produced naturally from a soil bacterium and has a history of safe use. Organic farmers, for example, have used solutions containing the natural bacteria for years as a method of insect control. Genetic engineers simply remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and then insert it into the DNA of corn and cotton plants, so that the plant does the work, not the farmer. Moreover, they say that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in our stomach; and even if it survived, since humans and other mammals have no receptors for the toxin, it would not interact with us in any case.

These arguments, however, are just that—unsupported assumptions. Research tells a different story.

Bt Spray Is Dangerous To Humans

When natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room for allergies or asthma.[1],[2] Workers who applied Bt sprays reported eye, nose, throat, and respiratory irritation,[3] and some showed an antibody immune response in linked to Bt.[4] Farmers exposed to liquid Bt formulations had reactions including infection, an ulcer on the cornea,[5] skin irritation, burning, swelling, and redness.[6] One woman who was accidentally sprayed with Bt also developed fever, altered consciousness, and seizures.[7]

In fact, authorities have long acknowledged that “People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt.”[8] The Oregon Health Division advises that “individuals with…physician-diagnosed causes of severe immune disorders may consider leaving the area during the actual spraying.”[9] A spray manufacturer warns, “Repeated exposure via inhalation can result in sensitization and allergic response in hypersensitive individuals.”[10] So much for the contention that Bt does not interact with humans.

As for being thoroughly destroyed in the digestive system, mouse studies disproved this as well. Mice fed Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses—as potent as cholera toxin. In addition, the Bt caused their immune system to become sensitive to formerly harmless compounds This suggests that exposure might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.[11],[12] The EPA’s own expert advisors said that the mouse and farm worker studies above “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”[13]

The Toxin In GM Plants Is More Dangerous Than Natural Sprays

The Bt-toxin produced in GM crops is “vastly different from the bacterial [Bt-toxins] used in organic and traditional farming and forestry.”[14] First of all, GM plants produce about 3,000-5,000 times the amount of toxin as the sprays. And the spray form is broken down within a few days to two weeks by sunlight,[15] high temperatures, or substances on the leaves of plants; and it can be “washed from leaves into the soil by rainfall,”[16] or rinsed by consumers. A Bt producing GM plant, on the other hand, continuously produces the toxin in every cell where it does not dissipate by weather and cannot be washed off.

The natural toxic produced in bacteria is inactive until it gets inside the alkaline digestive tract of an insect. Once inside, a “safety catch” is removed and the Bt becomes toxic. But scientists change the sequence the Bt gene before inserting it into GM plants. The Bt toxin it produces usually comes without the safety catch. The plant-produced Bt toxin is always active and more likely to trigger an immune response than the natural variety.[17]

Bt-toxin Fails Safety Studies But Is Used Nonetheless

Tests cannot verify that a GM protein introduced into the food supply for the first time will not cause allergies in some people. The World Health Organization (WHO) and UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) offer criteria designed to reduce the likelihood that allergenic GM crops are approved.[18] They suggest examining a protein for 1) similarity of its amino acid sequence to known allergens, 2) digestive stability and 3) heat stability. These properties aren’t predictive of allergenicity, but their presence, according to experts, should be sufficient to reject the GM crop or at least require more testing. The Bt-toxin produced in GM corn fails all three criteria.

For example, the specific Bt-toxin found in Monsanto’s Yield Guard and Syngenta’s Bt 11 corn varieties is called Cry1AB. In 1998, an FDA researcher discovered that Cry1Ab shared a sequence of 9-12 amino acids with vitellogenin, an egg yolk allergen. The study concluded that “the similarity…might be sufficient to warrant additional evaluation.”[19] No additional evaluation took place.[20]

Cry1Ab is also very resistant to digestion and heat.[21] It is nearly as stable as the type of Bt-toxin produced by StarLink corn. StarLink was a GM variety not approved for human consumption because experts believed that its highly stable protein might trigger allergies.[22] Although it was grown for use in animal feed, it contaminated the US food supply in 2000. Thousands of consumers complained to food manufacturers about possible reactions and over 300 items were subject to recall. After the StarLink incident, expert advisors to the EPA had called for “surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals” to “confirm the allergenicity of Bt products.”[23] Again, no such monitoring has taken place.

Bt Cotton Triggers Allergic Reactions

A 2005 report by medical investigators in India describes an ominous finding. Hundreds of agricultural workers are developing moderate or severe allergic reactions when exposed to Bt cotton. This includes those picking cotton, loading it, cleaning it, or even leaning against it. Some at a ginning factory must take antihistamines daily, in order to go to work. Reactions are only triggered with the Bt varieties.[24] Furthermore, the symptoms are virtually identical to those described by the 500 people in Vancouver and Washington who were sprayed with Bt. Only “exacerbations of asthma” were in one list and not the other (see table).

Upper respiratory	Eyes	Skin	Overall
Bt Spray	Sneezing,
runny nose,
exacerbations of asthma	Watery,
red	Itching, burning, inflammation, red, swelling	Fever,
some in hospital
Bt cotton	Sneezing,
runny nose	Watery,
red	Itching, burning, eruptions,
red, swelling	Fever,
some in hospital
(We are unaware of similar reports in the US, where 83% of the cotton is Bt. But in the US, cotton is harvested by machine, not by hand.)

The experience of the Indian workers begs the question, “How long does the Bt-toxin stay active in the cotton?” It there any risk using cotton diapers, tampons, or bandages? In the latter case, if the Bt-toxin interfered with healing it could be a disaster. With diabetics, for example, unhealed wounds may be cause for amputation.

Cottonseed is also used for cottonseed oil—used in many processed foods in the US. The normal methods used to extract oil likely destroy the toxin, although cold pressed oil may still retain some of it. Other parts of the cotton plant, however, are routinely used as animal feed. The next part of this series—focused on toxicity—presents evidence of disease and deaths associated with animals consuming Bt cotton plants.

Bt Corn Pollen May Cause Allergies

Bt-toxin is produced in GM corn and can be eaten intact. It is also in pollen, which can be breathed in. In 2003, during the time when an adjacent Bt cornfield was pollinating, virtually an entire Filipino village of about 100 people were stricken by a disease. The symptoms included headaches, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting, chest pains, fever and allergies, as well as respiratory, intestinal, and skin reactions. The symptoms appeared first in those living closest to the field, and then progressed to others by proximity. Blood samples from 39 individuals showed antibodies in response to Bt-toxin; this supports, but does not prove a link to the symptoms. When the same corn was planted in four other villages the following year, however, the symptoms returned in all four areas—only during the time of pollination.

The potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified in a letter to the US FDA in 1998 by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even warned that genes from inhaled pollen might transfer into the DNA of bacteria in the respiratory system.[25] Although no studies were done to verify this risk, years later UK scientists confirmed that after consuming GM soybeans, the foreign inserted genes can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. If this also happens with Bt genes, than years after we decide to stop eating GM corn chips, our own gut bacteria may continue to produce Bt-toxin within our intestines.

Studies Show Immune Responses To GM Crops

Studies confirm that several GM crops engineered to produce built-in pesticides provoke immune responses in animals. A Monsanto rat study on Bt corn (Mon 863), that was made public due to a lawsuit, showed a significant increase in three types of blood cells related to the immune system: basophils, lymphocytes, and total white cell counts.[26]

Australian scientists took an insecticide producing gene (not Bt) from a kidney bean and put it into a pea, in hopes of killing the pea weevil. The peas had passed the tests normally used to approve GM crops and were on the way to being commercialized. But the developers decided to employ a mouse study that had never before been used on other GM food crops. When they tested the pesticide in its natural state, i.e. the version produced within kidney beans, the protein was not harmful to mice. But that “same” protein, when produced by the kidney bean gene that was inserted into pea DNA, triggered inflammatory responses in the mice, suggesting that it would cause allergies in humans. Somehow, the protein had been changed from harmless to potentially deadly, just by being created in a different plant. Scientists believe that subtle, unpredicted changes in the pattern of sugar molecules that were attached to the protein were the cause of the problem. These types of subtle changes are not routinely analyzed in GM crops on the market.

Experimental potatoes engineered with a third type of insecticide caused immune damage to rats.[27] Blood tests showed that their immune responses were more sluggish, and organs associated with immune function also appeared to be damaged. As with the peas, the insecticide in its natural state was harmless to the rats. The cause of the health problems was therefore due to some unpredicted change brought about by the genetic engineering process. And like the peas, if the potatoes had been subjected to only the type of tests that are typically used by biotech companies to get their foods on the market, the potatoes would have been approved.

Allergic reactions are a defensive, often harmful immune system response to an external irritant. The body interprets something as foreign, different and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. According to GM food safety expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished,…indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods.” [28]

In addition to immune responses, several studies and reports from the field provide evidence that GM foods are toxic. In the next article in this series, we look at thousands of sick, sterile and dead animals, linked to consumption of GM crops.








Document Number: 7984
Most Offspring Died When Mother Rats Ate Genetically Engineered Soy

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

The Russian scientist planned a simple experiment to see if eating genetically modified (GM) soy might influence offspring. What she got, however, was an astounding result that may threaten a multi-billion dollar industry.

Irina Ermakova, a leading scientist at the Institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS), added GM soy flour (5-7 grams) to the diet of female rats. Other females were fed non-GM soy or no soy at all. The experimental diet began two weeks before the rats conceived and continued through pregnancy and nursing.

Ermakova’s first surprise came when her pregnant rats started giving birth. Some pups from GM-fed mothers were quite a bit smaller. After 2 weeks, 36% of them weighed less than 20 grams compared to about 6% from the other groups (see photo below).


 

 

 

 

Photo of two rats from 
the Russian study, 
showing stunted growth—
the larger rat, 19 days old, 
is from the control group; 
the smaller rat, 20 days old, 
is from the "GM soy" group.

But the real shock came when the rats started dying. Within three weeks, 25 of the 45 (55.6%) rats from the GM soy group died compared to only 3 of 33 (9%) from the non-GM soy group and 3 of 44 (6.8%) from the non-soy controls.

Ermakova preserved several major organs from the mother rats and offspring, drew up designs for a detailed organ analysis, created plans to repeat and expand the feeding trial, and promptly ran out of research money. The $70,000 needed was not expected to arrive for a year. Therefore, when she was invited to present her research at a symposium organized by the National Association for Genetic Security, Ermakova wrote “PRELIMINARY STUDIES” on the top of her paper. She presented it on October 10, 2005 at a session devoted to the risks of GM food.

Her findings are hardly welcome by an industry already steeped in controversy.

GM Soy’s Divisive Past

The soy she was testing was Monsanto’s Roundup Ready variety. Its DNA has bacterial genes added that allow the soy plant to survive applications of Monsanto’s “Roundup” brand herbicide. About 85% of the soy gown in the US is Roundup Ready. Since soy derivatives, including oil, flour and lecithin, are found in the majority of processed foods sold in the US, many Americans eat ingredients derived from Roundup Ready soy everyday.

The FDA does not require any safety tests on genetically modified foods. If Monsanto or other biotech companies declare their foods safe, the agency has no further questions. The rationale for this hands-off position is a sentence in the FDA’s 1992 policy that states, “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[1] The statement, it turns out, was deceptive. Documents made public from a lawsuit years later revealed that the FDA’s own experts agreed that GM foods are different and might lead to hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases or nutritional problems. They had urged their superiors to require long-term safety studies, but were ignored. The person in charge of FDA policy was, conveniently, Monsanto’s former attorney (and later their vice president). One FDA microbiologist described the GM food policy as “just a political document” without scientific basis, and warned that industry would “not do the tests that they would normally do” since the FDA didn’t require any.[2] He was correct.

There have been less than 20 published, peer-reviewed animal feeding safety studies and no human clinical trials—in spite of the fact that millions of people eat GM soy, corn, cotton, or canola daily. There are no adequate tests on “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function,”[3] and animal feeding studies are too short to adequately test for cancer, reproductive problems, or effects in the next generation. This makes Ermakova’s research particularly significant. It’s the first of its kind.

Past Studies Show Significant Effects

Other studies on Roundup Ready soy also raise serious questions. Research on the liver, the body’s major de-toxifier, showed that mice fed GM soy developed misshapen nuclei and other cellular anomalies.[4] This indicates increased metabolic activity, probably resulting from a major insult to that organ. Mice also showed changes in the pancreas, including a huge drop in the production of a major enzyme (alpha-amylase),[5] which could inhibit digestion. Cooked GM soy contains about twice the amount of soy lectin, which can also block nutrient assimilation.[6] And one study showed that GM soy has 12-14% less isoflavones, which are touted as cancer fighting.[7]

An animal feeding study published by Monsanto showed no apparent problems with GM soy,[8] but their research has been severely criticized as rigged to avoid finding problems.[9] Monsanto used mature animals instead of young, more sensitive ones, diluted their GM soy up to 12-fold, used too much protein, never weighed the organs, and had huge variations in starting weights. The study’s nutrient comparison between GM and non-GM soy revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content, lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine. Monsanto researchers had actually omitted the most incriminating nutritional differences, which were later discovered and made public. For example, the published paper showed a 27% increase in a known allergen, trypsin inhibitor, while the recovered data raised that to a 3-fold or 7-fold increase, after the soy was cooked. This might explain why soy allergies in the UK skyrocketed by 50% soon after GM soy was introduced.

The gene that is inserted into GM soy produces a protein with two sections that are identical to known allergens. This might also account for the increased allergy rate. Furthermore, the only human feeding trial ever conducted confirmed that this inserted gene transfers into the DNA of bacteria inside the intestines. This means that long after you decide to stop eating GM soy, your own gut bacteria may still be producing this potentially allergenic protein inside your digestive tract.

The migration of genes might influence offspring. German scientists found fragments of the DNA fed to pregnant mice in the brains of their newborn.[10] Fragments of genetically modified DNA were also found in the blood, spleen, liver and kidneys of piglets that were fed GM corn.[11] It was not clear if the GM genes actually entered the DNA of the animal, but scientists speculate that if it were to integrate into the sex organ cells, it might impact offspring.

The health of newborns might also be affected by toxins, allergens, or anti-nutrients in the mother’s diet. These may be created in GM crops, due to unpredictable alterations in their DNA. The process of gene insertion can delete one or more of the DNA’s own natural genes, scramble them, turn them off, or permanently turn them on. It can also change the expression levels of hundreds of genes. And growing the transformed cell into a GM plant through a process called tissue culture can create hundreds or thousands of additional mutations throughout the DNA.

Most of these possibilities have not been properly evaluated in Roundup Ready soy. We don’t know how many mutations or altered gene expressions are found in its DNA. Years after it was marketed, however, scientists did discover a section of natural soy DNA that was scrambled[12] and two additional fragments of the foreign gene that had escaped Monsanto’s detection.

Those familiar with the body of GM safety studies are often astounded by their superficiality. Moreover, several scientists who discovered incriminating evidence or even expressed concerns about the technology have been fired, threatened, stripped of responsibilities, or censured.[13] And when problems do arise, they are not followed up. For example, animals fed GM crops developed potentially precancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers and testicles, damaged immune systems, bigger livers, partial atrophy of the liver, lesions in the livers, stomachs, and kidneys, inflammation of the kidneys, problems with their blood cells, higher blood sugar levels, and unexplained increases in the death rate. (See Genetically Engineered Foods May Pose National Health Risk.) None have been adequately followed-up or accounted for.

Ermakova’s research, however, will likely change that. That’s because her study is easy to repeat and its results are so extreme. A 55.6% mortality rate is enormous and very worrisome. Repeating the study is the only reasonable option.

American Academy of Environmental Medicine Urges NIH to Follow Up Study

I presented Dr. Ermakova’s findings, with her permission, at the annual conference of the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) in Tucson on October 27, 2005. In response, the AAEM board passed a resolution asking the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to sponsor an immediate, independent follow-up of the study. Dr. Jim Willoughby, the Academy’s president, said, “Genetically modified soy, corn, canola, and cottonseed oil are being consumed daily by a significant proportion of our population. We need rigorous, independent and long-term studies to evaluate if these foods put the population at risk.”

Unfortunately, there is a feature about GM crops that makes even follow-up studies a problem. In 2003, a French laboratory analyzed the inserted genes in five GM varieties, including Roundup Ready soybeans.[14] In each case, the genetic sequence was different than that which had been described by the biotech companies years earlier. Had all the companies made a mistake? That’s unlikely. Rather, the inserted genes probably rearranged over time. A Brussels lab confirmed that the genetic sequences were different than what was originally listed. But the sequences discovered in Brussels didn’t all match those found by the French.[15] This suggests that the inserted genes are unstable and can change in different ways. It also means that they are creating new proteins—ones that were never intended or tested. The Roundup Ready soybeans used in the Russian test may therefore be quite different from the Roundup Ready soybeans used in follow-up studies.

Unstable genes make accurate safety testing impossible. It also may explain some of the many problems reported about GM foods. For example, nearly 25 farmers in the US and Canada say that certain GM corn varieties caused their pigs to become sterile, have false pregnancies, or give birth to bags of water. A farmer in Germany claims that a certain variety of GM corn killed 12 of his cows and caused others to fall sick. And Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed skin, respiratory, and intestinal symptoms and fever, while the corn was pollinating. The mysterious symptoms returned the following year, also during pollination, and blood tests on 39 of the Filipinos showed an immune response to the Bt toxin—created by the GM corn.

These problems may be due to particular GM varieties, or they may result from a GM crop that has “gone bad” due to genetic rearrangements. Even GM plants with identical gene sequences, however, might act differently. The amount of Bt toxin in the Philippine corn study described above, for example, varied considerably from kernel to kernel, even in the same plant.[16]

With billions of dollars invested in GM foods, no adverse finding has yet been sufficient to reverse the industry’s growth in the US. It may take some dramatic, indisputable, and life-threatening discovery. That is why Ermakova’s findings are so important. If the study holds up, it may topple the GM food industry.

I urge the NIH to agree to the AAEM’s request, and fund an immediate, independent follow-up study. If NIH funding is not forthcoming, our Institute for Responsible Technology will try to raise the money. This is not the time to wait. There is too much at stake.








Document Number: 1728
Genetically Modified Soy Diets Lead to Ovary and Uterus Changes in Rats



If you’re still eating genetically modified (GM) soybeans and you plan on having kids, a Brazilian study may make you think again about what you put in your mouth. Female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycle, compared to rats fed organic soy or those raised without soy. Published in The Anatomical Record in 2009, this finding adds to the mounting body of evidence suggesting that GM foods contribute to reproductive disorders (see summary at end).

Unlike women whose menstrual cycle starts automatically at puberty, female rats need to be "inspired." Their (estrous) cycle conveniently kicks in only after being introduced to male rats. Since no males were present in this study, the females fed organic soy or no soy were appropriately untriggered (diestrus).  For some odd reason, however, those fed GM soy appeared to have their ovulation cycle in full gear.

Although the researchers did not perform a check on the estrous cycle directly, their microscopic analysis of ovaries and uterus tissue showed that the hormone-induced changes (i.e. early ovulation and formation of corpus luteum) were well underway. In addition, the lining of the uterus (endometriim) had more cells than normal and the glands were dilated. In simpler terms, according to senior UK pathologist Stanley Ewen, something in the GM soy diet was "wrecking the ovary and endometrium" of the rats.

Hormonal imbalance and disease risk

Dr. Ewen speculated on the significant hormonal changes in the rats and their implications for women who eat GM soy. He said that the proliferative growth (hyperplasia) of the (endometrial) cells lining the uterus implies changes in important reproductive hormones. There might include excessive production of estrogen, follicle stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone, or even damage to the pituitary gland itself.

The presence of the corpus luteum, which is normally formed during the estrous cycle, means that the rats likely have higher amounts of progesterone. This hormone could increase the number of eggs released from the ovary, as well as increase their tendency to implant and be viable. If eating GM soy increased progesterone in women, this might improve their fertility.

On the other hand, if women also experienced similar changes in the uterus lining and altered hormonal levels, Dr. Ewen said it might increase the risk of retrograde menstruation, in which menstrual discharge travels backwards into the body rather than through the uterus. This can cause a disease known as endometriosis, which may lead to infertility. The disorder can also produce pelvic and leg pain, gastrointestinal problems, chronic fatigue, and a wide variety of other symptoms. The cause is unknown.

Dr. Ewen also pointed out that the changes in the rats, if extrapolated to humans, might lead to abnormally heavy or longer menstrual periods (menorrhagia).

He was quick to point out that more studies are needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn, particularly because such a method of study, called histology, "is a static observation—only a snapshot." In addition, follow-up studies may be able to better rule out other variables. In this study, an amino acid (cysteine) was added only to the organic soy diet but not the GMO (although even a cysteine-deficient diet would not explain the reproductive issues). Also, the soybeans used in both diets were purchased commercially. It is much better to use similar genetic varieties grown side by side in the same climatic conditions. Unfortunately, Monsanto doesn’t usually make the similar varieties (isolines) available for research.

The variable that Dr. Ewen wants looked at the most is the weedkiller used on GM soybeans, as he mentioned over and over that it is a probable cause of the disruption.

Is Roundup herbicide causing us reproductive problems?

Genetically modified soybeans are called Roundup Ready. They are inserted with a bacterial gene, which allows the plants to survive a normally deadly dose of Roundup herbicide. Although the spray doesn’t kill the plant, its active ingredient called glyphosate does accumulate in the beans themselves, which are consumed by rats, livestock, and humans. There is so much glyphosate in GM soybeans, when they were introduced Europe had to increase their allowable residue levels by 200 fold.

Although there is only a handful of studies on the safety of GM soybeans, there is considerable evidence that glyphosate—especially in conjunction with the other ingredients in Roundup—wreaks havoc with the endocrine and reproductive systems. "I think the concentration of glyphosate in the soybeans is the likely cause of the problem," says Ewen.

Glyphosate throws off the delicate hormonal balance that governs the whole reproductive cycle. "It’s an endocrine buster," says Ewen, "that interferes with aromatase, which produces estrogen." Aromatase is required by luteal cells to produce hormones for the normal menstrual cycle, but it’s those luteal cells that have shown considerable alterations in the rats fed GM soybeans.

Glyphosate is also toxic to the placenta, the organ which connects the mother to the fetus, providing nutrients and oxygen, and emptying waste products. In a 2009 French study at the University of Caen, scientists discovered that glyphosate can kill the cells in the outer layer of the human placenta (the trophoblast membrane), which in turn can kill the placenta. The placenta cells are, in Ewen’s words, "exquisitely sensitive to glyphosate." Only 1/500th the amount needed to kill weeds was able to kill the cells. The amount is so small, according to the study authors the "residual levels to be expected, especially in food and feed derived from R[oundup] formulation-treated crops" could be enough to "cause cell damage and even [cell] death." Furthermore, the effect of the toxin may bioaccumulate, growing worse with repeated consumption from Roundup laden foods.

Ewen says, "If the endocrine functions of the placenta are destroyed by glyphosate in the test tube, by extrapolation, ovarian and endometrial function would be expected to suffer." The implications for pregnant woman consuming glyphosate, he says, could be abortion.

Indeed, in a Canadian epidemiological study, which looked at nearly 4000 pregnancies in 1,898 couples, women exposed to glyphosate during the three months before getting pregnant had a significantly higher risk of abortions, especially for those above 34 years of age.

Dr. Ewen regrets that he didn’t follow up a referral by a local gynecologist about 20 years ago, who told him that women were having abortions when the fields next door were sprayed. He doesn’t know what was sprayed.

Fathers exposed to glyphosate also increase reproductive risks

In the Canadian study above, even fathers who were exposed to glyphosate before their wives got pregnant showed an increase in early delivery and abortions. In addition, a study of male rabbits showed that glyphosate can cause a reduction in sexual activity and sperm concentration, and an increase in dead or abnormal sperm.

Birth defects increased in humans and animals

Numerous indigenous people and peasant communities in Argentina have blamed aerial spraying of Roundup on a significant rise of birth defects. Dr. Andreas Carasco of the Embryology Laboratory, Faculty of Medicine in Buenos Aires, decided to investigate. He exposed amphibian embryos to a tiny concentration of glyphosate (diluted 5000 fold). According to an excellent summary of glyphosate-related effects by the Pesticide Action Network,

"Effects included reduced head size, genetic alterations in the central nervous system, increased death of cells that help form the skull, deformed cartilage, eye defects, and undeveloped kidneys. Carrasco also stated that the glyphosate was not breaking down in the cells, but was accumulating. The findings lend weight to claims that abnormally high levels of cancer, birth defects, neonatal mortality, lupus, kidney disease, and skin and respiratory problems in populations near Argentina’s soybean fields may be linked to the aerial spraying of Roundup."

Although human embryos are not directly treated with glyphosate in the same way that Carrasco treated his amphibian embryos, it is known that glyphosate does cross the placenta and enters the fetal circulation.

In his article, Dr. Carrasco describes some disturbing findings in Argentina, where more than 50 million gallons of glyphosate-based herbicide is used on more than 45 million acres of GM soy.

In Argentina, an increase in the incidence of congenital malformations began to be reported in the last few years. In Co´rdoba, several cases of malformations together with repeated spontaneous abortions were detected in the village of Ituzaingo´, which is surrounded by GMO-based agriculture. These findings were concentrated in families living a few meters from where the herbicides are regularly sprayed.

Glyphosate may also cause reproductive disorders in the offspring of those exposed. When pregnant rats, for example, were exposed to glyphosate, their male offspring suffered reduced sperm production, increased abnormal sperm, and decrease in testosterone, in puberty and/or adulthood.

Other evidence of reproductive problems from GMOs

The changes in the rat uterus and ovulation cycle are by no means a smoking gun. But they are now part of a pattern of multiple reproductive disorders found in GMO feeding studies. Professor Vyvyan Howard, a toxico-pathologist of the University of Ulster, says, "Several new hazards can now be identified." The growing body or research showing problems, he says, "provides ample evidence that the producers of GMO crops are not performing risk assessments for some of the hazards that independent scientists are identifying and testing." Dr. Howard, who specializes in the effects of toxins on the fetus and infants,  asks, "What will be the effect on the fetus in the womb of women eating these foods? This needs to be tested."

The few tests that have been done on animals are more than sobering. In April 2010, researchers at Russia’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, by the third generation most lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, a high mortality rate among the pups, and a high incidence of a rare phenomenon of hair growing inside their mouths.

When I reported the results of the hamster study, I included the following review of other GMO-related reports of reproductive disorders:

In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller (see photo) and could not reproduce. In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.

When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were. Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding "neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior." Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females "at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens." One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock. In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Biotech advocates usually deny or try to discredit the evidence, and often attack scientists who discover it. But they rarely call for follow-up studies. With little or no money to follow up on these findings, we won’t know for sure if GMOs are the cause, or if it is glyphosate, or something else. But numerous medical doctors aren’t waiting for more research. They are telling their patients, especially those pregnant or planning to have kids, just say no to GMOs.

So if you were still eating GMOs before you read this, perhaps it’s time to take the doctors’ advice.









Document Number: 1929

Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice

Other GM Foods are Not Tested for This and May Be Harmful

By Jeffrey M. Smith

SUMMARY

Genetically modified (GM) peas under development created immune responses in mice, suggesting that they may also create serious allergic reactions in people. The peas had been inserted with a gene from kidney beans, which creates a protein that acts as a pesticide.  When this protein is produced naturally in beans, it does not elicit a response from mice. When produced in the GM peas, however, it did cause a reaction. Using sensitive testing methods, scientists discovered subtle differences between the bean and the GM proteins—the added sugar chains were slightly different. They speculate that this difference caused the immune reactions. Based on the results of the study, the Australian developers abandoned their 10-year, $2 million project.

This study reveals serious and potentially deadly flaws in the regulations and assessments used to approve GM foods. GM crops on the market, like corn and soybeans, were never tested for immune responses using animals and never subjected to a similar analysis of their proteins. Thus, the transgenic proteins in GM foods may have subtle undetected differences that are causing health problems. It is sobering to note that if the GM peas were tested with only the methods used on soy and corn, it likely would have been approved as well.


The approvals of genetically modified (GM) food are largely based on four pillars. The first is the reliance on a long list of assumptions about food safety. Unfortunately, these assumptions are principally based on what was known about genetics 40 years ago, and many have been overturned.

The second pillar is that safety research on GM foods is primarily controlled by industry. Much of it is secret, and the few studies that have been made public are largely superficial—designed not to contradict the assumptions.

The third pillar is an ineffective regulatory system, often hijacked by people with close ties to industry. They accept unscientific assumptions and poor research, and ignore adverse findings.

The fourth pillar is spin—merciless, relentless, in-your-face spin—that magically flips facts to proclaim their opposite. Examples are forthcoming.

On November 17, those pillars took a considerable beating. GM peas under development were evaluated by tests normally applied to medicine—not to GM food.[1] The peas created a dangerous immune response in mice which, if found in humans, might be life threatening. The 10-year pea project, costing over $2 million dollars (US), was abandoned. If those same peas had been evaluated with tests used for other GM crops, however, they could have sailed through the approval process anywhere in the world.

The peas were developed by Australian scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) to assist the country’s $100 million pea harvest. They targeted the pea weevil, a pest that takes a hefty bite—up to 30%—out of yields. But if weevil larvae were to bite a GM pea plant, they would starve to death. That’s because the pea contains a protein called alpha-amylase inhibitor, an anti-nutrient that interferes with the bugs’ digestion. That protein is produced from a gene normally found in “common” (kidney) beans and when fully cooked is safe for humans. Scientists spliced the gene into peas, figuring it would be safe there as well.

Safety Assessment

Researchers checked the sequence of the kidney bean gene after it was inserted into the pea’s DNA. It hadn’t changed during the insertion process, but this is not always the case. Genes inserted into soybeans and corn, for example, were mutated, fragmented or truncated, and several appeared to rearrange over time. Remarkably, safety assessments don’t always require that the transgene’s sequence is determined. In the US, for example, gene sequencing is not part of the approval process.

If a gene’s sequence changes, it might create proteins with the wrong amino acids. But analyzing the sequence of amino acids is also not required. According to Bill Freese, a research analyst at Friends of the Earth, “At present, the standard practice is to sequence just 5 to 25 amino acids,” even if the protein has more than 600 in total. They assume that the rest are fine. Most of GM foods on the market have never had their novel proteins sequenced. The GM peas, however, were checked. The protein produced in the peas did have the same amino acid sequence as the original in the beans.

Scientists at the John Curtin School of Medical Research inCanberra tested the peas on mice, to see if they elicited an immune or allergic response. Groups of mice were fed a commercial diet and also given GM peas, non-GM peas or beans, twice a week for four weeks. After the feeding period, the mice were tested with a battery of immune response tests. Reactions were elicited only in mice that were fed GM peas. Specifically, injections of the GM protein into the footpad resulted in significant swelling; when introduced into the trachea, it caused mild lung damage and tissue inflammation (similar to asthma in humans). Lymph nodes also responded to the presence of GM protein. The researchers did not check for allergies, per se, but used tests that they say are predictive of allergenic sensitivity.

Simon Hogan, the lead researcher for the study, said, “The study is fairly conclusive.” He added, “These types of assays are commonly used in medical research.” They have not, however, been used in safety assessments for GM foods on the market. Even though experts with the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Health Organization (FAO-WHO) recommend using animal studies to test for allergies, no government actually requires it, and it is almost never done.

According to immunologist Ricki Helms, who has served on several expert panels examining the potential allergenicity of GM foods, “Animal models can contribute to the evaluation of allergenicity but cannot offer absolute certainty.” This lack of certainty is a common justification by industry scientists for why they don’t use animal allergy studies as part of their assessments. The two methods that they prefer, however, also lack certainty.

In the first method, the transgenic proteins are put into test tubes with digestive enzymes and acid to measure how quickly they are broken down. This test is based on the fact that allergenic proteins often—but not always—break down slowly in the stomach and intestines. The problem is that test tube studies do not accurately predict what happens inside humans. And even if they did, a protein that is broken down quickly may still cause allergies. Thus, potentially harmful allergenic proteins can pass this test. In the other method, researchers search databases to see if the amino acid sequences of the transgenic protein are similar to known allergens. This method also offers no guarantees—not all allergenic sequences have been identified and allergenic proteins can certainly pass this test as well. In spite of the shortcomings of these two methods, the FAO-WHO recommends them as part of the assessment and offers specific criteria for each. Regulators can ignore those recommendations. The GM soy, corn, and papaya on the market, for example, fail the FAO-WHO criteria. GM pea developer TJ Higgins told me that when his peas were evaluated for protein stability and amino acid similarity, they were “borderline.”

In addition to creating an immune response in mice, GM peas also increased their immune system’s sensitivity to other substances. For example, mice fed the non-GM peas showed no response to egg albumin. The GM-fed mice did have an immune reaction to the albumin, as well as to three other substances tested. The ability of one food to increase the sensitivity to other foods is called an “adjuvant” response. It suggests that humans fed GM peas might develop allergic or immune responses to a wide range of other foods. According to Judy Carman, an epidemiologist and the director of The Institute of Health and Environmental Research in Australia, “If a GM food was introduced onto supermarket shelves and caused an immune reaction, it would be very difficult to find the culprit, particularly if it caused reactions to other, different foods, as this GM pea was found to do.” As you probably guessed, adjuvant testing is not part of any normal GM food approval process.

Independent researchers did test a GM product both for immune and adjuvant responses using mice.[2] They tested one type of Bt-toxin (Cry1Ac) found in GM cotton, which is similar to Bt toxins produced in several varieties of GM corn (Cry1Ab). Like the alpha-amylase inhibitor in peas, Bt toxins kill pests. Not only did the Cry1Ac produce a significant immune response, it elicited an adjuvant response as well. Another study showed that Bt toxins in spray form caused antibody responses and allergic symptoms in farm workers and others.[3] Taken together, these studies overturned several safety assumptions. In spite of claims to the contrary, Bt is not fully destroyed during digestion, it is bioactive in mammals (including humans), and current safety assessments are inadequate. By the time this research was done, Bt crops were already planted on millions of acres. Withdrawing them will apparently require more evidence of human harm.

Another assumption used often by the biotech industry is that cooking their GM crop will destroy its potential to create allergies. Cooking can change the protein’s structure, or “denature” it. Proponents have claimed that when Bt is denatured, it is no longer effective as a pesticide and will therefore no longer be allergenic. The GM peas were boiled for 20 minutes. After cooking, the alpha-amylase inhibitor was denatured and was no longer effective in protecting against weevils. Industry assumptions notwithstanding, the cooked pea protein still caused an immune response in mice.

Tracking Down the Cause

What was it about the transgenic protein in the GM peas that caused it to affect the mice, when the “same” protein in its natural form in kidney beans did not? This question intrigued Hogan and his team. He said their “scientific, inquisitive nature” led them to look for subtle differences in the protein structure. Although the amino acid sequences of the GM and non-GM proteins were identical, that doesn’t tell the whole story. Amino acids are the building blocks, and according to Carman, “If you knock down a house and then study the pile of bricks, it won’t describe the house. Similarly, the amino acids don’t reveal the structure, shape and unique characteristics of the protein.”

David Schubert of The Salk Institute for Biological Studies points out that in higher organisms such as plants and animals, “each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying protein structure.” Depending on where they are, a protein may have added molecular chains, “such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars, or lipids,”[4] which alter their function. In a 2002 article in Nature Biotechnology, Schubert argues, “With our current state of knowledge, however, there is no way of predicting either the modifications or their biological effects.”[5]

We can, however, detect such modifications. For instance, when sugar chains are added to proteins, this process, known as glycosylation, can influence allergic responses. Hogan’s team used the sensitive MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry technique, and confirmed that the GM and non-GM proteins had slightly different glycosylation patterns. They believe that these subtle differences may be the cause of the immune responses.

Here again is more bad news. The MALDI-TOF method is not required and has rarely been used for the safety assessments of GM food already on the market. According to Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the Center for Food Safety and formerly at the US Environmental Protection Agency, the differences in glycosylation between the GM pea protein and the non-GM counterpart in kidney beans “would not be detected by the tests that are currently required by US regulatory agencies.”  If companies do assess differences in protein, it is typically by “gel” tests, which won’t reveal the subtle differences in glycosylation that may have caused the immune response. In fact, TJ Higgins looked at gel tests in the 1990s and did not see any difference between the GM and non-GM proteins.

Approvals Rely on Dangerous Assumptions

Industry’s assumption that proteins will act in a predictable manner in a new organism has been pivotal and it certainly helped them get GM foods approved. Take, for example, their acute toxicity tests where they feed rodents just the isolated protein. They don’t necessarily extract the protein from the GM crop. Instead, they almost always produce the protein using genetically engineered bacteria, since it is cheaper and easier. They then test the animals’ reactions to this surrogate protein, assuming that if animals don’t react to the bacterial form, then they—and humans—won’t react to the plant form.

These tests, therefore, avoid measuring the health impact of any changes in the protein in the GM crops we actually consume. The pea study revealed that significant, potentially deadly changes occurred when the gene from kidney beans is inserted into peas—closely related species. But the genes put into GM foods already on the market cross entire kingdoms. Bacterial genes are spliced into GM soybeans, corn, cotton and canola, and viral genes are inserted into papaya, zucchini and crook neck squash. How these crops will alter bacterial proteins is anyone’s guess—unfortunately.

Glycosylation is related to another possible problem. Proteins are sometimes folded in precise formations by specialized “chaperone” folders inside the cell. If a novel protein appears in a species where it has never before existed, the chaperone folders might not do their jobs right. A mis-folded protein can be quite dangerous. In the case of the peas, the difference in glycosylation means that the protein is almost certainly a different shape, but there may be other shape-related issues that contributed to the immune reaction in mice.

In addition to changes in the target protein, side-effects from the gene insertion process can create toxins, allergens, or adjuvants. Earlier unpublished tests on the GM peas, for example, showed a doubling of trypsin inhibitor, a known allergen, and a fourfold increase in an anti-nutrient called a lectin. These or some other unknown change in the peas’ composition might have played a part in increasing the immune responsiveness of the mice. In short, we don’t really know why genetically engineered peas are more dangerous. We do know that the body interprets something in the pea as foreign, different, and offensive, and it reacts accordingly. On the other hand, all GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. It makes sense that the immune systems in humans or animals that have never eaten these novel substances before may react to them.

A handful of studies that have looked for immune responses have found them. In 1995, a Brazil nut gene inserted into soy DNA created an allergic reaction in human blood, and the project was stopped.[6] In 1998, a GM potato caused immune system damage in rats, among other problems.[7] Studies implicating the Bt-toxin have already been cited above. On top of those, a Bt potato caused abnormal and excessive cell growth in the small intestine of mice.[8] A feeding study with Bt corn called MON 863 caused a significant increase in male rats of three types of blood cells: basophils, lymphocytes (22%) and total white cell counts (20%).[9] This strongly suggests that consuming GM corn caused changes in the immune system. According to GM safety research expert Arpad Pusztai, “A consistent feature of all the studies done, published or unpublished, including MON 863, indicates major problems with changes in the immune status of animals fed on various GM crops/foods, the latest example of this coming from the GM pea research in Australia.”[10]

We don’t have the advantage of sophisticated human clinical trials, so our evidence for immune reactions in humans is limited and preliminary. For example,

Soy allergies jumped 50% in the UK just after GM soy was introduced;[11]
An expert panel in the US determined that there was a moderate likelihood that StarLink Bt corn contained a human allergen;[12]
Filipinos living next to Bt cornfields developed severe symptoms three years in a row—only while the corn was pollinating;[13] and
A recent health report claims that Indian farm workers exposed to Bt cotton developed moderate or severe allergic reactions.[14]
Certainly allergies and asthma are on the rise in many nations, but at this point, we can only guess whether GM food plays a part. The pea study provides a clue how it might be related.

Spin

No report on GM research is complete without the fourth pillar—spin. How do you suppose the industry will respond to these pea findings that expose an inept regulatory process that under normal test procedures would almost certainly have allowed these peas onto the market? Consider the response of GM pea developer TJ Higgins, “I think that this shows that the regulatory system works.”[15]

But before we condemn Higgins as a spin master, we must consider that he might have been the victim of spin himself. I have spoken with many biotech scientists, people of high integrity and a strong belief in what they are doing, who have absolutely no idea about the wretched state of regulations or safety assessments. They focus on their own area of expertise and have bought the industry spin about safety.

I called Higgins in Australia and quizzed him on the state of affairs of regulations and assessments of other GM foods. He said, “I didn’t feel that we were breaking particularly new ground.…We were following basically the recommendations for a proper risk assessment and I feel it is typical of the kinds of assessments that have been done for other GM crops around the world.” Lead researcher Simon Hogan told me the same thing. I pointed out to both scientists several unique features of their study and challenged them to name a single GM food on the market that has had the same level of tests. They couldn’t come up with any, but they were sure that these tests were done. They’re in for a shock.

Years ago, a pro-GM scientist with high integrity also had confidence in GM regulators and industry scientists. Higgins had asked him to coauthor a rat feeding study with his GM peas, because the scientist was the world’s most qualified person to do the work. This scientist was also awarded a UK government research grant to create a rigorous safety assessment protocol, which was to be required in the UK and eventually the EU. One day, he was asked to review several confidential industry studies that were used to get GM foods approved. He told me that reading those studies was perhaps the greatest shock of his life. The studies were so superficial, so poorly done, he realized that industry was doing as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible. They were not doing safety studies. A few weeks later, this scientist confirmed that a GM potato he was working on caused considerable damage in rats, including damage to their immune systems. Unlike Higgins, this man knew full well that his dangerous potatoes could have sailed through industry “safety” studies and onto plates around the world. He went public with his concerns.

The scientist’s name is Arpad Pusztai, and he paid dearly for his integrity. At the hands of a pro-GM government and industry-backed scientists, he was fired, silenced with threats of a lawsuit and mercilessly attacked. It was biotech spin at its “finest.”

Pusztai has since published his potato research and is now considered a top expert in GM safety testing. He just published a review of all the peer-reviewed assessments and has studied nearly every industry submission. He assured me that the GM pea immune study does, in fact, break new ground. Likewise, Professor G.E. Seralini, who has officially reviewed all of the submissions to Europe as well as all the commentaries on the submissions, wrote me: “To my knowledge, no GM plant on the market has undergone such detailed experiments to assess allergenicity.” Doug Gurian-Sherman and Bill Freese, who are experts on submissions to US authorities, also acknowledge that industry immune studies are considerably weaker than the pea study. And Judy Carman, who has studied the GM applications to Australia and New Zealand, concurs. In fact, Marc Rothenberg, who is a co-author of the pea study and was also on the expert panel that analyzed the allergenicity of StarLink corn, said of the pea research, “It was very unique. It was much more extensive and rigorous than what was previously done.”

It appears that the director of the pea assessment (Higgins) and the lead researcher in the study (Hogan) were uninformed about the state of affairs in GM crop assessments. They appeared to be unaware that their study was actually a breakthrough. If Higgins had known that his peas would likely have been approved if they were tested only with the less expensive, less rigorous research typically used for GM crops, he might not be so quick to defend GM regulations worldwide.

I sent Higgins a peer-reviewed paper called “Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods.”[16] It not only shreds the assessment process in the US, it also presents a case study of how one GM corn variety gained approval based on wrong assumptions, poor research, ineffective regulations and spin—the four pillars. I wrote Higgins, “I am confident that after reading this article, you will agree with the authors that the tests used for approving this Bt corn, as well as other varieties, were not sufficient to protect the public.” I asked that he then make corrective statements about GM regulations. More importantly, Higgins is The Deputy Chief of CSIRO Plant Industry. If he acknowledges that even one GM crop has not been thoroughly tested, I asked him to propose that his organization immediately conduct rigorous safety assessments on that crop to protect the health of consumers. I understand that CSIRO has business relationships with Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto. The close ties between research organizations and the biotech industry has, in many instances, stifled criticism of GM crops and even stopped important research from being conducted. I am hopeful that Higgins, who pioneered new safety assessments on GM food crops and canceled his own 10 year pea project based on the findings, will direct his institution to similarly break new ground. I will be sure to report his response in future columns.

In the meantime, my Institute for Responsible Technology is passing the hat to collect money to fund independent research on the GM foods already on the market. We are not willing to wait.






Document Number: 372

Open Letter to TJ Higgins

Note: TJ Higgins, a plant molecular biologist, is Deputy Chief of Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) Plant Industry, Canberra, Australia. He is the developer of GM peas.

The November/December 2005 newsletter article, Genetically Modified Peas Caused Dangerous Immune Response in Mice, discusses in detail the research done on GM peas.

December 21, 2005

Dear TJ,

Thank you for taking the time to discuss with me important issues related to the genetically modified peas that you have worked on for about 10 years. I deeply appreciate your decision to test the peas on mice for immune responses. Since the peas did elicit a response and therefore may cause allergic reactions in humans as well, your decision to stop the development of the peas was certainly a good one. If those peas had been widely commercialized and did cause allergies, they might have killed people. (Specifically, you mentioned that more than 60 percent of the Australian pea exports are consumed in India. Clearly if Indians developed anaphylactic shock from an allergic reaction to the peas, emergency response would not be available in many cases. Furthermore, without labels identifying the peas as different, it would be difficult to even identify the GM peas as the cause of allergic reactions.)

Your recently published study showed that natural beans and GM peas produced the same protein, but it had subtle differences in the way sugar chains were attached. You said you believe that this difference in sugar chains, or glycosylation, was probably responsible for the unique immune response. What about other GM crops already on the market? If you came to realize that they might also contain uniquely processed proteins that may be immunogenic, would you raise a voice of warning? Failure to do so might contribute to sickness or death.

I am certain that other GM crops have not been adequately tested for changes in their transgenic proteins. Most GM crops on the market, for example, have never been subjected to animal model tests looking at allergenicity. No regulatory system requires them, in spite of WHO recommendations that they do so. Instead, most have only been subject to a decision tree analysis and possibly a gel test. You yourself told me that when you looked at a gel test for your GM peas several years ago, you were convinced that there was no glycosylation differences. Thus, if your peas had only used the gel test, even you would have waved them on with a vote of confidence. Relying on that method alone would clearly have been dangerous in the case of your peas and is dangerous with the other GM crops.

I am therefore alarmed by your statements in the newspaper The Age, in which you claim that your finding "shows that the regulatory system works." In your case, your assessment—not the regulatory system—did find problems and the development of the GM crops was fortunately terminated. But your public comments generalize beyond your own experience to claim that the regulations per se are effective and adequate. Consider this quote attributed to you in the Courier-Mail: “The regulatory system works. It ensures we have food from GM plants as safe as we get from conventional plants. Anything that has a slight risk is picked up.”

I believe your findings show the exact opposite. They expose gaping holes in the regulations and provide a mandate to immediately re-test all GM crops on the market.

To be clear, you discovered that your peas may be harmful by using immune tests that are routinely applied in medical testing. You demonstrated your confidence in these tests by canceling plans to market your peas. These tests, however, are not required by the regulatory systems and have never been used on GM food crops already on the market. By not requiring these sorts of tests, the regulatory system may have approved crops that, like your peas, process foreign proteins differently. They may be creating allergies. Thus, inadequate regulatory requirements approve GM foods that might harm or even kill people.

I am guessing that your expressions of confidence in GMO regulations were made because you are unaware of the actual requirements around the world and of the flimsy safety assessments that are routinely done. To be fair, only a handful of experts have studied this in detail, and they are often appalled by what is not required or tested for.

When a person in your position gives public endorsements to such regulations, you promote the status quo—and its consequences. In this case, your statements may have potentially lethal results. I urge you, therefore, to do a proper evaluation of assessments, correct your statements, and hopefully initiate actions to better protect the public.

My task is to provide evidence that the regulatory system is inadequate. I don’t need to prove that all GM crops in every regulatory system put the public at risk. Rather, I need only to demonstrate that a single GM food has made it onto consumers’ plates without the minimum testing that your own research now suggests is necessary to protect human health. If so, then it would be justified to say that your research exposed the flaws in the system, not its strength.

I am therefore attaching the peer-reviewed paper "Safety Testing and Regulation of Genetically Engineered Foods," which exposes dangerous inadequacies of the regulatory approval process in the United States. It points out, for example, that "Biotechnology companies rarely test the transgenic protein actually produced in their engineered crops." Instead they "use surrogate proteins" derived from bacteria. But, "Immunologic differences between plant-produced and bacterial surrogate proteins could have serious medical consequences."[1] If your immune tests had used only the bean protein instead of the pea protein, for example, the mice would not have shown a reaction and your peas might have been approved. Similarly, many GM crops were approved based on tests that used substitute proteins, not the ones that people actually consume.

The attached paper also offers a case study of Monsanto’s GM corn called Mon 810. When the gene was inserted into the corn, it was inadvertently truncated. The result is that it produces a fusion protein, created by a combination of the foreign gene and native corn DNA. Remarkably, researchers ignored this and still used a substitute bacteria-derived protein for its safety assessment. Thus, they not only ignored the subtle types of changes that you found to be potentially dangerous, they ignored very gross changes as well.

The approval process for Mon 810 did not involve testing for immune response in animals. Independent tests, however, showed that Bt-toxin—the pesticide that this corn is engineered to produce—elicited immune responses in both animals and humans. These were ignored by regulators.

Regulators also approved the corn in spite of the fact that the Bt protein failed the criteria recommended by the WHO: It does not break down sufficiently in test tube simulations of digestion and it contains amino acid sequences identical to known allergens.

The authors also show how several potential dangers from GM crops, not just allergies, can go undetected through the testing and approval system. This article is one of many, which make it absolutely clear that the regulatory system doesn’t work and that anything that has a risk is not necessarily picked up. I am confident that after reading this article, you will agree with the authors that the tests used for approving this Bt corn, as well as other varieties, were not sufficient to protect the public. I ask that you then make corrective statements, to undo the potential damage that your recent quotes may have created.

Moreover, I challenge you to propose that your institution, CSIRO, sponsor those important independent studies that were never done on the already approved GM crops, to make sure that the public is not being exposed to allergens, toxins, or anti-nutrients. I use the word "challenge" because I understand that CSIRO has business relationships with Bayer Crop Science and Monsanto. Raising a question about the safety of their GM foods is certain to infuriate them. Proposing new tests that might force a product’s withdrawal could turn them absolutely ballistic.

Therefore, to do any of what I suggest here may be very difficult for someone in your delicate "political" position. For that very reason, I have chosen to use strong words and to paint the accurate picture that your response to my challenge may be a matter of life or death for those eating GM foods. I hope that serves as sufficient motivation.

I am aware that some industry proponents promote GM products indiscriminately. They might answer my letter by saying, for example, "I am confident that the industry will do the assessments necessary to protect the health of the public, even if they are not required." They might also avoid commenting on the attached case study, claiming that Mon 810 is not their project or the US is not their country. I think you will agree that our exchange requires a more specific, scientific basis.

You indicated in our conversation that as a plant physiologist, aspects of safety assessments are clearly outside your area of expertise. You also mentioned that your colleague on an earlier pea study, Dr. Arpad Pusztai, is one of the most important toxicologists in this arena. You said you have a very positive opinion of Dr. Pusztai and have been a great admirer of his work. It will therefore be of interest to you that as an expert and authority in safety assessments and one who has reviewed countless GM food submissions to various regulatory agencies, he is 100% percent convinced that crops could easily get through those approvals and end up creating serious, even lethal long term consequences. I am sure he would be happy to share his knowledge with you in this regard. I have also spoken with experts on GMO submissions to the EU, the US, and Australia. All concur that the tests currently used to get products approved allow for serious problems to go unnoticed, including those uncovered in your own pea study.

I will post this letter on my website and refer to it in my article. I think this is a fair response to your recent public statements. I look forward to receiving your feedback to these points and to the attached article.

Thank you again for generously spending time with me on the phone, and for your breakthrough research.

Warm regards,

Jeffrey M. Smith






Document Number: 4331
TJ Higgins Responds to Letter from Jeffrey Smith About GM Peas

February 09, 2006

Dear Jeffrey,

Thank you for your letter and for providing a copy of your article.

I stand by my claim that the Australian regulatory system works. CSIRO had approached Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) seeking advice on the kind of data it would need to consider the GM alpha-amylase inhibitor field peas should we put them forward for commercial release. FSANZ advised CSIRO it would require in particular full characterisation of the pea form of the bean protein and data indicating its potential for toxicity and allergenicity. It was out of these requirements that we conducted our research, with each step leading us to explore further so as to be able to provide a full set of data.

We used an animal model for allergenicity because one of the preceding tests, namely, MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry indicated that while the pea form of the bean protein backbone was the same as the native bean protein, there were significant post translational modification differences namely in glycosylation. Glycosylation is known to sometimes have a role in altered immune response and the mouse model used by the ANU researchers showed the pea form of the bean protein elicited a mild – not dangerous – immune response in those mice exposed to it.

Whether the mouse was a suitable model is open to discussion, and indeed immunologists around the world are still working towards identifying an animal model that does translate well to humans. However because of this uncertainty, CSIRO made the decision to discontinue the work as it believed it was the responsible thing to do.

CSIRO will continue to conduct its gene technology research in line with conditions laid down by Australia’s regulatory system, and we will keep looking at risks and benefits of GM crops on a case-by-case basis. We will also continue to publish our research results and make our findings available to the public.

Kind regards,






Document Number: 5774
Why the Mon 863 Study Should Have Been Rejected

The Mon 863 feeding study was poorly designed and reported. It is doubtful whether any prominent nutritional journal would consider it. It is odd, therefore, that it remains the key document used by government regulators to protect the health of European citizens.

Nutritional data missing: Nutrition studies require measurement and disclosure of the nutritional composition of the feed and the demonstration that it remains stable for the duration of the 90-day experiment. This assurance backed up by actual chemical analysis is not provided.

Methodology missing: The study fails to describe most of the methods used in the study. When methods cannot be evaluated or repeated, they remain suspect.

Older animals masked results: Nutritional studies use young, fast-growing animals, which are sensitive to toxic and nutritional effects. The study uses a mix of younger and more mature animals, which can mask serious problems.

Bizarre and conflicting animal weights: The starting rat weights given at two different places in the study were different. Thus, for male rats at the beginning of the report it was given as between 198.4 to 259.8 g while in Appendix 2, the values were 143 to 186 g. (similar differences for female rats). No high-class journal would tolerate such imprecision. Normally differences in starting weight should not be more than mean weight (typically about 80 g) 2%. Using such a wide range can make it impossible to find significant differences in animal weights at the end of the experiment.

The growth rates reported were inexplicable. During the experiment, for example, one rat lost 53 g in one week and then gained 102 g the next. Rats with the highest starting weight sometimes ended up with the smallest final weight. In the last four weeks, rats hardly grew at all, in spite of the similar feed intake and even though rats typically continue to grow throughout their lives. There is too little information provided to judge whether these are the result of animal mismanagement, degradation of the feed stored at room temperature, or some other problem.

Ignored modern methods: The analytical methods used are decades old. Powerful new methods, such as various profiling techniques, DNA chips, proteomix, and others, were ignored. The 90-day length can also miss chronic problems, reproductive problems, and problems arising in subsequent generations. Also, the study relied on only two observation times, missing the rate of appearance (kinetics) of the changes.

Inappropriate and missing controls: The study’s use of six irrelevant controls and reference to historical databases obscured the true findings. The study should have included a control group fed the non-GM parent line, spiked with the Bt gene product obtained from the GM maize, to isolate results of the transformation process. A second parental line spiked with a known toxin would also be useful as a positive control.

“Follow-up study” was inadmissible: Monsanto defended changes in kidney weights by comparing results from the test animals with rats used in a completely different study, conducted in a different laboratory, using Mon 863 hybrids with other GM maize samples. In this study the results of the original MON 863-study was quoted (but not actually re-done) for comparison. This inter-experimental comparison is entirely inappropriate for nutritional evaluation and should be disregarded.

Nutritional scientists and leading journals would not accept these blatant inadequacies and misinterpretations. How can regulators accept it for a novel genetically modified food?







Document Number: 5692
Genetically Engineered Crops May Produce Herbicide Inside Our Intestines

by Jeffrey M. Smith

Pioneer Hi-Bred’s website boasts that their genetically modified (GM) Liberty Link[1] corn survives doses of Liberty herbicide, which would normally kill corn. The reason, they say, is that the herbicide becomes “inactive in the corn plant.”[2] They fail to reveal, however, that after you eat the GM corn, some inactive herbicide may become reactivated inside your gut and cause a toxic reaction. In addition, a gene that was inserted into the corn might transfer into the DNA of your gut bacteria, producing long-term effects. These are just a couple of the many potential side-effects of GM crops that critics say put the public at risk.

Herbicide tolerance (HT) is one of two basic traits common to nearly all GM crops. About 71% of the crops are engineered to resist herbicide, including Liberty (glufosinate ammonium) and Roundup[3] (glyphosate).  About 18% produce their own pesticide. And 11% do both. The four major GM crops are soy, corn, cotton and canola, all of which have approved Liberty- and Roundup-tolerant varieties. Herbicide tolerant (HT) crops are a particularly big money-maker for biotech companies, because when farmers buy HT seeds, they are required to purchase the companies’ brand of herbicide as well. In addition, HT crops dramatically increase the use of herbicide,[4] which further contributes to the companies’ bottom line.

There are no required safety tests for HT crops in the US—if the biotech companies declare them fit for human consumption, the FDA has no further questions. But many scientists and consumers remain concerned, and the Liberty Link varieties pose unique risks.

Liberty herbicide (also marketed as Basta, Ignite, Rely, Finale and Challenge) can kill a wide variety of plants. It can also kill bacteria,[5] fungi[6] and insects,[7] and has toxic effects on humans and animals.[8] The herbicide is derived from a natural antibiotic, which is produced by two strains of a soil bacterium. In order that the bacteria are not killed by the antibiotic that they themselves create, the strains also produce specialized enzymes which transform the antibiotic to a non-toxic form called NAG (N-acetyl-L-glufosinate). The specialized enzymes are called the pat protein and the bar protein, which are produced by the pat gene and the bar gene, respectively. The two genes are inserted into the DNA of GM crops, where they produce the enzymes in every cell. When the plant is sprayed, Liberty’s solvents and surfactants transport glufosinate ammonium throughout the plant, where the enzymes convert it primarily into NAG. Thus, the GM plant detoxifies the herbicide and lives, while the surrounding weeds die.

The problem is that the NAG, which is not naturally present in plants, remains there and accumulates with every subsequent spray. Thus, when we eat these GM crops, we consume NAG. Once the NAG is inside our digestive system, some of it may be re-transformed back into the toxic herbicide. In rats fed NAG, for example, 10% of it was converted back to glufosinate by the time it was excreted in the feces.[9] Another rat study found a 1% conversion.[10] And with goats, more than one-third of what was excreted had turned into glufosinate.[11]

It is believed that gut bacteria, primarily found in the colon or rectum, are responsible for this re-toxification.[12] Although these parts of the gut do not absorb as many nutrients as other sections, rats fed NAG did show toxic effects. This indicates that the herbicide had been regenerated, was biologically active, and had been assimilated by the rats.[13] A goat study also confirmed that some of the herbicide regenerated from NAG ended up in the kidneys, liver, muscle, fat and milk.[14]

More information about the impact of this conversion is presumably found in “Toxicology and Metabolism Studies” on NAG, submitted to European regulators by AgrEvo (now Bayer CropScience). These unpublished studies were part of the application seeking approval of herbicide-tolerant canola. When the UK government’s Pesticide Safety Directorate attempted to provide some of this information to an independent researcher, they were blocked by the company’s threats of legal action.[15] The studies remained private.

Toxicity Of The Herbicide

Glufosinate ammonium is structurally similar to a natural amino acid called glutamic acid, which can stimulate the central nervous system and, in excess levels, cause the death of nerve cells in the brain.[16] The common reactions to glufosinate poisoning in humans include unconsciousness, respiratory distress and convulsions. One study also linked the herbicide with a kidney disorder.[17] These reactions typically involve large amounts of the herbicide. It is unclear if the amount converted from GM crops would accumulate to promote such responses or if there are low dose chronic effects.

Perhaps a more critical question may be whether infants or fetuses are impacted with smaller doses. A January 2006 report issued by the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Office of Inspector General said that studies demonstrate that certain pesticides easily enter the brain of young children and fetuses, and can destroy cells. That same report, however, stated that the EPA lacks standard evaluation protocols for measuring the toxicity of pesticides on developing nervous systems.[18] Scientists at the agency also charged that “risk assessments cannot state with confidence the degree to which any exposure of a fetus, infant or child to a pesticide will or will not adversely affect their neurological development.” [19] Furthermore, three trade unions representing 9,000 EPA workers claimed that the evaluation techniques used at the agency were highly politicized. According to a May 24, 2006 letter to the EPA’s administrator, the unions cited “political pressure exerted by Agency officials perceived to be too closely aligned with the pesticide industry and former EPA officials now representing the pesticide and agricultural community.”[20]

Although the EPA may be hampered in its evaluations, research has nonetheless accumulated which suggests that glufosinate carries significant risks for the next generation. According to Yoichiro Kuroda, the principal investigator in the Japanese project entitled “Effects of Endocrine Disrupters on the Developing Brain,” glufosinate is like a “mock neurotransmitter.” Exposure of a baby or embryo can affect behavior, because the chemical disturbs gene functions that regulate brain development.[21]

When mouse embryos were exposed to glufosinate, it resulted in growth retardation, increased death rates, incomplete development of the forebrain and cleft lips,[22] as well as cell death in part of the brain.[23] After pregnant rats were injected with glufosinate, the number of glutamate receptors in the brains of the offspring appeared to be reduced.[24] When infant rats were exposed to low doses of glufosinate, some of their brain receptors appeared to change as well.[25]

Glufosinate herbicide might also influence behavior. According to Kuroda, “female rats born from mothers that were given high doses of glufosinate became aggressive and started to bite each other—in some cases until one died.” He added, “That report sent a chill through me.”[26]

Disturbing Gut Bacteria

If the herbicide is regenerated inside our gut, since it is an antibiotic, it will likely kill gut bacteria. Gut microorganisms are crucial for health. They not only provide essential metabolites like certain vitamins and short fatty acids, but also help the break down and absorption of food and protect against pathogens. Disrupting the balance of gut bacteria can cause a wide range of problems. According to molecular geneticist Ricarda Steinbrecher, “the data obtained strongly suggest that the balance of gut bacteria will be affected”[27] by the conversion of NAG to glufosinate.

When eating Liberty Link corn, we not only consume NAG, but also the pat and bar genes with their pat and bar proteins. It is possible that when NAG is converted to herbicide in our gut, the pat protein, for example, might reconvert some of the herbicide back to NAG. This might lower concentrations of glufosinate inside of our gut. On the other hand, some microorganisms may be able to convert in both directions, from glufosinate to NAG and also back again. If the pat protein can do this, that is, if it can transform NAG to herbicide, than the presence of the pat protein inside our gut might regenerate more herbicide from the ingested NAG. Since there are no public studies on this, we do not know if consuming the pat gene or bar genes will make the situation better or worse.

But one study on the pat gene raises all sorts of red flags. German scientist Hans-Heinrich Kaatz demonstrated that the pat gene can transfer into the DNA of gut bacteria. He found his evidence in young bees that had been fed pollen from glufosinate-tolerant canola plants. The pat gene transferred into the bacteria and yeast inside the bees’ intestines. Kaatz said, “This happened rarely, but it did happen.”[28] Although no studies have looked at whether pat genes end up in human gut bacteria, the only human GM-feeding study ever conducted did show that genetic material can transfer to our gut bacteria. This study, published in 2004, confirmed that portions of the Roundup-tolerant gene in soybeans transferred to microorganisms within the human digestive tract.[29]

Since the pat gene can transfer to gut bacteria in bees, and since genetic material from another GM crop can transfer to human gut bacteria, it is likely that the pat gene can also transfer from Liberty Link corn or soybeans to our intestinal flora. If so, a key question is whether the presence of the pat gene confers some sort of survival advantage to the bacteria. If so, “selection pressure” would favor its long term proliferation in the gut.

Because the pat protein can protect bacteria from being killed by glufosinate, gut bacteria that take up the gene appears to have a significant survival advantage. Thus, the gene may spread from bacteria to bacteria, and might stick around inside us for the long-term. With more pat genes, more and more pat protein is created. The effects of long-term exposure to this protein have not been evaluated.

Now suppose that the pat protein can also re-toxify NAG back into active herbicide, as discussed above. A dangerous feedback loop may be created: We eat Liberty Link corn or soy. Our gut bacteria, plus the pat protein, turns NAG into herbicide. With more herbicide, more bacteria are killed. This increases the survival advantage for bacteria that contain the pat gene. As a consequence, more bacteria end up with the gene. Then, more pat protein is produced, which converts more NAG into herbicide, which threatens more bacteria, which creates more selection pressure, and so on. Since studies have not been done to see if such a cycle is occurring, we can only speculate.

Endocrine Disruption At Extremely Low Doses

Another potential danger from the glufosinate-tolerant crops is the potential for endocrine disruption. Recent studies reveal that endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs) can have significant hormonal effects at doses far below those previously thought to be significant. The disruptive effects are often found only at minute levels, which are measured in parts per trillion or in the low parts per billion. This is seen, for example, in the way estrogen works in women. When the brain encounters a mere 3 parts per trillion, it shuts down production of key hormones. When estrogen concentration reaches 10 parts per trillion, however, there is a hormone surge, followed by ovulation.

Unfortunately, the regulation and testing of agricultural chemicals, including herbicides, has lagged behind these findings of extremely low dose effects. The determination of legally acceptable levels of herbicide residues on food was based on a linear model, where the effect of toxic chemicals was thought to be consistent and proportional with its dosage. But as the paper Large Effects from Small Exposures shows, this model underestimates biological effects of EDCs by as much as 10,000 fold.[30]

In anticipation of their (not-yet-commercialized) Liberty Link rice, Bayer CropScience successfully petitioned the EPA in 2003 to approve maximum threshold levels of glufosinate ammonium on rice. During the comment period preceding approval, a Sierra Club submittal stated the following.

“We find EPA’s statements on the potential of glufosinate to function as an endocrine-disrupting substance in humans and animals as not founded on logical information or peer-reviewed studies. In fact EPA states that no special studies have been conducted to investigate the potential of glufosinate ammonium to induce estrogenic or other endocrine effects.…We feel it’s totally premature for EPA at this time to dismiss all concerns about glufosinate as an endocrine-disrupting substance.…Due to the millions of Americans and their children exposed to glufosinate and its metabolites, EPA needs to conclusively determine if this herbicide has endocrine-disrupting potential.”

The EPA’s response was that “glufosinate ammonium may be subjected to additional screening and/or testing to better characterize effects related to endocrine disruption”[31]  but this will only take place after these protocols are developed. In the mean time, the agency approved glufosinate ammonium residues on rice at 1 part per million.

Since glufosinate ammonium might have endocrine disrupting properties, even small conversions of NAG to herbicide may carry significant health risks for ourselves and our children.

Inadequate Animal Feeding Studies

If we look to animal feeding studies to find out if Liberty Link corn creates health effects, we encounter what independent observers have expressed for years—frustration. Industry-sponsored safety studies, which are rarely published and often kept secret, are often described as designed to avoid finding problems.

In a 42-day feeding study on chickens, for example, 10 chickens (7%) fed Liberty Link corn died compared to 5 chickens eating natural corn.[32]  Even with the death rate doubled, “because the experimental design was so flawed,” said bio-physicist Mae-Wan Ho, “statistical analysis failed to detect a significant difference between the two groups.” [33]  Similarly, although the GM-fed group gained less weight, the study failed to recognize that as significant. According to testimony by two experts in chicken feeding studies,[34] the Liberty Link corn study wouldn’t identify something as significant unless there had been “huge” changes. The experts said, “It may be worth noting, in passing, that if one were seeking to show no effect, one of the best methods to do this is would be to use insufficient replication, a small n,”[35]  which is exactly the case in the chicken study.

Without adequate tests and with a rubber stamp approval process, GM crops like Liberty Link corn may already be creating significant hard-to-detect health problems. In Europe, Japan, Korea, Russia, China, India, Brazil and elsewhere, shoppers have the benefit of laws that require foods with GM ingredients to be labeled. In the US, however, consumers wishing to avoid them are forced to eliminate all products containing soy and corn, as well as canola and cottonseed oils. Or they can buy products that are organic or say “non-GMO” on the package. Changing one’s diet is a hassle, but with the hidden surprises inside GM foods, it may be a prudent option for health-conscious people, especially young children and pregnant women.








Document Number: 6998

Disease-resistant Genetically Engineered Crops May Make Humans (and Plants) More Vulnerable to Viruses

by Jeffrey M. Smith

The US Department of Agriculture wants to introduce a new variety of plum, genetically modified (GM) to resist the plum pox virus. Disease-resistant crops comprise less than one percent of the acreage devoted to GM varieties worldwide, but occupy a much bigger portion in biotech promotional literature. That’s because engineering a crop to resist disease sounds more appealing than inserting a gene to make a crop produce its own pesticide or withstand herbicide—the two traits that make up the other 99 percent of today’s GM world.

There are three commercialized virus-resistant GM varieties: zucchini, crookneck squash and the only commercialized GM fruit, papaya. GM papaya grows solely in Hawaii and was introduced in 1998 to protect the crop from the devastating ring-spot virus. But according to a May 2006 report by Greenpeace, the GM papaya turned out to be “more devastating than the virus. ”Upon introduction, the selling price for the papaya crashed from $1.23 per kilo to $0.89, after “traditional buyers of Hawaiian papayas, such as Japan and Canada, rejected [it].” Now, if Hawaiian papaya growers want to sell to Japan, they have to pay extra for segregating and testing their papayas to make sure they are non-GM. The Japanese market shrunk from $10.3 million in 1998 to $4.6 million in 2005. Although Canada started accepting GM papayas in 2003, the price didn’t recover. In the 2004 and 2005 growing seasons, the selling price “averaged less than $0.80 per kilo, at or only marginally above the production cost for many farmers.”[1] While business is booming in other papaya growing regions, Hawaiian production is at its lowest point in more than a generation.

This hasn’t stopped the USDA from trying to gift the plum industry with a virus-resistant catastrophe of its own. And this in spite of the fact that the plum pox virus is not even a current threat. According to Steve Poe, Senior Operations Officer who coordinates the USDA’s program to wipe out the virus (using non-GM methods), “We’re on the tail end of eradicating this thing.” The incidence of the disease is down to about 1 tree per year, he says.

But there is a current threat that the USDA and other agencies have continued to disregard: The virus-resistant crops already on the market may be increasing the susceptibility of consumers to viral infections and, ironically, even putting the crops at greater risk. According to virologist Jonathan Latham of the Bioscience Resource Project,  “None of the important questions about the safety of viral transgenes have been answered. We still have no idea whether they will cause the evolution of new viruses by recombination or what will be the effect of putting viral proteins into plants.”

Virus-protection Through Gene Silencing

Although some viruses are DNA-based, most plant viruses exist as RNA strands. Normally, when an RNA virus attacks a cell, it will produce enormous number of copies of itself. The copies, in turn, produce viral protein, which can help to disable the cells defenses to the virus.

Plants have developed a gene silencing mechanism to defend against this onslaught. After the cell recognizes an RNA virus, the double stranded RNA (dsRNA) is cut into short pieces and stripped into a single strand. That strand is used as a reference to “find” other RNA with identical or similar sequences, which are then destroyed or degraded.

Each viral resistant GM crop is designed to protect against a specific RNA virus. First, scientists identify a piece of RNA from the “target” virus, and then build a piece of DNA—a transgene—with a sequence designed to create the viral RNA. The transgene is inserted into the genome of a plant cell, which in turn is grown into a plant. In every cell of that plant and its offspring, the inserted transgene is “transcribed” into viral RNA. Thus, it arms the gene silencing mechanism to be on the lookout for the target virus. The RNA may also produce viral proteins in every cell.

Thus, there are four components of a virus-resistant GM plant that must be considered when looking at the possible effects on humans.

The viral protein
The RNA
The inserted gene (transgene)
Any changes in the plant due to the insertion process
Each carry unique risks.

Viral proteins can increase susceptibility to viral infections

As described above, viruses produce proteins that attack and disable the plant cells’ defenses, increasing the chances that the virus will thrive. More than 100 studies have shown, however, that the proteins created by one virus can promote infections by other related and unrelated viruses. [2], [3]

The viral proteins that function in plants may similarly disable viral defenses in humans, because important mechanisms that defend against viral attack are quite similar in plants and animals. Thus, consuming GM crops that make viral proteins in every cell may weaken our resistance to viruses. This may be particularly true in the gut—where viral proteins would circulate after a meal and which is an important entry point for viral infections. Since we do not fully understand all the ways in which plant viruses overcome host defenses and we do not know which viral proteins are involved, we cannot identify in advance which viral transgenes are likely to be hazardous.

Viral Proteins May Be Toxic

In addition to attacking viral defenses, viral proteins can also be toxic. They attack fundamental processes, such as the cycle by which a cell divides and the mechanism for creating proteins from RNA. [4] If these were damaged in human beings, it could have serious health consequences. (Disrupting the cell cycle, for example, can lead to cancer.)

Since these fundamental metabolic activities are similar in plants and humans, a toxic viral protein that attacks them in crops might similarly attack that process in people. Viral proteins from one kingdom have in fact been shown to be toxic to organisms from other kingdoms. Plant viral proteins can affect yeast, for example, and some human viral proteins can disrupt plants. According to Latham, “There is no good reason why it should not happen the other way round.”

In some cases, if a GM viral protein disrupts plant metabolism, it would be obvious to plant breeders and the variety would not be commercialized. This would not always be the case, however. Humans may be more sensitive than plants to the effects of the viral proteins. Also, in some cases, the quantity of viral protein that is produced in a GM plant can be significantly increased. According to Latham, the proteins produced in GM crops have not been properly evaluated for toxicity in humans.

RNA May Be Hazardous

According to Nature, RNA molecules are “now known to be vital in controlling many cellular processes in plants and animals.” [4],[5] In fact, “well over one-third of human genes appear to be” regulated by double stranded RNA (dsRNA).[6] RNA also appears to be passed on to future generations—a characteristic previously thought to be the exclusive domain of DNA. Studies indicate that RNA inherited from parents silenced a gene in mice[7]and repaired an abnormal DNA sequence in a plant.[8]

According to the Centre for Integrated Research on Biosafety (INBI), “Once introduced into a model plant or animal, the effect of dsRNA is systemically spread throughout the organism and persists through the entire developmental period.”[9]Not only can RNA effects be transmitted through food, in many different organisms that effect can be inherited by the next generation (although this has not been demonstrated for humans).[10]For example, when worms were fed bacteria engineered to produce dsRNA, the dsRNA survived the digestion in the worms’ gut and penetrated into the gut cells and deeper tissues. It silenced the corresponding gene in the worm and in the offspring for at least two generations.[11] “The same dsRNA can have physiologically different effects at different concentrations,[12],[13] and it is not always clear in advance which gene the dsRNA will impact.

Regulators have dismissed concerns that novel RNA sequences from GM crops may be hazardous. When, for example, INBI raised the issue to Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) in regard to a GM corn (that was not virus-resistant), FSANZ claimed that “RNA is rapidly degraded,” and unlikely to survive digestion, enter human cells, or exert an effect. INBI had to update FSANZ’s obsolete argument. INBI pointed out that dsRNAs “are stable enough in mammalian cells to be routinely used as gene regulators.” They cited recent studies demonstrating that dsRNA “is transmitted through food in other animals, where it survives degradation” and impacts gene expression. [14]

For virus-resistant GM crops that are specifically engineered to create small regulatory dsRNA, regulators are similarly dismissive. They claim that people have eaten virus-infected food for a long time, so it must be safe. This was the position of the US panel that looked at the GM plums. While their theoretical argument may sound strong, like many assumptions used as the basis for GM crop approvals, it lacks experimental verification. Given the significant potential for harm if the assumption is wrong, it is irresponsible not to test.

Even the argument on its own, however, is flawed. “In truth it is a half argument,” says Latham. “The other half requires reliable evidence that people who ate the virus-infected crops were absolutely fine in every way.” He says that “an experiment is only as good as its controls, but in this ‘experiment’ there were none, because no one was found who hadn’t eaten viruses.”

If the natural RNA did turn out to be safe, the transgenic version might still be dangerous. The two versions of RNA are not identical and interchangeable. The naturally occurring sequence of a gene is usually altered by scientists prior to insertion. In addition, the process of insertion can cause the gene to become truncated, mutated or littered with extraneous fragments. Other studies suggest that the transgene may rearrange spontaneously in subsequent growing seasons.[15] A 2005 study also demonstrated that the transgene in GM soybeans don’t create RNA as they were designed to. The authors suggest that other GM crops may also produce unnatural, unintended RNA combinations.[16]

According to geneticist Joe Cummins, “The fact that people may have eaten virus infected plums does not really indicate that the transgenic plum that resists virus infection in a novel way is safe for people.” He says, “It is not unreasonable to suggest that a unique interfering plum RNA may be active in humans and animals.” Cummins says that “common sense requires adequate safety experiments,” and he calls for “fuller testing of the small silencing RNA from the transgenic plum.”[17] INBI similarly cautions regulators against dismissing the risks of RNA based on unproven assumptions. They say that testing potential health impacts of RNA from GM crops on humans, which has not been done for any GM crops thus far, is “imperative.”[18]

Shifting An RNA Virus Onto DNA May Have Dangerous, Long-term Consequences

Until the introduction of virus-resistant GM crops, their target viruses existed exclusively as RNA-based organisms. When scientists create a viral transgene, however, they introduce an entirely new DNA version. According to Latham, this carries a potential risk that is not generally acknowledged. “The virus is available for recombination with a totally new spectrum of organisms,” he warns. “The danger would become especially important if the transgenic protein were useful to the organism that picked it up.”

Consider, for example, the possibility that viral transgenes might transfer into the DNA of gut microorganisms. This type of  “horizontal gene transfer” from GM food to gut bacteria was confirmed in the case of Roundup Ready soybeans. That was the only human feeding study ever conducted on GM food. No such test has been carried out using virus-resistant crops, but transfer of viral transgenes is certainly plausible. Once transferred, our own bacteria may produce viral proteins inside our intestines over the long term, potentially weakening our defenses against viral infection and attacking fundamental metabolic processes.

[Note: During the development of the GM plum, the same viral transgene was inserted into many different plum cells. Although GM plums created from these other experimental insertions produced viral protein, the transgenic plum under review by the USDA, “Honey Sweet,” produces little or no viral protein. While this reduces risks somewhat, if the viral RNA transfers into other viruses or the viral DNA ends up in gut bacteria, they may begin producing potentially harmful viral protein in that new organism. This needs to be studied.]

Viral Genes May Create New Harmful Plant Viruses

In addition to posing risks for humans, virus-resistant GM crops might increase the likelihood for new viruses to attack the plant. One way for this to occur is through the action of viral proteins. As mentioned above, proteins produced from one virus may attack the host cells’ defenses, making it more susceptible to other viruses. In fact in one study, proteins from viral transgenes allowed a plant to become infected with an insect virus, not normally found in plants.[19]

One type of protein produced by viruses is called a coat protein. It surrounds (encapsidates) the RNA, protecting it from being broken down by threats such as ultra violet light or enzymes. It is possible for a coat protein form one virus to encapsidate another virus. This would make it possible for that new virus to be picked up by an insect and transported to other plants. The risk of encapsidating the wrong virus (transcapsidation) is not a unique risk of GM plants, but the presence of coat protein produced in every cell of the plant can increase the probability that it will occur.

Another concern about GM crops is that inserted viral genes can come into proximity with related and unrelated natural viruses and recombine to create new versions. These new “offspring” viruses can be quite different from either “parent.” Many reports specifically demonstrate that natural viruses do recombine with the viral sequences inserted into GM plants,[20] including the viral transgene used in plums.[21] “In some cases recombination occurred at very high rates-in up to 80%[22] of all plants tested.”[23] According to Latham, experiments suggest that recombination between viral transgenes in the currently commercialized GM crops and naturally occurring viruses are inevitable. The consequences of the recombination, however, are unpredictable.

Of particular concern is that the viral genes will transfer to viruses that do not normally infect the plant.[24] The invading virus, which is not adapted to that plant, would acquire a transgene that is adapted, thereby making it more likely to attack that plant.[25] It is ironic that GM crops designed to resist one virus “may be especially susceptible to new infectious viral diseases.”[26]

Diseased Plants May Impact Human Health

If GM plants do generate new plant viruses, this has several implications for human health:

The infected plants create viral proteins. As discussed, these may increase our susceptibility to viral infection or be toxic.
If plants develop novel viruses, it is likely that they will be treated with pesticides, which increases human health risks.
Plants that are infected by viruses may have altered levels of anti-nutrients, toxins, and allergens, and may be more susceptible to mold infestation. All of these may affect the health of the consumer.
It is important to note that the key concern about creating new viruses is related to plant viruses, not human viruses. Natural barriers tend to block a virus in one kingdom from attacking organisms in another kingdom. Therefore, the tendency to create new viruses in plants does not mean that they will attack humans. On the other hand, as mentioned above, when genes from two distinct viruses were inserted separately into a plant, the two viral proteins made the plant susceptible to infection by an animal (insect) virus. There are also other examples of cross kingdom viral adaptations.[27] So in theory, the use of transgenic viral genes may increase the probability that a plant can carry a virus that will function in humans. As there is little or no research on this, the risk remains speculative.

Generic Risks From GM Plants

While most of the concerns raised thus far relate to disease-resistant GM crops, all GM varieties carry generic risks. The process of creating a GM crop typically causes significant mutations and altered gene expressions throughout the genome, with the possible creation of toxins, allergens, carcinogens and anti-nutrients. The transgene may rearrange during insertion or perhaps at a later time, producing proteins that were never intended or tested. All these uncontrolled and unpredicted changes within the DNA also provide opportunities for creating RNA sequences that might have negative impacts. According to INBI, the potential for gene insertion to create regulatory RNA “is too high by chance to ignore."[28]

In addition, the genetic material that is inserted with the transgene—the promoter, antibiotic resistant marker and terminator—all carry significant risks that have not been properly studied. And many of the safety-related assumptions about these elements that were initially proclaimed by the biotech industry have since been overturned.

Responding To The Threat

The FDA has no required safety studies for GM crops and the USDA continues to quote outdated theories (see side bar below for some examples). These actions are consistent, however, with the fact that US regulatory agencies are officially charged with the responsibility to promote the biotechnology industry. Originally, politicians claimed this effort would increase US exports. Now that worldwide rejection of GM crops has actually shrunk US corn and soy exports, for example, to the point of requiring an extra $2-3 billion per year in price supports, promotion of biotech appears to be more about appeasing a powerful corporate lobby.

Although consumers’ concerns about GM foods are not always heeded by governments, the food industry has been more responsive. Their concern about potential loss of markets has had a significant impact in reigning in biotech expansion. When Monsanto tried to introduce their GM wheat, an Iowa State University economist projected a loss of 30-50 percent of the US foreign wheat sales and drop in prices by about a third.[29] The wheat industry lobbied hard for North America to be a GM-wheat-free-zone and Monsanto withdrew its application.[30] When Hawaii coffee growers realized that GM coffee might destroy its premium market, it successfully appealed to the University of Hawaii not to develop any GM varieties. GM flax was taken off the market in 2001 due to pressure from the Flax Council of Canada and the Saskatchewan Flax Development Commission.[31] GM sugar beets were rejected by U.S. sugar refiners.[32] And warnings from rice millers and others halted the commercialization of GM rice.[33]

Now it’s time for the plum producers to protect their markets. The US is the third leading plum exporter. California grows the vast majority, with more than $130 million worth grown in 2002. The plum pox virus, which had infected trees in Pennsylvania, is not even a West Coast phenomenon. But if GM plums are introduced anywhere in the US, market rejection will surely be an issue, as will contamination, rejected shipments and extra costs for segregation and testing.

If you wish to give friendly encouragement to the plum and prune industry to ask for the USDA to stop the GM plum, please go to www.responsibletechnology.org.  In this case, it won’t require that Monsanto or another biotech company withdraw their application. The GM plums were developed and promoted by the USDA itself.

As for the other virus-resistant crops, Hawaiian GM papayas are shipped to Canada and a few cities on the West Coast, such as Los Angeles and San Francisco. To avoid it in those locations, inquire about the source of the fruit (and recommend to vendors to avoid it as well.) Unfortunately, organic and non-GM conventional papaya from Hawaii are easily contaminated by GM varieties. Cross-pollination of a non-GM papaya tree can make the seeds GM, while the flesh of the fruit remains non-GM. Consequently, some organic growers planted the seeds of  “organic” papaya, only to discover that their orchard was entirely GM. Similarly, those buying papaya at the market may throw the seeds on the ground or plant them in their garden, inadvertently spreading the GM variety. In a study in 2004, “nearly 20,000 papaya seeds from across the Big Island, 80% of which came from organic farms and the rest from backyard gardens or wild trees, showed a GM contamination level of 50%.”[34] The GM plum under review can likewise turn the seeds of neighboring trees into GM varieties.

The virus-resistant GM Zucchini and crookneck squash varieties are mixed in low quantities with conventional brands in the US. To avoid them, it may be easiest to buy organic, which has probably suffered minimal contamination. As for the four major GM crops, soy, corn, cottonseed and canola, go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn how to avoid them when shopping or in restaurants.

Safe eating.

Justification For Using Viral Inserts Ignores Scientific Opinion

According to a paper by Latham and Steinbrecher,[35] “The views of many scientists working in this’ area (as reflected in the scientific literature) are at odds with the policy of widespread commercialization of virus-containing GM crops being pursued by the USDA.” But in spite of the concerns raised by numerous scientists that viral inserts in GM crops may recombine with other plant viruses,[36] biotech companies and regulatory agencies have ignored the data and cling to unproven or obsolete safety assumptions. Here are five commonly used arguments by advocates, with Latham and Steinbrecher’s response.

The likelihood of recombination is the same as that of natural plants that have two (or more) viral infections. Since that occurs naturally, we shouldn’t consider GM plants as a special cause for concern. [37]
With GM crops, viruses will come into proximity with the transgene at a much higher rate. Most natural plants are not infected by viruses and do not have viral sequences available. When viruses do attack plants, they are often restricted to certain types of tissue[38] and will not readily encounter viruses present in other tissue. For those attacking the same tissue, some viruses have a mechanism (superinfection exclusion) to prohibit other viruses from infecting the same cell.[39] In other cases, viruses may occupy different compartments within the cell and thus be prevented from interacting. These natural barriers to viral recombination are largely dismantled in GM crops, which contain viral sequences in every cell.
The quantities of messenger RNA (mRNA) produced by some viral inserts is less than those found in natural viruses. Therefore, the rate of recombination (of the mRNA) will be lower. [40]
Naturally occurring viruses are usually surrounded (encapsidated) by a protective coat of protein and many also replicate in areas of the cell that are enclosed by membranes.[41] GM viral sequences are neither encapsidated, nor enclosed. They therefore may come into contact with natural viruses more often, even if the total amount of mRNA is less. Furthermore, the level of transgenic mRNA may increase in those cells that are infected by a non-target virus,[42] because the introduced virus may disable the mechanism that keeps the transgene expression low.[43]
Argument: Recombinant viruses “are unlikely” to survive competition from pre-existing viruses or will not give rise to significant new strains.[44]
These assertions are not supported by data.[45] On the contrary, new and significant viruses do arise naturally by recombination[46](as well as mutation) and some demonstrate superior fitness compared to their parents.[47] Also, some viruses don’t compete with pre-existing ones, but rather move into a difference niche.
Argument: Viral sequences are inserted into GM crops so that the plants resist viruses that carry that same sequence. When the USDA approved the first virus-resistant plant (the ZW-20 squash), [48] they argued that if the inserted viral sequence recombines with a natural virus, the new virus will be suppressed by the same mechanism.
This assumption has been overturned by the more recent discovery that infecting viruses can disable the gene silencing mechanism.[49]
All four of the arguments above appear in every application for new GM virus-resistant varieties and are the primary defense against the risk of recombination. A fifth rationale, which is sometimes used by advocates, is as follows.
Argument: The widespread use of GM virus resistant plants will so effectively reduce the prevalence of viruses, that it will reduce the rate of recombination. [50]
No data is presented to support this position, which overstates a GM crop’s ability to suppress viruses beyond one or a few targeted strains.

This article used as its primary source, the following article, combined with personal communication with Dr. Jonathan Latham. Jonathan R Latham, PhD and Ricarda A Steinbrecher, PhD, Horizontal gene transfer of viral inserts from GM plants to Viruses, GM Science Review Meeting of the Royal Society of Edinburgh on "GM Gene Flow: Scale and Consequences for Agriculture and the Environment" 27 January 2003—amended February 2004 www.econexus.info/pdf/Horizontal-Genes-virus-2004.pdf







Document Number: 1509
GM Sugar Will Not Be Excused

The sugar beet industry hopes that their GM sugar beets will not generate the consumer rejection associated with other GM crops. The sugar, they contend, does not contain any GM DNA or protein. A similar argument has been made for oils derived by GM crops, including soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola. But experience conclusively shows that consumers do not want to eat products that are derived by GM crops—period.

This precautionary approach has scientific merit; the risks of GM crops are not limited just to its DNA or the protein produced by the inserted gene. The process of creating a GM plant causes massive collateral damage in the DNA—approximately 2-4% of the DNA is different (mutated) compared to its parent. This can result in increased or new toxins, allergens, carcinogens, and anti-nutrients.

Even small amounts of contaminants can be quite dangerous. Consider the food supplement L-tryptophan, produced in the 1980’s by a Japanese company that used genetically engineered bacteria. The genetic engineering process was almost certainly the reason why the supplement contained 5 or 6 contaminants. They were tiny—0.1% to 0.01% of the total amount of product—but their effect huge. This brand killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 to become sick or permanently disabled.[53] It is important to note that the toxic tryptophan passed the US pharmaceutical standard for purity. The deadly contaminants were part of the acceptable level of impurity.

In addition, when a panel of top US allergists evaluated StarLink, the potentially allergenic GM corn that had illegally entered the food supply, the doctors concluded that no level of contamination would be considered safe. Allergens can trigger reactions at minute levels.

Finally, there are some endocrine disrupting substances that have effects in the parts per billion or trillion range. We cannot rule out the possibility that these disruptors are produced in GM crops, especially since some of the problems associated with GM feed (e.g. sterility, infant mortality and morbidity, gender-specific reactions) may be related to endocrine disruption. 

Thus, in the case of sugar beets, the pulp used for animal feed, the molasses, and even the highly purified sugar, all contain levels of contamination that might harbor an unexpected byproduct of the GM process. It is quite unlikely that consumers will accept GM sugar if they are rejecting other GM products.







Document Number: 3669
GE Salmon? Are You Out of Your Minds?!



To help stop GE salmon, please sign petitions to the food industry and Congress.

Has the FDA gone completely mad? Why are they trying to open the flood gates to genetically engineered (GE) salmon—a move that will go down in history as one of the most asinine and dangerous ever made by our government? What’s it going to take for them to actually start protecting public health?

Frankenfish can promote disease

The FDA is reviewing data submitted by AquaBounty, the company that spliced a growth hormone gene into Atlantic salmon, forcing it to grow up to five times faster, and reach market size in about 18 months instead of 3 years. But according to the evidence, their buff salmon might have higher levels of a cancer promoting hormone IGF-1, more antibiotics, and more of a potentially life-threatening allergen(s).

The FDA failed to learn their lesson with their idiotic approval of genetically engineered bovine growth hormone. It also has higher levels of IGF-1 and more antibiotics. Now it’s condemned by the American Public Health Association and the American Nurses Association, banned in most other countries, and has been banished by most US dairies. Even Wal-Mart won’t allow the stuff into their milk.

The GE soy and corn on the market, which the FDA continues to pretend is just the same as the natural stuff, also has higher levels of allergens, and has been linked to numerous disorders. Now the American Academy of Environmental Medicine condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and urged all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets. “GMO-Free” is one of the fastest growing health claims among US brands for the past two years, and a tipping point of consumer rejection of all GE ingredients appears to be just over the horizon.

Then there is the threat of Frankenfish escaping into the wild. Here too, the FDA ignores the lessons from GE crops which, in spite of early assurances to the contrary, have been contaminating non-GE crops and wild relatives all over the world for more than a decade. Their self-propagating genetic pollution is irreversible; it can outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste. But somehow escaped GE salmon carry an even greater hazard.

Frankenfish can wipe out natural salmon

According to a Purdue University computer model that tracked the effects of releasing just 60 Frankenfish (not salmon) into a population of 60,000, there was a shocking complete extinction in just 40 fish generations. Apparently their bigger size, which attracted mates more easily, combined with a slight reduction in survival rates, was a killer combination.

Canadian scientists engineered their own set of fast growing salmon and tested their behavior in tanks with other fish. When there was sufficient food, all was fine. When food stocks decreased, the Frankenfish freaked. They became cannibals, attacking and killing other fish—whether GE or natural. Their unexpected behavior resulted in population crashes or complete extinctions in the fish tanks. The study also suggested that if released, these ravenous aggressive salmon would pursue and consume other types of fish.

I’m not sure which scenario is worse: The complete extinction of salmon, or gangs of voracious mutant freaks scouring the ocean, attacking anything that can feed their rapidly-expanding, always-hungry bodies. (Heck, let’s just give the fish automatic weapons.)

Never mind that the GE AquAdvantage salmon are supposed to be grown in inland tanks and are supposed to be sterile. In reality, they won’t all be sterile; and there are numerous ways that these salmon, whose eggs will regularly be shipped from Prince Edward Island, Canada to growing tanks in Panama, can escape into the ocean. It only takes one!

Corporate interests and politics run the FDA show

US consumers have been clear for years that we don’t want Frankenfish, Frankenpigs, Frankenmosquitoes, Frankenanything that walks, flies, slithers, or swims. And most Americans are now uneasy about the Frankencrops already growing in our fields. So who is clamoring for GE salmon? Who’s getting the FDA to push open the doors to GE animals against public opinion?

Thank you Union of Concerned Scientists for the answer. Your September 12th survey of 1710 FDA employees explains who is really driving the bus at the agency. One staff member said, “Food safety has succumbed to the higher priority of global corporate profits.” In fact, 38 percent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that “public health has been harmed by agency practices that defer to business interests.”

Another employee points to political interference: “I have been here for 26 years and it still amazes me . . . how politics filter down to the lowest levels of government.”

So its corporate profits and politics. Anyone surprised? About 1 in 4 surveyed admit that they had personally experienced, either frequently or occasionally, “situations where corporate interests [or members of Congress, or special interests] have forced the withdrawal or significant modification of [an agency] policy or action designed to protect consumers or public health.”

If there is one face that best captures the FDA’s conflict-of-humanity’s-interest, it would be Michael Taylor. Taylor is the US Food Safety Czar. You’d think that if there were significant safety concerns about the GE salmon, our Czar would step in to preserve and protect. Don’t count on it.

Back when the first Bush White House had instructed the FDA to promote biotechnology, the agency created a special position for Taylor to be in charge. He had been the outside attorney for biotech giant Monsanto, where he had dreamed up a regulatory facade that would allow GMOs to be brought to market with maximum speed and minimum oversight. Then he took a position with the FDA where he could apparently implement it himself. His GMO policy falsely claimed that the agency was unaware of information showing GM foods to be different. On that basis, no testing or labeling was required. Years later, 44,000 documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that the consensus among FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were unsafe, and should be carefully tested for allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems.

Soon after leaving the FDA, Michael Taylor went to work as Monsanto’s vice president.

So the person who lied about GMO safety to push them on the market now sits above the folks that are looking at GE Salmon. Not a comforting thought.

Stacking the deck for approving salmon

How else does corporate influence play out in the current FDA debacle?

Consider Alison L. Van Eenennaam. She too used to work for Monsanto, and now has been added as a temporary voting member on the committee that advises the FDA about the salmon. She also advises the USDA and promotes GE animals on Youtube.

Kevin G. Wells was also added as a temporary voting member for salmon. He works at Revivicor, a company that genetically engineers pigs. Do you suppose there is any conflict of interest for him establishing an easy ride for GE animal approvals? Perhaps.

Gregory Jaffe was also imported into the committee as their supposed consumer advocate. In reality, he is with the pro-GMO Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), an organization that consistently ignores the mounting evidence of adverse health impacts from GE crops. Jaffe even filed a complaint to the FDA in 2001 complaining of companies that label their products as non-GMO. What further qualified Jaffe for his committee position was his published article Questions About Genetically Engineered Animals, where he touts the environmental benefits of AquAdvantage salmon.

The engineered bias of the FDA advisory committee is made even more clear by who is absent. There are no experts on allergies or hormones who can address the possible health damaging effects of the fish, and no fish ecologists who can figure out whether our grandchildren will live in a world without wild salmon.

Institutionalized stupidity

But even before the committee was picked, the deck was stacked in favor of approvals. In 2008, the Bush administration rolled out a policy in which GE animals would be approved as if they were animal drugs. This latest square peg is part of a continuing effort to regulate GMOs without asking Congress to pass any new laws. So, since 1992, the government has been jerry-rigging inadequate pre-existing laws to handle the unique and complex safety and environmental considerations of genetically engineered organisms.

Even if GE animals weren’t infinitely more complex than some drug compound, using the FDA drug approval process shouldn’t give us great confidence. Between 1976 and 1985, for example, more than half of their drug approvals turned out to have lethal or serious side effects, forcing withdrawal or added label warnings. Try conducting a recall of GE salmon from the ocean.

Failing grades all around

Even with stacked committee membership, an antiquated approval policy, and an agency that is officially mandated to promote biotechnology, the Frankenfish did not swim past the advisory committee on September 19th and 20th. That’s because the committee agreed with safety experts like Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union (they publish Consumer Reports) that the evidence presented by AquaBounty was abysmal and insufficient. Using a sample size of only 6 fish, employing insensitive detection methods that could easily miss cancer-promoting hormones or allergens, and testing fish that were raised in a completely different climate than what is planned, were among the sloppy science that the FDA had accepted. (See addendum below for examples.)

In fact the only person on the committee who had any experience with fish, Gary Thorgaard, completely disagreed with the FDA’s conclusion that the Frankenfish didn’t threaten the environment. He called for a full Environmental Impact Statement.

Hansen says, “The data and analysis of food safety risks from the AquAdvantage Salmon are so sloppy and inadequate that, if this were an undergraduate paper, it would get a failing grade. No self-respecting scientist could conclude that these data demonstrate that AquAdvantage salmon are safe to eat.”

Thus, in spite of the fact that the company had been submitting data to the FDA for more than ten years, the advisory committee concluded that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that GE salmon was safe for the environment and for human health. They told AquaBounty to go back and to do more testing.

I propose a different recommendation. This little exercise made it perfectly clear that AquaBounty is either completely incompetent to evaluate the safety of their own creation, or they’re intentionally hiding evidence. In either case, let’s not send the same folks back to do more research, hoping they’ll get it right. Instead, tell these jokers that they have proved to the world that they are never ever ever to be trusted with the future of salmon or the safety of the human food supply.

And what about the FDA—the brain cell behind the Don’t-ask-don’t-tell food safety assessments? They have again demonstrated that they too are not competent to protect the public from the unique unpredictable dangers of genetically engineered foods.

If you want to GE salmon stopped for good, now is the time to raise your voice. Since the FDA has been ignoring US citizens in favor of business interests and politics, please join me in inviting the food industry and Congress to stop in and stop this madness. Go to our action alert pages to sign the petitions today.

. . .

Addendum: How Not to Do a Food Safety Assessment

The FDA’s evaluation of GE salmon is the first of its kind. Because it will set a precedent for all future GE animal approvals, the bar should be set very high. According to Dr. Michael Hansen, who testified at the FDA advisory committee meeting on behalf of Consumers Union, the FDA set the bar a foot off the ground.

When AquaBounty looked for potentially dangerous growth hormones in the salmon, for example, they used a detection method so insensitive, it couldn’t find any hormones in any fish. The FDA therefore concluded that there was no relevant difference in hormone levels in GE salmon. Dr. Hansen told the committee, “This would be like the police using a radar gun that cannot detect speeds below 120 mph and concluding that there is no ‘relevant difference’ in the speed of cars versus bicycles.”

Because the company also used an insensitive test to measure cancer-promoting insulin-like growth hormone factor one (IGF-1), levels were detected in only a few fish. Of these, the GE salmon was 40% higher. Again, insufficient data combined with faulty reasoning allowed the FDA to conclude that IGF-1 from GE salmon is not a problem.

Even then, these test results were not from the type of GE salmon that the company plans to market. Instead, the tests were conducted on the GE salmon variety that will produce the fish eggs in Canada. The DNA of these “egg-layers” have the normal two sets of chromosomes (diploid). The GE salmon to be grown from their eggs in Panama, however, end up with three sets of chromosomes (triploid)—so that most will be sterile. It’s the Panama-grown triploid variety that will go onto our dinner table if the FDA has their way. So what was the response by the FDA and AquaBounty when asked for the IGF-1 levels of the actual fish (raised in the actual conditions) that people would actually eat? “Well…er….uhm…we’ll get back to you.”

The situation with allergies is worse. According to Hansen, the tests conducted by AquaBounty confirmed that “the act of genetic engineering did lead to an increase in allergenic potency.” In fact, when the flesh from egg-laying (diploid) fish was exposed to the blood (sera) of people who are allergic to salmon, there was a whopping 52% increase in reaction levels. Furthermore, the specific allergen that had increased in the Frankenfish was not supposed to be affected. It did not come from the inserted gene. Rather, the increase in this potentially life-threatening allergen was just one of the unpredictable side-effects that can result from the process of genetic engineering itself.

The FDA decided this time to ignore this troublesome finding, since it was from the egg-laying diploids. The company did test the allergic reaction to the triploids (the ones we’ll eat), but used fish that were raised in Canada, not Panama. This should have disqualified the fish study, according to Hansen, since the composition of GE salmon can obviously be affected by water temperature, and growing conditions. Still, the Canadian raised Frankenfish still elicited an allergic response level that was 20% higher than normal salmon. But the FDA dismissed this figure since it was not statistically significant and concluded that the GE salmon was safe to eat. But of course it wasn’t statistically significant. They used just six fish in the sample size! The easiest way to prevent statistical significance is by using a pathetically small number of subjects in your experiment. Hansen said:

“To base a conclusion of no additional risk on exactly six engineered fish, when those data themselves suggest a possible problem, is not responsible science or responsible risk assessment. FDA owes it to the thousands of Americans who are allergic to finfish to demand more data on the allergenicity of these engineered salmon from AquaBounty.”

Thank you Dr. Hansen for helping to protect us from the bungling Frankenfish promoters. Let’s hope they will listen.









Document Number: 6843
Lyme/Autism Group Blasts Genetically Modified Foods as Dangerous

by Jeffrey M. Smith

Stop eating dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods! That's the upshot of the Lyme Induced Autism (LIA) Foundation's position paper, released today. The patient advocacy group is not willing to wait around until research studies prove that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) cause or worsen the many diseases that are on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced in 1996. Like the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) earlier this year, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in GM animal feeding studies for them to "urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets" and for "individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid" GM foods.

Dr. Jannelle Love, founder of the Autism Relief Foundation, is quoted in Kimberly Wilcox's excellent article:

"It is known that children on the Autistic Spectrum suffer from fragile immune systems, significant digestive and brain inflammation, and the environmental toxin overload. Putting foreign entities such as GMO foods into such a fragile child may indeed cause further deterioration and perhaps block the delicate biochemical pathways needed for appropriate functioning and possible recovery."
The LIA Foundation calls for physicians and patient advocacy groups to explain to patients the role that GM foods may play in disease and to distribute non-GMO educational materials, including the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, which makes it easier to find brands without GM ingredients. (See www.nonGMOGuide.com). They also called for a moratorium on all GM foods and for "Research to evaluate the role of GM foods on autism, Lyme disease, and related conditions."

GMOs: Pervasive And High-risk

The five main GM foods are soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets. Their derivatives are found in more than 70% of the foods in the supermarket. The primary reason the plants are engineered is to allow them to drink poison. They're inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of poisonous herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal. Roundup Ready crops survive sprays of Roundup. Liberty Link crops survive Liberty. US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these herbicide-tolerant crops, and the higher toxic residues end up inside of us. The LIA position paper acknowledges that "Individuals with infections that compromise immunity… and/or high toxin loads may also be especially susceptible to adverse effects from pesticides."

Some GM corn and cotton varieties are also designed to produce poison. Inserted genes from a soil bacterium produce an insect-killing poison called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Bt is associated with allergic and toxic reactions in humans and animals, and may create havoc in our digestive system (see below).

All GM crops, in fact, should be considered high-risk. Irrespective of which gene you insert, the process of genetic engineering itself results in massive collateral damage within the plants' natural DNA. This can result in new or higher levels of toxins, carcinogens, allergens, or nutrient-blocking compounds in our food.

Because of a corporate takeover at the FDA, they don't require a single safety test on GMOs—so almost none of the potential side effects are evaluated before the crops are approved for sale. The few animal feeding safety studies that have been conducted, however, show serious problems. It's obvious why those suffering from autism, Lyme, or any ailment, would want to stop being used as a guinea pig in this massive GMO feeding experiment.

AAEM physician Amy Dean, a board certified internal medicine specialist, says:

"GMOs have been shown to adversely affect the digestive and immune systems of animals in laboratory settings. Lyme and autism, on the rise in the US, are also associated with digestive and immune system dysfunction. Therefore, patients with Lyme and autism should avoid GM foods."
Autism, Food Allergies, And GMOs

It is noteworthy that children with autism are often allergic to corn and soy. Both are genetically engineered. Many are also allergic to dairy.

The LIA press release points out, "dairy cows are usually fed GM feed and sometimes injected with GM bovine growth hormone." Although no studies have looked at the impact of eating meat or milk from GM-fed animals, secret FDA documents made public from a lawsuit revealed that their Center for Veterinary Medicine was very concerned that toxins from GM foods might bioaccumulate in the livestock. If so, their milk and meat may be even more dangerous than the GM plants.

Studies on the impact of bovine growth hormone on the cows' milk are less ambiguous. The dairy products from treated cows contain higher amounts of puss, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). The last on the list is considered most dangerous. IGF-1 is linked to a much higher risk of cancer, and according to one study, may also be responsible for the high rates of fraternal twins born in the US.

GMO Health Risk Sampler

Our Institute for Responsible Technology's Campaign for Healthier Eating in America has been very busy distributing our Non-GMO Shopping Guide to doctors around the nation, who are quite concerned about the impact of GMOs on their own and their patients' health. They are also giving patients our small pamphlet that summarizes the health dangers of GMOs. This helps to inspire people to use the Shopping Guide. Some of the health risks are included below. (Citations are posted.) See if you're also "inspired."

Digestive Disorders

According to GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai, PhD, the digestive tract is the first and largest point of contact with GM foods and can reveal reactions to various toxins. Lab animals fed GM feed developed lesions in the stomach, damage intestines, and abnormal and proliferative cell growth in the walls of the stomach and intestines.

Toxic Intestinal Bacteria

The beneficial bacteria living inside our digestive tract is used for digestion and immunity. Excessive herbicide residues on herbicide-tolerant GM crops may kill beneficial gut flora. More importantly, the only published human feeding experiment revealed that the genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into bacteria living inside our intestines and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have dangerous GM proteins continuously produced inside us. Consider, for example, if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were also to transfer. It might turn our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Compromised Immune System

Virtually every animal feeding study that looked for immune changes from GMOs found them. GM-fed animals had a sluggish immune responses, damaged organs associated with immunity, altered parameters in the blood, and dangerous inflammatory and immune reactions.

Allergies

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a screening protocol, GM soy and corn fail those tests—because their GM proteins have properties of known allergens.

Soon after GM soy was introduced in the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. A skin prick allergy test verified that some people react to GM soy, but not to natural soy. GM soy contains as much as 7-times the amount of a known soy allergen. Both GM soy and corn contain at least one new unexpected allergen, not found in natural crops.

The biotech industry claims that Bt-toxin is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to natural Bt spray had allergic and flu-like symptoms. Now, farm workers throughout India are getting those same symptoms from handling Bt cotton. Likewise, mice fed natural Bt had powerful immune responses; now mice and rats fed Bt corn also show immune responses.

GMOs May Make You Allergic To Non-GM Foods

Since GMOs were introduced in the US, food allergies have become a huge problem, especially for kids. Some of the foods that trigger reactions, however, are not genetically engineered. But studies show how GM foods might create sensitivity to other foods, and may in fact be contributing to this national epidemic.

GM soy, for example, drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins was impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. The Bt-toxin in the corn we eat may have a similar impact. Mice fed experimental GM peas also started reacting to a range of other "safe" foods. The allergen responsible for this reaction may be found in GM foods on our supermarket shelves.

GMOs And Liver Problems

The liver is a primary detoxifier. Its condition can indicate if there are toxins in our food. Mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes in their livers. In some cases, livers were smaller and partially atrophied. Some were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed. And certain cellular changes indicated a toxic insult from the GM diet.

Reproductive Problems and Infant Mortality

Both male and female animals showed horrific problems when fed GM soy. More than half the babies of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks, compared to 10% of the non-GM soy controls. The GM babies were also considerably smaller, and were unable to conceive in a subsequent study. Male rats and mice fed GM soy had changed testicles, including altered young sperm cells in the mice. And when both mouse parents ate GM soy, the DNA of their embryos functioned differently. GM corn also had an impact. The longer mice were fed the corn, the fewer babies they had and the smaller their babies were.

Livestock Sterility, Disease, And Death

Many of the problems seen in laboratories are also reported by farmers and investigators in the field.

Thousands of sheep, buffalo, and goats in India died after grazing on Bt cotton plants after harvest. Others suffered poor health and serious reproductive problems.
Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens, and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties.
About two dozen US farmers report that GM corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs or cows.
Ready To Change Your Diet?

Inspired? How about alarmed? Choosing non-GMO diets is not only a good idea for those suffering from disease, but for anyone wanting to eat healthy and prevent disease.

Safe eating.








Document Number: 9279
Monsanto Whistleblower Says Genetically Engineered Crops May Cause Disease

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Monsanto was quite happy to recruit young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Kirk had grown up on a California farm and had worked in several jobs monitoring and testing pesticides and herbicides. Kirk was bright, ambitious, handsome and idealistic—the perfect candidate to project the company’s “Save the world through genetic engineering” image.

It was that image, in fact, that convinced Kirk to take the job in 1996. “When I was contacted by the headhunter from Monsanto, I began to study the company, namely the work of their CEO, Robert Shapiro.” Kirk was thoroughly impressed with Shapiro’s promise of a golden future through genetically modified (GM) crops. “He described how we would reduce the in-process waste from manufacturing, turn our fields into factories and produce anything from lifesaving drugs to insect-resistant plants. It was fascinating to me.” Kirk thought, “Here we go. I can do something to help the world and make it a better place.”

He left his job and accepted a position at Monsanto, rising quickly to become the facilitator for GM cotton sales in California and Arizona. He would often repeat Shapiro’s vision to customers, researchers, even fellow employees. After about three months, he visited Monsanto’s St. Louis headquarters for the first time for new employee training. There too, he took the opportunity to let his colleagues know how enthusiastic he was about Monsanto’s technology that was going to reduce waste, decrease poverty and help the world. Soon after the meeting, however, his world was shaken.

“A vice president pulled me aside,” recalled Kirk. “He told me something like, ‘Wait a second. What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don’t even understand what he is saying.’”

Kirk felt let down. “I went in there with the idea of helping and healing and came out with ‘Oh, I guess it is just another profit-oriented company.’” He returned to California, still holding out hopes that the new technology could make a difference.

Possible Toxins in GM Plants

Kirk was developing the market in the West for two types of GM cotton. Bt cotton was engineered with a gene from a soil bacterium, Bacillus thuringiensis. Organic farmers use the natural form of the bacterium as an insecticide, spraying it occasionally during times of high pest infestation. Monsanto engineers, however, isolated and then altered the gene that produces the Bt-toxin, and inserted it into the DNA of the cotton plant. Now every cell of their Bt cotton produces a toxic protein. The other variety was Roundup Ready® cotton. It contains another bacterial gene that enables the plant to survive an otherwise toxic dose of Monsanto’s Roundup® herbicide. Since the patent on Roundup’s main active ingredient, glyphosate, was due to expire in 2000, the company was planning to sell Roundup Ready seeds that were bundled with their Roundup herbicide, effectively extending their brand’s dominance in the herbicide market.

In the summer of 1997, Kirk spoke with a Monsanto scientist who was doing some tests on Roundup Ready cotton. Using a “Western blot” analysis, the scientist was able to identify different proteins by their molecular weight. He told Kirk that the GM cotton not only contained the intended protein produced by the Roundup Ready gene, but also extra proteins that were not normally produced in the plant. These unknown proteins had been created during the gene insertion process.

Gene insertion was done using a gene gun (particle bombardment). Kirk, who has an undergraduate degree in biochemistry, understood this to be “a kind of barbaric and messy method of genetic engineering, where you use a gun-like apparatus to bombard the plant tissue with genes that are wrapped around tiny gold particles.” He knew that particle bombardment can cause unpredictable changes and mutations in the DNA, which might result in new types of proteins.

The scientist dismissed these newly created proteins in the cotton plant as unimportant background noise, but Kirk wasn’t convinced. Proteins can have allergenic or toxic properties, but no one at Monsanto had done a safety assessment on them. “I was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic.” He was particularly concerned that the rogue proteins “might possibly lead to mad cow or some other prion-type diseases.”

Kirk had just been studying mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and its human counterpart, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). These fatal diseases had been tracked to a class of proteins called prions. Short for “proteinaceous infectious particles,” prions are improperly folded proteins, which cause other healthy proteins to also become misfolded. Over time, they cause holes in the brain, severe dysfunction and death. Prions survive cooking and are believed to be transmittable to humans who eat meat from infected “mad” cows. The disease may incubate undetected for about 2 to 8 years in cows and up to 30 years in humans.

When Kirk tried to share his concerns with the scientist, he realized, “He had no idea what I was talking about; he had not even heard of prions. And this was at a time when Europe had a great concern about mad cow disease and it was just before the Nobel prize was won by Stanley Prusiner for his discovery of prion proteins.” Kirk said “These Monsanto scientists are very knowledge about traditional products, like chemicals, herbicides and pesticides, but they don’t understand the possible harmful outcomes of genetic engineering, such as pathophysiology or prion proteins. So I am explaining to him about the potential untoward effects of these foreign proteins, but he just did not understand.”

Endangering the Food Supply

At this time, Roundup Ready cotton varieties were just being introduced into other regions but were still being field-tested in California. California varieties had not yet been commercialized. But Kirk came to find out that Monsanto was feeding the cotton plants used in its test plots to cattle.

“I had great issue with this,” he said. “I had worked for Abbot Laboratories doing research, doing test plots using Bt sprays from bacteria. We would never take a test plot and put into the food supply, even with somewhat benign chemistries. We would always destroy the test plot material and not let anything into the food supply. Now we entered into a new era of genetic engineering. The standard was not the same as with pesticides. It was much lower, even though it probably should have been much higher.”

Kirk complained to the Ph.D. in charge of the test plot about feeding the experimental plants to cows. He explained that unknown proteins, including prions, might even effect humans who consume the cow’s milk and meat. The scientist replied, “Well that’s what we’re doing everywhere else and that’s what we’re doing here.” He refused to destroy the plants.

Kirk got a bit frantic. He started talking to others in the company. “I approached pretty much everyone on my team in Monsanto.” He was unable to get anyone interested. In fact, he said, “Once they understood my perspective, I was somewhat ostracized. It seemed as if once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. I lost the cooperation with other team members. Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside.”

He then approached California Agriculture Commissioners. “These local Ag commissioners are traditionally responsible for test plots and to make sure test plot designs protect people and the environment.” But Kirk got nowhere. “Once again, even at the Ag commissioner level, they were dealing with a new technology that was beyond their comprehension. They did not really grasp what untoward effects might be created by the genetic engineering process itself.”

Kirk continued to try to blow the whistle on what he thought could be devastating to the health of consumers. “I spoke to many Ag commissioners. I spoke to people at the University of California. I found no one who would even get it, or even get the connection that proteins might be pathogenic, or that there might be untoward effects associated with these foreign proteins that we knew we were producing. They didn’t even want to talk about it really. You’d kind of see a blank stare when speaking to them on this level. That led me to say I am not going to be part of this company anymore. I’m not going to be part of this disaster, from a moral perspective.”

Kirk gave his two-week notice. In early January 1998, he finished his last day of work in the morning and in the afternoon started his first day at chiropractic college. He was still determined to make a positive difference for the world, but with a radically changed approach.

While in school, he continued to research prion disease and its possible connection with GM crops. What he read then and what is known now about prions has not alleviated his concerns. He says, “The protein that manifests as mad cow disease takes about five years. With humans, however, that time line is anywhere from 10-30 years. We were talking about 1997 and today is 2006. We still don’t know if there is anything going to happen to us from our being used as test subjects.”

Update

It turns out that the damage done to DNA due to the process of creating a genetically modified organism is far more extensive than previously thought.[1] GM crops routinely create unintended proteins, alter existing protein levels or even change the components and shape of the protein that is created by the inserted gene. Kirk’s concerns about a GM crop producing a harmful misfolded protein remain well-founded, and have been echoed by scientists as one of the many possible dangers that are not being evaluated by the biotech industry’s superficial safety assessments.

GM cotton has provided ample reports of unpredicted side-effects. In April 2006, more than 70 Indian shepherds reported that 25% of their herds died within 5-7 days of continuous grazing on Bt cotton plants.[2] Hundreds of Indian agricultural laborers reported allergic reactions from Bt cotton. Some cotton harvesters have been hospitalized and many laborers in cotton gin factories take antihistamines each day before work.[3]

The cotton’s agronomic performance is also erratic. When Monsanto’s GM cotton varieties were first introduced in the US, tens of thousands of acres suffered deformed roots and other unexpected problems. Monsanto paid out millions in settlements.[4] When Bt cotton was tested in Indonesia, widespread pest infestation and drought damage forced withdrawal of the crop, despite the fact that Monsanto had been bribing at least 140 individuals for years, trying to gain approval.[5] In India, inconsistent performance has resulted in more than $80 million dollars in losses in each of two states.[6] Thousands of indebted Bt cotton farmers have committed suicide. In Vidarbha, in north east Maharashtra, from June through August 2006, farmers committed suicide at a rate of about one every eight hours.[7] (The list of adverse reactions reported from other GM crops, in lab animals, livestock and humans, is considerably longer.)

Kirk’s concern about GM crop test plots also continues to remain valid. The industry has been consistently inept at controlling the spread of unapproved varieties. On August 18, 2006, for example, the USDA announced that unapproved GM long grain rice, which was last field tested by Bayer CropScience in 2001, had contaminated the US rice crop[8] (probably for the past 5 years). Japan responded by suspending long grain rice imports and the EU will now only accept shipments that are tested and certified GM-free. Similarly, in March 2005, the US government admitted that an unapproved corn variety had escaped from Syngenta’s field trials four years earlier and had contaminated US corn.[9] By year’s end, Japan had rejected at least 14 shipments containing the illegal corn. Other field trialed crops have been mixed with commercial varieties, consumed by farmers, stolen, even given away by government agencies and universities who had accidentally mixed seed varieties.

Some contamination from field trials may last for centuries. That may be the fate of a variety of unapproved Roundup Ready grass which, according to reports made public in August 2006, had escaped into the wild from an Oregon test plot years earlier. Pollen had crossed with other varieties and wind had dispersed seeds. Scientists believe that the variety will cross pollinate with other grass varieties and may contaminate the commercial grass seed supply—70 percent of which is grown in Oregon.

Even GM crops with known poisons are being grown outdoors without adequate safeguards for health and the environment. A corn engineered to produce pharmaceutical medicines, for example, contaminated corn and soybean fields in Iowa and Nebraska in 2002.[10] On August 10, 2006, a federal judge ruled that the drug-producing GM crops grown in Hawaii violated both the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.[11]

A December 29, 2005 report by the USDA office of Inspector General, blasted the agriculture department for its abysmal oversight of GM field trials, particularly for the high risk drug producing crops.[12] And a January 2004 report by the National Research Council also called upon the government to strengthen its oversight, but acknowledged that there is no way to guarantee that field trialed crops will not pollute the environment.[13]

With the US government failing to prevent GM contamination, and with state governments and agriculture commissioners unwilling to challenge the dictates of the biotech industry, some California counties decided to enact regulations of their own. California’s diverse agriculture is particularly vulnerable and thousands of field trials on not-yet-approved GM crops have already taken place there. If contamination were discovered, it could easily devastate an industry. Four counties have enacted moratoria or bans on the planting of GM crops, including both approved and unapproved varieties. This follows the actions of more than 4500 jurisdictions in Europe and dozens of nations, states and regions on all continents, which have sought to restrict planting of GM crops to protect their health, environment and agriculture.

Ironically, California’s assembly, which has done nothing to protect the state from possible losses due to GM crop contamination, passed a bill on August 24, 2006 that prohibits other counties and cities from creating GM free zones. The senate is expected to vote on the issue by the end of their session on August 31st (see http://www.calgefree.org/preemption.shtml). It is yet another example of how the biotech industry has been able to push their agenda onto US consumers, without regard to health and environmental safeguards. No doubt that their lobbyists, anxious to have this bill pass, told legislators that GM crops are needed to stop poverty and feed a hungry world.

[Update 9/1/06:  The California Senate session ended without senators voting on the bill to prevent local jurisdictions from creating GM-Free zones. For the time being at least, California counties and cities may still enact GM-Free zones. Click here  to read the full press release.]]

Jeffrey Smith’s forthcoming book, Genetic Roulette, documents more than 60 health risks of GM foods in easy-to-read two-page spreads, and demonstrates how current safety assessments are not competent to protect consumers from the dangers. His previous book, Seeds of Deception (www.seedsofdeception.com), is the world’s best-selling book on the subject. He is available for media at info@seedsofdeception.com. Dr. Kirk Azevedo has a chiropractic office in Cambria, California. Press may reach him at (805) 927-1055 or at drkirk(at)charter.net.







Document Number: 9387
A Deadly Epidemic and the Attempt to Hide its Link to Genetic Engineering

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of the international bestseller, 
Seeds of Deception

In my book Seeds of Deception, I bring out new information about the genetically engineered food supplement L-tryptophan, which was responsible for a deadly epidemic in the United States in the 1980s. Much of the research for the chapter came from the work of investigator William Crist. The book cited Crist’s report, which was expected to have been posted on a website well in advance of my book’s publication. Unfortunately, Crist was unable to update his report at that time. It is now available at www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/L-tryptophan/index.cfm and provides important new evidence, including ways in which the U.S. government apparently hid information in order to protect the biotech industry.

In October, 1989, 44-year old Kathy Lorio arrived in the medical office of Dr. Phil Hertzman in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Lorio, who had been healthy and active, was suddenly struck with severe pain and a host of debilitating symptoms. Blood tests revealed that her eosinophil count had skyrocketed. The normal concentration of this white blood cell is about 10 per CC. Allergies or asthma can make it rise to 500. Lorio’s was over 10,000.

In a coincidence that was destined to save lives, Hertzman referred her to Santa Fe rheumatologist James Mayer, who happened to have recently seen another patient, Bonnie Bishop, with similar symptoms. Bishop was in severe pain, her arms and legs were filled with fluid, she had trouble breathing, and her muscles were so weak she couldn’t even sit up. “She slumped like a rag doll.”[1] And her eosinophil count was extremely high.

Patient histories revealed that both Bishop and Lorio were taking the food supplement L-tryptophan. Although it was the only supplement common to both patients, the doctors were hesitant to blame L-tryptophan for the disease. It is an essential amino acid, naturally found in turkey and milk, and in supplement form had been consumed safely for years as a treatment for stress, insomnia and depression.

Hertzman checked the literature on eosinophils. One author’s name kept coming up—Dr. Gerald Gleich of the Mayo Clinic. Hertzman gave him a call. Gleich told him that two cases weren’t enough to draw a conclusion about L-tryptophan. Better wait. They didn’t wait long. That same day a third case, also linked to L-tryptophan, was reported in New Mexico. Gleich called the Center for Disease Control (CDC) in Atlanta and told them about the cluster of patients in New Mexico and the possible link to L-tryptophan.

Within two weeks, three other patients checked into the Mayo Clinic with serious symptoms—one needed a respirator to breathe. All had taken L-tryptophan and they were from different parts of the country. Gleich called the CDC again. He told them it’s not limited to New Mexico—it’s out and it’s deadly. An L-tryptophan alert went nationwide.

Articles began circulating about the mysterious disease. TheAlbuquerque Journal ran a series about it that eventually won the Pulitzer Prize. The New York Times covered it. As more articles appeared, the phone calls started coming in—first dozens, then hundreds, then thousands: individuals with incurable symptoms, doctors with incurable patients, and stories of horrific symptoms. Some had coughs, rashes, physical weakness, pneumonia, breathing difficulties, hardening of the skin, mouth ulcers, nausea, shortness of breath, muscle spasms, visual problems, hair loss, difficulty with concentration or memory, and paralysis. Not everyone had all the symptoms, but everyone seemed to be in pain—greater pain than doctors had seen before. The disease was named eosinophilia myalgia syndrome, or EMS—eosinophilia because of the high cell count, myalgia because of the muscle pain. In all, about 5,000—10,000 people got sick; some are permanently disabled. About 100 people died.

Disease Traced to Genetic Modification

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) reported on July 11, 1990 that people only got EMS from pills made by Showa Denko, one of the six manufacturers whose L-tryptophan was imported into the U.S. from Japan. Showa Denko’s pills had several unique contaminants that were likely to be responsible for the epidemic. Moreover, the manufacturer was genetically engineering bacteria to produce the L-tryptophan more economically. Genes had been inserted into bacteria’s DNA in order to produce high concentrations of several enzymes used in its production.

Epidemiologist Michael Osterholm, who helped track the source of the epidemic, said in a Newsday article on August 14, “This obviously leads to that whole debate about genetic engineering.” Two weeks later, FDA spokesperson Sam Page was quoted in Science magazine “blasting” Osterholm for raising the issue of genetic engineering, “especially given the impact on the industry.”[2]

Diverting Blame

There are numerous ways in which genetically engineered bacteria might lead to unpredicted contaminants. For example:

The process of inserting genes can create significant changes in the expression of natural genes throughout the DNA, causing changes in proteins (including enzymes) and their interactions.
Genetic engineering can cause mutations and deletions in the DNA, altering its natural functioning and changing what is produced.
The bacteria were engineered to produce ingredients in larger concentrations than were normally part of the process to create L-tryptophan. These higher concentrations might interact in unpredictable ways to create new compounds.
The L-tryptophan is toxic to the bacteria that create it. As a means of self-preservation, the bacteria might have modified the L-tryptophan, itself, or its environment.
The press reported that Showa Denko had introduced a GM strain of bacteria at Christmas time in 1988. Soon after, they also reduced the amount of carbon in the filter of the manufacturing process from 20 kilos to 10. This change in the filter was just what the young and vulnerable biotech industry needed to protect its reputation. The alternative story diverted the blame away from genetic engineering. This explanation circulated around the world. “The change in the filter was responsible for the epidemic.” Or more simply put, “It was bad manufacturing—not genetic engineering.”

In 1996, writer William Crist began what would become an eight-year investigation into the cause of the EMS epidemic. He contacted the FDA’s biotechnology coordinator, James Maryanski, who told him “We can not rule [genetic engineering] out.…However, we are aware of close to two dozen cases of L-tryptophan-linked EMS that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain. So, there would have to be a cause other than just the mere engineering of the strains. Now, I can’t say that definitively because we don’t have a lot of information on these earlier cases.” Maryanski asserted that “either L-tryptophan itself, or L-tryptophan in combination with something that was the result of the purification process, was probably the more likely cause.”[3]

Crist decided to track down the EMS cases that Maryanski described—those caused by L-tryptophan produced before the genetically altered bacterium was introduced in December 1988. He quickly discovered CDC studies that identified about 100 pre-epidemic cases, not two dozen. And since reported cases of EMS were far less than actual cases, the true number, using the CDC’s estimated ratio for unreported incidents, was in thehundreds—all apparently from individuals who had ingested Showa Denko’s pills manufactured before December 1988. This fact clearly dismantled the change-in-the-filter theory as the cause of the disease. But it didn’t explain how the contaminants got into Showa Denko’s L-tryptophan.

Crist spoke with several attorneys who represented EMS victims. They had gathered significant evidence for their lawsuits, which were eventually settled with Showa Denko for about $2 billion. In one company memo obtained by an attorney, Crist discovered a significant fact. The bacterium introduced in December 1988 was called Strain 5. The preceding three strains, introduced starting on October 22, 1984, were all genetically modified. This was a revelation. It countered the FDA’s argument that illnesses “that occurred before Showa Denko began using their engineered strain” meant that “there would have to be a cause other than [genetic engineering].” But they were all engineered!

As he looked at the memo, Crist wondered why the FDA didn’t know about the earlier GM strains. They had access to a lot more information he did. Then his eyes rose to the top of the document to see a fax imprint: “FDA September 17, 1990.” It had been faxed by the FDA! They knew back in 1990 that the earlier strains were modified, but in 1996, the FDA’s biotech coordinator James Maryanski was still claiming ignorance.

An even greater omission occurred when Douglas Archer, deputy director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, testified before Congress in July 1991 about the epidemic. Not only did he not discuss the earlier bacterial strains, he never even mentioned genetic engineering. Instead, he blamed the disease on “the dangers inherent in the various health fraud schemes that are being perpetrated upon segments of the American public.” The FDA used this logic to take all L-tryptophan, GM or not, off the market.

According to a 2000 article in the Rutgers Law Journal, “Political pressures have played a role in the FDA’s decision to ban L-tryptophan as well as its desire to increase its regulatory power over dietary supplements.”[4] In its FDA Dietary Supplement Task Force report on June 15, 1993, it states, “The Task Force considered various issues in its deliberations, including…what steps are necessary to ensure that the existence of dietary supplements on the market does not act as a disincentive to drug development.” According the Rutgersarticle, “This is a particularly disturbing issue,” as it shows that developing FDA guidelines “has far more to do with eliminating competition in the pharmaceutical industry than preserving the public health.” In the case of L-tryptophan, the FDA simultaneously protected prescription drugs for stress, insomnia and depression, as well as the entire biotech industry. In retrospect, when FDA’s Sam Page told Science that it was better not to discuss genetic engineering, “especially given the impact on the industry,” it turns out he was describing the motivation and strategy that would guide the agency for years.

Sobering Lessons Unheeded

Many studies have verified that the process of genetic engineering can produce unpredicted toxins or allergens. Nevertheless, the FDA does not require any additional safety testing for GM products, whether they are food crops or supplements. Thus, if that same deadly L-tryptophan were first introduced today, it would get on the market.

The EMS epidemic took years to identify and was almost missed. The only reason it was discovered was because the disease had three concurrent characteristics: it was rare, acute, and came on quickly. What would happen if all three characteristics had not been in place? What if it took 20 years for onset or only impacted the next generation? What if it produced only mild symptoms like frequent colds? What if it created serious diseases that were common, like cancer, heart-disease, obesity or diabetes? The epidemic might remain undiscovered for decades.

What then of the thousands of products currently being fed to US citizens that contain ingredients from genetic modification? Might they be creating problems that don’t have all three characteristics? Are they contributing to the doubling of food-related illnesses in the United States between 1994 and 2001, corresponding to the time when many of these products were introduced? We don’t know, because no one is looking. And even if we were, derivatives from the four major GM crops, soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola, are found in the majority of processed foods. Unlike L-tryptophan, if common food ingredients were creating health problems, identifying the source might be impossible.

In spite of these facts, and ignoring the thousands of victims of GM L-tryptophan, U.S. regulators continue to make the baseless statement that “millions of people have been eating genetically engineered products for years and no one has gotten hurt.”

Dissatisfied with the way that the FDA is protecting their health, more and more people have chosen to protect themselves by avoiding GM foods altogether. Here too, the FDA stands in the way. More than 90 percent of Americans want GM foods labeled. Most industrialized nations require labeling. But the FDA has an official mandate to promote biotechnology. They know that more than half of those surveyed say they would avoid GM foods if they were labeled. To protect industry profits, the FDA ignores the desires of nine out of ten Americans.

There is no indication that another EMS epidemic will emerge from another GM food or supplement. But with obesity, diabetes, migraines, allergies, and many other ailments skyrocketing in the U.S., there is no guarantee that another GM-related epidemic is not already upon us.

To learn more about the potential dangers of GM foods, to find out how to shop GM-free, and to read the excellent report by William Crist






Document Number: 4779
An FDA-Created Health Crisis Circles the Globe

How corporations engineered the non-regulation of dangerous genetically modified foods

Government officials around the globe have been coerced, infiltrated, and paid off by the agricultural biotech giants. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton approved.[1] In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.[2] In Mexico, a senior government official allegedly threatened a University of California professor, implying “We know where your children go to school,” trying to get him not to publish incriminating evidence that would delay GM approvals.[3] While most industry manipulation and political collusion is more subtle, none was more significant than that found at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The FDA’s “non-regulation” of GM foods

Genetically modified crops are the result of a technology developed in the 1970s that allow genes from one species to be forced into the DNA of unrelated species. The inserted genes produce proteins that confer traits in the new plant, such as herbicide tolerance or pesticide production. The process of creating the GM crop can produce all sorts of side effects, and the plants contain proteins that have never before been in the food supply. In the US, new types of food substances are normally classified as food additives, which must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.[4] If approved, the label of food products containing the additive must list it as an ingredient.

There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto’s legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, “What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got.…When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing.” According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, “In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do.”

Following Monsanto’s lead, in 1992 the Council on Competitiveness chaired by Vice President Dan Quayle identified GM crops as an industry that could increase US exports. On May 26, Quayle announced “reforms” to “speed up and simplify the process of bringing” GM products to market without “being hampered by unnecessary regulation.”[5] Three days later, the FDA policy on non-regulation was unveiled.

The person who oversaw its development was the FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto’s vice president.

Covering up health dangers

The policy he oversaw needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.[6] In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA’s internal files, “References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists).”[7]

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, “What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, ‘What do I have to do to avoid trouble’-type document.…It will look like and probably be just a political document.…It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects.”[8]

The FDA scientists’ concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, “The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”[9] Contrast that with the official policy statement: “The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way.”[10] On the basis of this manufactured and false notion of no meaningful differences, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

To further justify their lack of oversight, they claimed that GM crops were “substantially equivalent” to their natural counterparts. But this concept does not hold up to scrutiny. The Royal Society of Canada described substantial equivalence as “scientifically unjustifiable and inconsistent with precautionary regulation of the technology.” In sharp contrast to the FDA’s position, the Royal Society of Canada said that “the default prediction” for GM crops would include “a range of collateral changes in expression of other genes, changes in the pattern of proteins produced and/or changes in metabolic activities.”[11]

Fake safety assessments

Biotech companies do participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, but it is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Companies can submit whatever information they choose, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of their own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, states flatly, “It is clear that FDA’s current voluntary notification process (even if made mandatory) is not up to the task of ensuring the safety of future GE [genetically engineered] crops.” He says, “The FDA consultation process does not allow the agency to require submission of data, misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat.”[12] Similarly, a Friends of the Earth review of company and FDA documents concluded:

“If industry chooses to submit faulty, unpublishable studies, it does so without consequence. If it should respond to an agency request with deficient data, it does so without reprimand or follow-up.…If a company finds it disadvantageous to characterize its product, then its properties remain uncertain or unknown. If a corporation chooses to ignore scientifically sound testing standards…then faulty tests are conducted instead, and the results are considered legitimate. In the area of genetically engineered food regulation, the ‘competent’ agencies rarely if ever (know how to) conduct independent research to verify or supplement industry findings.”[13]

At the end of the consultation, the FDA doesn’t actually approve the crops. Rather, they issue a letter including a statement such as the following:

“Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA.…As you are aware, it is Monsanto’s responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements.”[14]

The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London[15] describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, “It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992.…The policy is that genetically modified crops will receive the same consideration for potential health risks as any other new crop plant. This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist.…Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health.”[16]

Promoting and regulating don’t mix

The FDA and other regulatory agencies are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them—a clear conflict. Suzanne Wuerthele, a US EPA toxicologist, says, “This technology is being promoted, in the face of concerns by respectable scientists and in the face of data to the contrary, by the very agencies which are supposed to be protecting human health and the environment. The bottom line in my view is that we are confronted with the most powerful technology the world has ever known, and it is being rapidly deployed with almost no thought whatsoever to its consequences.”

Canadian regulators are similarly conflicted. The Royal Society of Canada reported that, “In meetings with senior managers from the various Canadian regulatory departments…their responses uniformly stressed the importance of maintaining a favorable climate for the biotechnology industry to develop new products and submit them for approval on the Canadian market.…The conflict of interest involved in both promoting and regulating an industry or technology…is also a factor in the issue of maintaining the transparency, and therefore the scientific integrity, of the regulatory process. In effect, the public interest in a regulatory system that is ‘science based’—that meets scientific standards of objectivity, a major aspect of which is full openness to scientific peer review—is significantly compromised when that openness is negotiated away by regulators in exchange for cordial and supportive relationships with the industries being regulated.”[17]

The conflict of interest among scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) GMO Panel is quite explicit. According to Friends of the Earth, “One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links, such as close involvement with major conferences organized by the biotech industry. Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry.…Several members of the Panel, including the chair Professor Kuiper, have been involved with the EU-funded ENTRANSFOOD project. The aim of this project was to agree [to] safety assessment, risk management and risk communication procedures that would ‘facilitate market introduction of GMOs in Europe, and therefore bring the European industry in a competitive position.’ Professor Kuiper, who coordinated the ENTRANSFOOD project, sat on a working group that also included staff from Monsanto, Bayer CropScience and Syngenta.” The report concludes that EFSA is “being used to create a false impression of scientific agreement when the real situation is one of intense and continuing debate and uncertainty.”[18] This parallels the deceptive façade at the FDA.

The pro-GM European Commission repeats the same ruse. According to leaked documents obtained by Friends of the Earth, while they privately appreciate “the uncertainties and gaps in knowledge that exist in relation to the safety of GM crops…the Commission normally keeps this uncertainty concealed from the public whilst presenting its decisions about the safety of GM crops and foods as being certain and scientifically based.” Further, in private “they frequently criticize the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and its assessments of the safety of GM foods and crops, even though the Commission relies on these evaluations to make recommendations to member states… [and] to justify its decisions to approve new GM foods.”[19] For example, the Commission privately condemned the submission information for one crop as “mixed, scarce, delivered consecutively all over years, and not convincing.” They said there is “No sufficient experimental evidence to assess the safety.”[20]

Evaluations miss most health problems

Although the body of safety studies on GM foods is quite small, it has verified the concerns expressed by FDA scientists and others.

The gene inserted into plant DNA may produce a protein that is inherently unhealthy.
The inserted gene has been found to transfer into human gut bacteria and may even end up in human cellular DNA, where it might produce its protein over the long-term.
Toxic substances in GM animal feed might bioaccumulate into milk and meat products.
Farmer and medical reports link GM feed to thousands of sick, sterile, and dead animals.
But there is not a single government safety assessment program in the world that is competent to even identify most of these potential health problems, let alone protect its citizens from the effects.[21]

A review of approved GM crops in Canada by professor E. Ann Clark, for example, reveals that 70% (28 of 40) “of the currently available GM crops…have not been subjected to any actual lab or animal toxicity testing, either as refined oils for direct human consumption or indirectly as feedstuffs for livestock. The same finding pertains to all three GM tomato Decisions, the only GM flax, and to five GM corn crops.” In the remaining 30% (12) of the other crops tested, animals were not fed the whole GM feed. They were given just the isolated GM protein that the plant was engineered to produce. But even this protein was not extracted from the actual GM plant. Rather, it was manufactured in genetically engineered bacteria. This method of testing would never identify problems associated with collateral damage to GM plant DNA, unpredicted changes in the GM protein, transfer of genes to bacteria or human cells, excessive herbicide residues, or accumulation of toxins in the food chain, among others. Clark asks, “Where are the trials showing lack of harm to fed livestock, or that meat and milk from livestock fed on GM feedstuffs are safe?”[22]

Epidemiologist and GM safety expert Judy Carman shows that assessments by Food Safety Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) similarly overlook serious potential problems, including cancer, birth defects, or long-term effects of nutritional deficiencies. [23]

“A review of twelve reports covering twenty-eight GM crops—four soy, three corn, ten potatoes, eight canola, one sugar beet and two cotton—revealed no feeding trials on people. In addition, one of the GM corn varieties had gone untested on animals. Some seventeen foods involved testing with only a single oral gavage (a type of forced-feeding), with observation for seven to fourteen days, and only of the substance that had been genetically engineered to appear [the GM protein], not the whole food. Such testing assumes that the only new substance that will appear in the food is the one genetically engineered to appear, that the GM plant-produced substance will act in the same manner as the tested substance that was obtained from another source [GM bacteria], and that the substance will create disease within a few days. All are untested hypotheses and make a mockery of GM proponents’ claims that the risk assessment of GM foods is based on sound science. Furthermore, where the whole food was given to animals to eat, sample sizes were often very low—for example, five to six cows per group for Roundup Ready soy—and they were fed for only four weeks.”[24]

Hidden information, lack of standards, and breaking laws

Companies claim that their submissions to government regulators are “confidential business information” so they are kept secret. Some industry studies that have been forced into the public domain through Freedom of Information requests or lawsuits have been appalling in design and execution. This is due in part to the lack of meaningful and consistent standards required for assessments. Gurian-Sherman says of the FDA’s voluntary consultation, “Some submissions are hundreds of pages long while others are only 10 or 20.”[25] A Friends of the Earth report on US regulation and corporate testing practices states, “Without standardization, companies can and do design test procedures to get the results they want.” [26] Regulators also reference international standards as it suits them. According to the Centre for Integrated Research in Biosafety, for example, FSANZ “relaxed adherence to international standards for safety testing when that better suited the Applicant’s submitted work, and imposed international standards whenever that was a lower standard than we recommended.”[27]

Regulators also break laws. The declaration of GRAS status by the FDA deviated from the Food and Cosmetic Act and years of legal precedent. In Europe, the law requires that when EFSA and member states have different opinions, they “are obliged to co-operate with a view to either resolving the divergence or preparing a joint document clarifying the contentious scientific issues and identifying the relevant uncertainties in the data.”[28] According to FOE, in the case of all GM crop reviews, none of these legal obligations were followed.[29]

Humans as guinea pigs

Since GM foods are not properly tested before they enter the market, consumers are the guinea pigs. But this doesn’t even qualify as an experiment. There are no controls and no monitoring. Without post-marketing surveillance, the chances of tracing health problems to GM food are low. The incidence of a disease would have to increase dramatically before it was noticed, meaning that millions may have to get sick before a change is investigated. Tracking the impact of GM foods is even more difficult in North America, where the foods are not labeled. Regulators at Health Canada announced in 2002 that they would monitor Canadians for health problems from eating GM foods. A spokesperson said, “I think it’s just prudent and what the public expects, that we will keep a careful eye on the health of Canadians.” But according to CBC TV news, Health Canada “abandoned that research less than a year later saying it was ‘too difficult to put an effective surveillance system in place.’” The news anchor added, “So at this point, there is little research into the health effects of genetically modified food. So will we ever know for sure if it’s safe?”[30]

Not with the biotech companies in charge. Consider the following statement in a report submitted to county officials in California by pro-GM members of a task force. “[It is] generally agreed that long-term monitoring of the human health risks of GM food through epidemiological studies is not necessary because there is no scientific evidence suggesting any long-term harm from these foods.”[31] Note the circular logic: Because no long-term epidemiological studies are in place, we have no evidence showing long-term harm. And since we don’t have any evidence of long-term harm, we don’t need studies to look for it.

What are these people thinking? Insight into the pro-GM mindset was provided by Dan Glickman, the US Secretary of Agriculture under President Clinton.

“What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn’t good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked.…And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you’re against it, you’re Luddites, you’re stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever ‘they’ were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn’t have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches.”[32]

Fortunately, not everyone feels that questioning GM foods is disloyal. On the contrary, millions of people around the world are unwilling to participate in this uncontrolled experiment. They refuse to eat GM foods. Manufacturers in Europe and Japan have committed to avoid using GM ingredients. And the US natural foods industry, not waiting for the government to test or label GMOs, is now engaged in removing all remaining GM ingredients from their sector using a third party verification system. The Campaign for Healthier Eating in America will circulate non-GMO shopping guides in stores nationwide so that consumers have clear, healthy non-GMO choices. With no governmental regulation of biotech corporations, it is left to consumers to protect themselves.








Document Number: 5248
Genetically Modified Corn Study Reveals Health Damage and Cover-up

By Jeffrey M. Smith, author of Seeds of Deception

When a German court ordered Monsanto to make public a controversial 90-day rat study on June 20, 2005, the data upheld claims by prominent scientists who said that animals fed the genetically modified (GM) corn developed extensive health effects in the blood, kidneys and liver and that humans eating the corn might be at risk. The 1,139 page research paper on Monsanto’s “Mon 863” variety also revealed that European regulators accepted the company’s assurances that their corn is safe, in spite of the unscientific and contradictory rationale that was used to dismiss significant problems. In addition, the study is so full of flaws and omissions, critics say it wouldn’t qualify for publication in most journals and yet it is the primary document used to evaluate the health impacts.

Mon 863 is genetically engineered to produce its own pesticide, a toxin called Bacillus thuringiensis or Bt, designed to attack a corn pest called the corn rootworm. Rats fed Mon 863 developed several reactions, including those typically found with allergies (increased basophils), in response to infections, toxins and various diseases including cancer (increased lymphocytes and white blood cells), and in the presence of anemia (decreased reticulocyte count) and blood pressure problems (decreased kidney weights). There were also increased blood sugar levels, kidney inflammation, liver and kidney lesions, and other changes. According to top research biologist Arpad Pusztai, who was commissioned by the German government to evaluate the study in 2004, based on the evidence no one can say that Mon 863 will cause cancer or allergies or anything specific. The results are preliminary and must be followed-up to rule these out. He warns, however, “It is almost impossible to imagine that major lesions in important organs…or changes in blood parameters…that occurred in GM maize-fed rats, is incidental and due to simple biological variability."

French Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular endocrinologist at the University of Caen, agrees that the results indicate a toxic reaction. Seralini is a member of two French government commissions that evaluate GM food, one of which originally rejected a request for approval of the corn variety in October, 2003 due to the adverse findings of the study. Seralini won a French lawsuit allowing him to express his concerns in public, and now Greenpeace has won a German court battle that makes public the data that is the source of his concerns.

Pusztai and Seralini spoke about the Mon 863 study at a June 22 press conference in Berlin organized by Greenpeace. Both scientists are uniquely qualified to evaluate the study. Seralini studies endocrine disruptors and the impact of pesticides on health. He was one of four experts appointed to respond to the WTO challenge filed by the US against the European Union’s policy on GM food and crops. He has read all of the industry’s GM-food submissions to Europe as well as all the commentaries on the submissions. Pusztai is the leading authority in his field of protein science (lectins) and had been commissioned by the UK government in the 1990s to develop the ideal testing protocol for all GM foods. Although his protocol was supposed to be adopted by the UK government and eventually in Europe, Pusztai’s controversial finding that GM potatoes damaged the health of rats ultimately stopped the work. Pusztai has also been commissioned to evaluate all published studies on GM foods, and has analyzed most of the confidential submissions made by industry.

Both scientists have expressed alarm about the unsupported arguments that Monsanto and some European regulators use to force product approvals. Now that the Mon 863 study is available, other scientists and the public can evaluate the industry’s defense, which Pusztai and Seralini say contradict well established scientific principles. Chief among their concerns are the ways Monsanto explains away statistically significant effects.

Faulty Comparisons Hide Problems

In animal feeding studies, researchers attempt to minimize differences between the test animals and the control groups, so that only the impact of the item being analyzed will stand out. In this study therefore, the test rats ate Mon 863 and the control group ate non-GM corn from the same parent line, i.e., corn whose genetics are the same except for the insertion of the genetic material and its impact. When comparing the results of these two appropriate groups, the health impacts were unambiguous and occurred at a rate that the scientific community accepts as not due to chance. But Monsanto and their supporters in the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) appear to throw away the accepted methods of science that have been used for decades in order to rationalize the findings.

Researchers used six additional control groups, which were fed commercial corn varieties with entirely different genetics. While such comparisons are appropriate for commercial studies, it is entirely inappropriate for a safety assessment, according to Pusztai. Monsanto claimed that when the changes in the test rats were compared to this much larger, irrelevant control group, many changes were no longer significant.

In spite of the strained logic, many results were still statistically significant when compared to these six other controls and were reported as such by the laboratory that Monsanto used to conduct the study. Monsanto therefore ignored the study’s figures and claimed that since the changes in the rats were still within a wide range of reactions that are normal for the animals, they should be considered biologically irrelevant. Using this argument, for example, they declared that a 52% decrease in reticulocytes (immature blood cells) was “attributable to normal biological variability.” According to Pusztai, an allowance of 5% variability is the norm in food experiments. Similarly, he says that the increase in blood sugar levels by 10% “cannot be written off as biologically insignificant, given the epidemic of diabetes.” To put Monsanto's claims into perspective, suppose that a large number of women who were fed a carefully controlled diet had a 25% increase in breast cancer compared to matched controls on another diet. Using Monsanto's logic, the findings can be dismissed because the increase was still within the normal variability of breast cancer for the whole population.

In spite of the statistical slight-of-hand, several results could still not be dismissed since they were well beyond the range Monsanto had defined as normal. So the company claimed that the potentially dangerous health effects were not considered significant because the reaction among the rats was not consistent between males and females. "This is really ridiculous," says Seralini, because everyone studying cancer and endocrinology, for example, knows that there are differences between genders.

When even the gender defense could not be applied to a particular finding, Monsanto dismissed it since the reactions were not always dose specific. Specifically, the results observed in rats fed a diet that was 11% Mon 863 were sometimes more pronounced than results found in rats fed a 33% diet. Seralini notes that in endocrinology and toxicology research, differences are not always proportional to effects noted. A small dose of a hormone, for example, can cause a woman to ovulate, while a larger dose can make her infertile.

When all other excuses failed, Monsanto claimed that with such a large study, one would expect lots of results to fall in the statistically significant category purely by chance. Thus, no follow-up is required.
Seralini says, "It is dishonest not to do the tests again if you have statistical significance." Pusztai similarly asks, "What is the point of doing a study if you dismiss the results you find?" He insists that you design a study specifically so that statistical significance indicates biological significance.

In spite of the fact that Monsanto's explanations were at odds with time-honored principles of science, the European Food Standards Agency (EFSA) recommended that Mon 863 be approved. In fact, the agency's justification mimics that of Monsanto, point for point. In spite of EFSA's recommendation to approve Mon 863, the majority of the countries in the EU Council of Ministers voted not to approve the corn on July 24, 2005. But EU law requires a "qualified majority" on such a vote, and so the pro-GM European Commission is now authorized to make the decision and is expected to approve Mon 863 within a few months.

Mon 863 will not be the first approved GM food in Europe to have shown significant health effects in rats. According to Seralini, an oilseed rape (GT 73), Roundup Ready corn (NK 603), and two Bt corn varieties (Bt11 and Mon 810) all showed statistically significant problems that regulators did not pursue with follow-up research. Seralini said that the effects of the GM crops were similar to that of pesticides. Some included inflammation disorders and problems in the livers and kidneys, the two major organs involved with detoxification. Seralini is part of a research group raising money to do independent research on a GM variety he says showed more than 50 significant rat anomalies.

GM Food is Prone to Unpredicted Effects

How can a GM crop create so many significant unpredicted side effects? There are several ways. The process of gene insertion, for example, typically results in hundreds or thousands of mutations throughout the genome. Insertion also changes the amount of protein that natural genes produce (5% of the genes in one study) and can destroy natural genes altogether. The protein created by the inserted gene may also create allergies or toxins. Several studies indicate, for example, that the Bt toxin may cause allergic or immune system effects. Furthermore, according to Monsanto's submission on Mon 863 to Australia and New Zealand, some of the foreign genetic material that was added into the corn was mutated during the insertion process. This means that the composition of the Bt protein that the corn creates is actually different than the one scientists intended.

With so many ways to create side effects, many scientists and consumer groups are demanding extensive evaluations and insist that a simple 90-day rat experiment is not competent to protect the public. In the EU, pesticide approvals require research on three types of mammals, with feeding studies ranging from 90 days to two years. Seralini points out that Bt crops create new pesticides. Mon 863, for example, is unique; it differs from the natural version of Bt toxin in seven ways and should, according to Seralini, require at least the same level of evaluation as chemical pesticides. The same holds true for herbicide tolerant crops, which are engineered to survive large applications of weed killers such as Monsanto's Roundup. Seralini points out that these GM plants have far more herbicide residues in the edible portions and extensive toxicity tests must be performed. But the biotech industry claims that they could not afford to introduce GM crops if they had to pay for the tests normally required for pesticides in Europe. For GM crop approvals in the US, they spend even less. US authorities require only 30-day studies for the Bt plants and no safety tests whatsoever are required for herbicide tolerant varieties.

Flaws in the Mon 863 Study Should Have Caused It to be Rejected

According to Pusztai, the quality of Monsanto's study was well below that normally required for a peer reviewed publication. He says, "It is odd, therefore, that it remains the central document considered by government regulatory authorities upon which to make a decision to protect the health of European citizens."

Several features of the study appear to have been rigged to avoid finding problems. Nutritional studies, for example, typically use young, fast-growing animals, which are sensitive to toxic and nutritional effects. By using a mix of young and old animals, Monsanto's research design may have hidden serious problems. Similarly, they used rats with a huge range of starting weights. According to Pusztai, the starting weights in a rat feeding study should not vary more than 2% from the average. By contrast, the male starting weights in Monsanto's study ranged from 198.4 to 259.8 grams (or 143 to 186 grams according to the conflicting data in the study's appendix). In either case, says Pusztai, the wide range "can make it impossible to find significant differences in animal weights at the end of the experiment."

Monsanto tested the effects of two diets: in one Mon 863 constituted 33% of the rats' diet, and in the other, it was 11%. Even in the 33% group, GM corn protein comprised only about 15% of the rats' total protein. According to Pusztai, researchers should have started with the maximum amount of corn possible (while maintaining a balanced diet), and then used lower concentrations to evaluate any dose effect. (Since rats are stand-ins for humans, it is interesting to note that African aid recipients typically rely on corn for 90% of their total caloric intake.) Researchers also supplemented the corn with a commercial animal feed. Although its composition wasn't reported, it may have contained GM soy, which could have skewed the results.

The study relied on analytical methods that are half a century old and ignored powerful new methods, such as profiling techniques, DNA chips, proteomics, and others. They relied on just two observation times (week 5 and week 14), which will not give data about the intervening periods. And the short 90-day time period will miss chronic and reproductive problems, as well as problems in the next generation.

The analysis of the findings was obscured by using six irrelevant control groups fed commercial diets, as well as data from historical databases. Such comparisons are totally unacceptable in the field of nutrition. According to Pusztai, "The study should have included a control group fed the non-GM parent line, spiked with the Bt" toxin obtained from the Mon 863. If GM-fed rats reacted worse than those fed this control diet, it would show that the genetic engineering process and its unpredicted side effects, and not the Bt toxin, were responsible. Pusztai says, "A second parental line spiked with a known toxin would also be useful as a positive control," to make sure the measurements are sensitive enough to detect the expected impact of the toxin. Without this, it is difficult to know if the methods were working properly.

Monsanto also defended changes in kidney weights by comparing the values with a separate study, which used different corn genetics and a different lab. According to Pusztai, this absurd inter-experimental comparison is never done and should be disregarded.

Some of the reported weight measurements were also bizarre, suggesting possible problems with animal management or faulty data. One rat dropped 53 grams in one week and gained 102 grams in the next. Some that were heaviest at the beginning of the experiment were the lightest at the end. And the rats hardly grew at all during the last four weeks.

Overall, the research paper was confusing, conflicting, and poorly reported. It failed to disclose, for example, the methods used to measure changes in the animals and it did not provide sufficient chemical analysis to demonstrate that the nutritional composition of the feed remained stable for the duration of the 90-day experiment. Since these most basic requirements for a nutritional study were not provided, the research cannot be repeated and the results remain suspect.

Referring to the study as a whole, Pusztai says, "Nutritional scientists and leading journals would not accept these blatant inadequacies and misinterpretations."

The Politics of Science Fails to Protect the Public

When Seralini wanted to voice his concerns about the industry's safety studies, he was told by French authorities that he was legally bound to keep even his opinions confidential. A lawsuit eventually granted him the right to speak, but until June 20, 2005, biotech companies were able to keep their feeding studies hidden by claiming that they contained confidential business information. Seralini says that "No one can understand, even among EU regulators, why the composition of the blood of rats that have eaten the GM is secret." The precedent established by the German court may open the door for more biotech studies to be made public. Without disclosure, says Seralini, just a few toxicologists can make the decision without public evaluation. And too often, the decision-making body is heavily influenced by the applying company.

In his French Commission for Biomolecular Genetics (CBG), for example, the government nominates three candidates for the position of the very important "external referee." That referee studies the application and presents the relevant facts to the 18-member committee. For about ten years, the applicant companies such as Monsanto were able to choose which candidate of the three was to be the referee overseeing their products' approval process. Seralini says, "I had a big fight with the commission" over the conflict of interest. As a result, the government changed the rules, and for the Mon 863 application they allowed the president of the commission the right to choose the referee. The president, however, is a geneticist who works very closely with industry. He appointed the same person that the biotech industry had chosen in the past.

After the CBG failed to approve Monsanto's corn in 2003, the president asked for an outside scientist to re-evaluate just one of the significant differences—kidney weight. According to Seralini, the consultant ignored the blood and liver disorders entirely. And no additional research was actually conducted; the consultant simply re-examined the same data and declared the results insignificant. The commission scheduled another vote, but failed to achieve a quorum. The president ruled that a quorum would not be needed in the next meeting, and only five members showed up. The president cast the deciding vote that approved Mon 863, 3 votes to 2. The other votes in favor came from the commission's vice-president, who works at an organization that conducts agricultural research, and a scientist. According to Seralini, the scientist is a toxicologist who, oddly enough, is "always against long animal toxicity tests." In fact, he had been part of the French committee that approved Novartis (now Syngenta) E 176 corn after it had been tested for only two weeks with three cows. Actually, there were four cows at the start of the study, but one died and was removed.

The toxicologist is also on the European Food Standards Agency that endorsed Mon 863. EFSA has come under attack for including primarily pro-GM scientists. According to a November 2004 report by Friends of the Earth, "One member has direct financial links with the biotech industry and others have indirect links….Two members have even appeared in promotional videos produced by the biotech industry." And several members, including the chairman, have been part of an EU-funded project with the stated goal to "facilitate market introduction of GMO's in Europe."

US Pushes its Agenda, and its Pests, on Europe

The United States government's support for biotech is no secret. In fact, it is the official policy in several US agencies to promote the industry, and some of them have attempted to push acceptance of GM crops in Europe. In the case of Mon 863, it seems that the corn is designed to solve a European problem that the US introduced. The corn is engineered with a pesticide to attack insects such as Diabrotica (corn rootworm). According to Seralini, "Diabrotica is from a very dangerous family of insects for a wide range of crops and was absent from the European countries until the late 1990s, forbidden even in laboratories because it is very difficult to eliminate it with known chemical insecticides." He says it appears to have entered Europe from the US in large numbers during the Balkan war. Specifically, it was widespread around US military airports, whose planes were likely to have carried the pest. It has since spread primarily in Italy, France, and Germany.

According to Seralini, "Monsanto seems to have anticipated this problem." Before any infestation had been discovered, they were already field testing their corn in France in the late 1990s. Since it takes about five years of local field trials for a GM variety to be accepted in an EU nation, such early testing was necessary.

In addition to the crop pests, Europe may have also imported the US tradition of approving GM products based on faulty studies. Documents stolen from the US FDA reveal that when Monsanto's researchers intended to illustrate that their GM bovine growth hormone did not interfere with cows'; fertility, they allegedly added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection. An FDA whistle-blower also charged that sick cows were removed from industry studies altogether (see Seeds of Deception, chapter 3).

Critics demand that regulators use independent studies, not industry studies, to prevent manipulation of data. But there are only a few independently funded researchers. Biology professor Bela Darvas of Hungary's Debrecen University is one of them. After discovering that one of Monsanto's Bt corn varieties, Mon 810, is lethal to two Hungarian protected species and one insect classified as a rare, he ran into an unexpected obstacle. Now Monsanto refuses to give him any more Mon 810 corn to use in his tests. They also refused his request for Mon 863.

Perhaps with the court's release of Monsanto's rat study, the public will demand a more thorough investigation into GM foods and a change in the review and approval process. Until then, Europeans are relatively safe from the unintended effects, since most manufacturers refuse to use even approved GM ingredients there (with the exception of animal feed). Meanwhile, consumers in the US will unwittingly serve as the guinea pigs.


from June 2005 Spilling the Beans newsletter
© Copyright 2005 by Jeffrey M. Smith

Permission is granted to publishers and webmasters to reproduce this article. Please contact info@responsibletechnology.org to let us know who you are and what your circulation is, so we can keep track.








Document Number: 7387
Company Research On Genetically Modified Foods Is Rigged

In 2004, four advocates of genetically modified (GM) foods published a study in the British Food Journal that was sure to boost their cause [1]. According to the peer-reviewed papin a Canadian farm store were confronted with an informed and unbiased choice between GM corn and non-GM corn, most purchased the GM variety. This finding flew in the face of worldwide consumer resistance to GM foods, which had shut markets in  Europe, Japan, and elsewhere. It also challenged studies that showed that the more information on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) consumers have, the less they trust them.[2] The study, which was funded by the biotech-industry front group, Council for Biotechnology Information and the industry’s trade association, the Crop Protection Institute of Canada (now Croplife Canada), was given the Journal’s prestigious Award for Excellence for the Most Outstanding Paper of 2004 and has been cited often by biotech advocates.

Stuart Laidlaw, a reporter from Canada’s Toronto Star, visited the farm store several times during the study and described the scenario in his book Secret Ingredients. Far from offering unbiased choices, key elements appeared rigged to favor GM corn purchases. The consumer education fact sheets were entirely pro-GMO, and Doug Powell, the lead researcher, enthusiastically demonstrated to Laidlaw how he could convince shoppers to buy the GM varieties. He confronted a farmer who had already purchased non-GM corn. After pitching his case for GMOs, Powell proudly had the farmer tell Laidlaw that he had changed his opinion and would buy GM corn in his next shopping trip.

Powell’s interference with shoppers’ “unbiased” choices was nothing compared to the effect of the signs placed over the corn bins. The sign above the non-GM corn read, “Would you eat wormy sweet corn?” It further listed the chemicals that were sprayed during the season. By contrast, the sign above the GM corn stated, “Here’s What Went into Producing Quality Sweet Corn.” It is no wonder that 60% of shoppers avoided the “wormy corn.” In fact, it may be a testament to people’s distrust of GMOs that 40% still went for the “wormy” option.

Powell and his colleagues did not mention the controversial signage in their study. They claimed that the corn bins in the farm store were “fully labelled”—either “genetically engineered Bt sweet corn” or “Regular sweet-corn.”

When Laidlaw’s book came out, however, Powell’s “wormy” sign was featured in a photograph,[3] exposing what was later described by Cambridge University’s Dr. Richard Jennings as “flagrant fraud.” Jennings, who is a leading researcher on scientific ethics, says, “It was a sin of omission by failing to divulge information which quite clearly should have been disclosed.”[4]

Jennings is among several scientists and outraged citizens that say the paper should have been withdrawn, but the Journal refused. Instead, it published a criticism of the methods by Canadian geneticist Joe Cummins, and allowed Powell to respond with a lengthy reply.[5]

In his defence, Powell claimed that his signs merely used the language of consumers and was “not intended to manipulate consumer purchasing patterns.” He also claimed that the “wormy” corn sign was only there for the first week of the trial and was then replaced by other educational messages. But eye witnesses and photographs demonstrate the presence of the sign long after Powell’s suggested date of replacement.[6]

This incident illustrates how so-called scientific papers can be manipulated to force conclusions favorable to authors or funders and how peer-reviewed journals may be complicit. While the subject of this particular study provided ammunition in the battle to deny choice to consumers in North America, there is similar “cooked” research in the more critical area of GMO safety assessments.

Secret, Inadequate, And Flawed

The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential business information." The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. They wrote: "In the judgment of the expert panel, the more regulatory agencies limit free access to the data upon which their decisions are based, the more compromised becomes the claim that the regulatory process is 'science based.' This is due to a simple but well-understood requirement of the scientific method itself—that it be an open, completely transparent enterprise in which any and all aspects of scientific research are open to full review by scientific peers. Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science."[7]

Whenever private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why companies benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, incompetent, and unacceptable for peer-review. In 2000, for example, after the potentially allergenic StarLink corn was discovered in the food supply, Aventis CropScience presented wholly inadequate safety data to the EPA’s scientific advisory panel. One frustrated panel member, Dean Metcalfe, MD,—the government’s top allergist—said during a hearing, “Most of us review for a lot of journals. And if this were presented for publication in the journals that I review for, it would be sent back to the authors with all of these questions. It would be rejected.”[8]

Submissions to the US Food and Drug Administraion (FDA) may be worse than in other countries, since the agency doesn’t actually require any data. Their policy—overseen by Monsanto’s former attorney who later became the company’s vice president—says that biotech companies can determine if their own foods are safe. Anything submitted is voluntary and, according to former Environmental Protection Agency scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, “often lack[s] sufficient detail, such as necessary statistical analyses needed for an adequate safety evaluation.” Using Freedom of Information Requests, Gurian-Sherman analyzed more than a fourth of the data summaries (14 of 53) of GM crops reviewed by the FDA. He says, “Our evaluation found that the biotechnology companies provide inadequate data to ensure their products are safe.”[9]

Unscientific Assumptions Are The Basis Of Approvals

“Most or all of the conclusions of food safety for individual GM crops are based on inferences and assumptions, rather than on actual testing,” says Professor E. Ann Clark, who analyzed submissions to Canadian regulators. For example, rather than actually testing to see if the amino acid sequence produced by their inserted gene is correct, “the standard practice,” according to research analyst William Freese, “is to sequence just 5 to 25 amino acids, even if the protein has more than 600 in total. If the short sample matches what is expected, they assume that the rest are also fine. If they are wrong, however, a rearranged protein could be quite dangerous.”

Monsanto’s submission to Australian regulators on their high lysine GM corn provides several examples of optimistic assumptions used in place of science. The GM protein produced in the corn is also found in soil. The company claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a history of safe consumption. An independent calculation by the Centre for Integrated Research on Biosafety (INBI), however, reveals the weakness of this argument. Based on the amount of GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume (if all their corn were Monsanto’s variety), “for equivalent exposure” of the protein from soil “people would have to eat between 80-800 million (males) or 60-700 million (females) kilograms of soil each day, or nearly as much as 10,000kg/second 24 hours a day seven days a week.” INBI estimated that the normal exposure to the protein from soil residues was actually “about 30 billion-4 trillion times less than exposure through [high lysine] corn.”[10]

In addition, certain nutritional components of this GM variety (i.e. protein content, total dietary fiber, acid detergent fiber, and neutral detergent fiber) lie far outside the normal range for corn. Instead of comparing their corn to normal controls, which would reveal this disparity, Monsanto compared it to obscure corn varieties that were also substantially outside the normal range on precisely these values.

Epidemiologist Judy Carman points out that GM “experiments used some very unusual animal models for human health, such as chickens, cows and trout. Some of the measurements taken from these animals are also unusual measures of human health, such as abdominal fat pad weight, total de-boned breast meat yield, and milk production.” In her examination of the full range of submittals to authorities in Australia and New Zealand, she says that there was no proper evaluation of “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, and gut, liver and kidney function.”[11] Writing on behalf of the Public Health Association of Australia, Carman says, “The effects of feeding people high concentrations of the new protein over tens of years cannot be determined by feeding 20 mice a single oral gavage of a given high concentration of the protein and taking very basic data for 13-14 days…The acute toxicity testing proposed as adequate would simply not pick up cancer, teratology [birth defects] or the long-tem effects of nutrient deficiencies or increases in anti-nutrients.”[12]

The Science Of Rigging Studies

When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that GM soy contains 12%-14% less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy’s phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection—one that had been prone to highly variable results.[13]

When aventis prepared samples to see if the potential allergen in starlink corn remained intact after cooking, instead of using the standard 30-minute treatment, they heated corn for two hours.

To show that pasteurization destroyed bovine growth hormone in milk from cows treated with rbgh, they pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. Unable to destroy more than 19%, they then spiked the milk with a huge amount of the hormone and repeated the long pasteurization, destroying 90%. (the fda reported that pasteurization destroys 90% of the hormone.)

To demonstrate that injections of rbgh did not interfere with cows' fertility, monsanto apparently added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection.

And in order to prove that the protein from their gm crops breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, biotech companies used thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid compared to that recommended by the world health organization.

Methods used to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:

Use highly variable animal starting weights to hinder detection of food-related changes
Keep feeding studies short to miss long-term impacts
Test effects of roundup ready soybeans that have not been sprayed with roundup
Avoid feeding animals the actual gm crop, but give them instead a single dose of the gm protein that was produced inside gm bacteria
Use too few subjects to derive statistically significant results
Use poor statistical methods or simply leave out essential methods, data, or statistics
Use rigged or irrelevant control groups, and
Employ insensitive or obsolete evaluation techniques
Monsanto’s 1996 Journal of Nutrition study[14], [15] provides plenty of examples of scientific transgressions. Roundup Ready soybeans are engineered to withstand the normally fatal effects of Monsanto’s herbicide called Roundup. Monsanto scientists published a feeding study that purported to test their soybeans’ effect on rats, catfish, chickens, and cows. The study has been used often by the industry as validation for safety claims. According to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, however, “It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this.” Pusztai was commissioned at the time by the UK government to develop rigorous testing protocols on GM foods—protocols that were never implemented. Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, said the Monsanto paper was “not really up to the normal journal standards.” Pusztai says that if he had been asked to referee the paper for publication, “it would never have passed.” He’s confident that even his graduate assistants would have taken the study apart in short order. Some of the flaws include:

Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. Young animals use protein to build their muscles, tissues, and organs. Problems with GM food could therefore show up in organ and body weight. But adult animals use the protein for tissue renewal and energy. “With a nutritional study on mature animals,” says Pusztai, “you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything.”
Even if there were an organ development problem, the study wouldn’t have picked it up since the researchers didn’t weigh the organs.
In one of the trials, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold. [16] Scientists Ian Pryme of Norway and Rolf Lembcke of Denmark wrote, the “level of the GM soy was too low, and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur.”
Pryme and Lembcke, who published a paper in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of 2003, also pointed out that the percentage of protein in the feed used in the Roundup Ready study was “artificially too high.” This “would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy].” They said it was “highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out.” [17]
Proper compositional studies filter out effects of weather or geography by comparing plants grown at the same time in the same location. Monsanto, however, pooled data from several locations, which makes it difficult for differences to be statistically significant. Nonetheless, the data revealed significant differences in the ash, fat, and carbohydrate content. Roundup Ready soy meal also contained 27% more trypsin inhibitor, a potential allergen, which might explain the sudden jump in soy allergies in the UK beginning right after Roundup Ready soy was introduced. Also, cows fed GM soy produced milk with a higher fat content, demonstrating another disparity between the two types of soy.
One field trial, however, did grow GM and non-GM plants next to each other, but this data was not included in the paper. Years after the study appeared, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered the data that had been omitted. It showed that Monsanto’s GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid. Also, toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a lectin—one that may interfere with the body’s ability to assimilate other nutrients. And the amount of trypsin inhibitor in cooked GM soy was as much as seven times higher than a cooked non-GM control.
The study also omitted many details normally required for a published paper. According to Pryme and Lembcke, “No data were given for most of the parameters.”
And when researchers tested the effects of Roundup Ready protein on animals, they didn’t extract the protein from the soybeans. Instead, they derived it from GM bacteria, claiming the two forms of protein were equivalent. There are numerous ways, however, in which the protein in the soy may be different. In fact, nine years after this study was published, another study showed that the gene inserted into the soybeans produced unintended aberrant RNA strands, meaning that the protein may be quite different than what was intended.[18]
In Pryme and Lembcke’s analysis, it came as no surprise that this Monsanto study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were  “performed more or less in collaboration with private companies,” reported no negative effects of the GM diet. “On the other hand,” they wrote, “adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies.” They added, “It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10–14 days.”[19] 

Toxic Gm Foods Could Have Been Approved

Two GM foods whose commercialization was stopped because of negative test results give a chilling example of what may be getting through. Rats fed GM potatoes had potentially precancerous cell growth in the stomach and intestines, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, partial atrophy of the liver, and damaged immune systems.[20] GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that the peas might trigger a deadly anaphylactic shock in allergic humans.[21] Both of these dangerous crops, however, could easily have been approved. The problems were only discovered because the researchers used advanced tests that were never applied to GM crops already on the market. Both would have passed the normal tests that companies typically use to get their products approved.

Ironically, when Monsanto was asked to comment on the pea study, their spokesperson said it demonstrated that the regulatory system works. He failed to disclose that none of the company’s GM crops had been put through such rigorous tests.

Rampant Unrelenting Industry Bias

Industry-funded research that favors the funders is not new. Bias has been identified across several industries. In pharmaceuticals, for example, positive results are four times more likely if the drug’s manufacturer funds the study.[22] When companies pay for the economic analyses of their own cancer drugs, the results are eight times more likely to be favorable.[23] Compared to drug research, the potential for industry manipulation in GM crop studies is considerably higher. Unlike pharmaceutical testing, GM research has no standardized procedures dictated by regulators. GM studies are not usually published in peer-reviewed journals and are typically kept secret by companies and governments. There is little money available for rigorous independent research, so company evidence usually goes unchallenged and unverified. Most importantly, whereas drugs can show serious side-effects and still be approved, GM food cannot. There is no tolerance for adverse reactions; feeding trials must show no problems.

Thus, when industry studies show problems (in spite of their efforts to avoid them), serious adverse reactions and even deaths among GM-fed animals are ignored or dismissed as “not biologically significant” or due to “natural variations.”

Numerous reports including peer-reviewed articles and part 3 of the book Genetic Roulette are replete with examples of rigged research. But making these public does not seem to curtail its practice. Consider the wormy corn of the British Food Journal. Not only has the editor refused to retract the paper, he has not even agreed to reconsider its Award for Excellence. A blatant propaganda exercise still stands validated as exemplary science.

In the critical arena of food safety research, where the health of society is caught in the balance, it is entirely unacceptable that the biotech industry is without accountability, standards, or peer-review. At our expense, they’ve got bad science down to a science.







Document Number: 8185
Are You Critical of Genetically Engineered Foods? Watch Out

by Jeffrey Smith

One day in April 1998, Professor Phillip James walked into the office of Arpad Pusztai and placed a large stack of documents on his desk[1]. He called in Arpad’s wife Susan from the adjoining office. James was the director of the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen Scotland, Europe’s leading nutritional research facility. He told the Pusztais, both senior scientists there, that the British agriculture minister was meeting with European ministers in Brussels to vote on genetically modified (GM) foods. The documents were submissions from biotech companies that had sought approval of their GM soy, corn, and tomatoes. The minister wanted a scientific opinion on them.

Arpad Pusztai looked at the stack—nearly 700 pages—then back at James. He was confident that his director and the other eleven scientists on the committee that approves GM foods for the UK were far too busy to actually read these studies. The Pusztais, however, had been working for more than two years on a UK government grant, leading a 20-member research team to design the ideal testing protocol for evaluating GM foods. They were also conducting safety tests on a new variety of GM potatoes intended for commercialization. The Pusztais were therefore among the most qualified scientists in the world to evaluate the papers James had just given them. Arpad asked how much time they had. “Two and a half hours,” said James. They quickly got to work, focusing on the design and the data.

Arpad was shocked at what he discovered. The research was incredibly poor. He described it as superficial, flimsy, just plain bad science. Reading those studies was a turning point in the life of this very pro-biotech scientist. Arpad was the leading researcher in his field with more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit. Based on his reputation and experience, the government had awarded him the GM research grant over 27 competing applicants. As a man of integrity, accustomed to thorough and rigorous science, Arpad expected the same from others. But he realized that the approach taken by biotech industry scientists was diametrically opposed to his own. “I was doing safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their products to market as quickly as possible.”[2]

Pusztai called the minister and told him that although he wasn’t expecting to have such a strong opinion after only two and a half hours, there was definitely not enough information to declare the foods safe for humans. But the minister responded, “I don’t know why you are telling me this, Professor James has already accepted it.” It had already been on the market for two years.

Months later, Arpad had another shock. Young rats fed a genetically engineered potato developed extensive health problems. Some had smaller, less developed brains, livers, and testicles, as well as partial atrophy of the liver. Some suffered damaged immune systems and organ damage.[3] And there was excessive cell growth in the stomach and intestines.[4]

The potato was engineered to produce its own insecticide, but the insecticide itself was not the cause of these problems. In fact, other rats that had eaten natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide fared much better. Thus, since the insecticide was not the cause of the poor health of the GM-fed rats, it was almost certainly the process of genetically modifying the potatoes that was the culprit.

Arpad realized that if his potatoes had been subjected to the same superficial industry studies he had reviewed, the potatoes would have been approved. The organ damage, cell growth, immune functions, etc., would have been undetected. More worrisome was the fact that the soy, corn, and tomatoes that were approved were not tested for these potential problems. And they were created with the same process that Arpad used to engineer his potatoes.

With permission from his director, Arpad accepted an invitation to be interviewed on television and express his concerns about GM food. For two days he was a hero at his institute. Then, on a Tuesday afternoon, two phone calls from the prime minister’s office were allegedly forwarded through the institute’s receptionist to the director. On Wednesday morning, Phillip James fired Arpad after 35 years and silenced him with threats of a lawsuit. The 20-member research team was dismantled and the UK government abandoned its plans for long-term safety study requirements for GM foods. The Rowett Institute then issued several statements trashing Arpad and his research in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry.

Eventually, Arpad was invited to speak before Parliament, his gag order lifted, and his research published in the prestigious Lancet. In spite of his work being cut off in the middle, his rat study remains the most in depth animal feeding safety study ever published on GM foods. Tragically, no similar studies have yet been applied to the GM foods on the market and no one is monitoring to see if the organs, immune system, and cells of humans eating GM foods are being similarly influenced.

Arpad has since been commissioned to review all published animal feeding studies on GM foods. There are only about a dozen. In his paper, published as a chapter in the book, Food Safety,[5] he reported consistent shortcomings in industry-sponsored research. Their poor designs would allow significant problems to go unnoticed. When problems were identified, they were not followed-up.

Arpad and his wife have made presentations on GM foods around the world. In 2001, they appeared before New Zealand’s Royal Commission of Inquiry on Genetic Modification, where the sentiments and experience of several other presenters echoed their own. Parliament member Sue Kedgley testified: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place…and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, even at such a Commission…or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”[6]

Mae-Wan Ho, a biophysicist and geneticist, told the Commission that the scientific evidence on GM foods “simply did not support the claims…that the technology is precise and safe.” Ho has sustained numerous attacks for her opinions, including being hounded out of her position at the UK’s Open University.

Epidemiologist Judy Carman testified that the few animal feeding studies on GM foods are too short to adequately test for cancer or for problems in the offspring, and are not evaluating “biochemistry, immunology, tissue pathology, gut function, liver function and kidney function.”  Carman, who has investigated outbreaks of disease, said that health problems associated with GM foods might be impossible to track in the human population or take decades to discover. Carman is repeatedly attacked for her critical stance. One pro-GM scientists threatened disciplinary action through her Vice-Chancellor. Another circulated a defamatory letter to government and university officials in October 2004, alleging that Carman was unethical and that her work was similar to “inaccurate anti-vaccine scaremongering [that] kills people.”

Geneticist Michael Antoniou, who works on human gene therapy, told the New Zealand Commission, “genetic engineering technology, as it’s being applied in agriculture now, [is] based on the understanding of genetics we had 15 years ago, about genes being isolated little units that work independently of each other.” He explained that genes actually “work as an integrated whole of families.” In 2003, Antoniou represented non-governmental organizations on the UK’s supposedly balanced GM Science Review Panel that was part of the nationwide “GM Nation?” public debate. He was shocked to find scientists there still supporting obsolete theories of gene independence, even claiming that the order of genes in the DNA was entirely irrelevant. But Antoniou was outnumbered by eleven scientists representing either the biotech industry or appointed by the pro-biotech UK government. His well-supported arguments fell on deaf ears. Since the debate, new studies have further verified Antoniou’s position by showing that genes are not randomly located along the DNA, but clustered into groups with related functions.[7]

Virologist Terje Traavik testified that GM crops “might be the basis for real ecological and health catastrophes.” Three years later, in a February 2004 meeting with delegates to the UN biosafety protocol conference, Traavik presented preliminary evidence from three studies which might fulfill his earlier prediction. 1. Philippinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;[8] 2. Promoters—genetic material routinely inserted into GM crops—were found to transfer to rat organs after a single transgenic meal;[9] and 3. Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses as vaccines.[10] Traavik, naturally, was attacked.[11]

Biologist Phil Regal told the Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition; you know, ‘we made a mistake, let's start over.’” Sue Kedgley had a different idea. She said, “I would recommend that perhaps we could set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetically engineered scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of the products that they are creating and I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”







Document Number: 4414
Something doesn’t quite add up about genetically modified (GM) foods.

Big biotech claims that genetic engineering is a necessary step towards feeding the world’s growing population.  And yet debate still rages as to whether GM crops actually increase yields at all.  Furthermore, the UN recently stated that 30,000 people a day were starving to death, but not because of underproduction of crops.  It’s simply through lack of access.

Independent scientific studies raised serious alarm bells over the safety of GM foods over a decade ago.  But while this made front-page headlines in European newspapers, the North American mainstream media were conspiratorially silent.

Biotech companies stand to make billions from their seed patents.  Governments and supreme courts have sanctioned the patenting of life itself.  The planet’s food supply is becoming increasingly dominated by fewer and fewer players.

If the biotech industry’s stated intention of feeding the world is misguided or even misdirecting, is there another political agenda behind GM food? Have we been mis-sold?  Were we even given a choice in the first place?

Jeffrey M. Smith, international bestselling author of Seeds of Deception and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, reveals the shocking truth behind GM foods and the huge effort by governments and Biotech corporations to keep it out of the mainstream media and outside of your awareness.

WORDS: Jeffrey M. Smith

It looks the same—the bread, pies, sodas, even corn on the cob. So much of what we eat every day looks just like it did 20 years ago. But something profoundly different has happened without our knowledge or consent. And according to leading doctors, what we don’t know may already be hurting us big time.

In May, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) publicly condemned genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, saying they posed “a serious health risk.” They called on the US government to implement an immediate moratorium on all genetically modified (GM) foods, and urged physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients.

GM-What?

Genetic engineering is quite distinct from selective breeding because it involves taking genes from a completely different species and inserting them into the DNA of a plant or animal. The long term effects of this for our health and our planet’s biodiversity are unknown.

AAEM, an “Academy of Firsts,” was the first US medical organization to describe or acknowledge Gulf War Syndrome, chemical sensitivity, food allergy/addiction, and a host of other medical issues. But the potential for harm from GMOs dwarfs anything they have identified thus far. It can impact everyone who eats.

More than 70% of the foods on supermarket shelves contain derivatives of the eight GM foods on the market—soy, corn, oil from canola and cottonseed, sugar from sugar beets, Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and crook neck squash. The biotech industry hopes to genetically engineer virtually all remaining vegetables, fruits, grains, and beans (not to mention animals).

The two primary reasons why plants are engineered are to allow them to either drink poison, or produce poison. The poison drinkers are called herbicide tolerant. They’re inserted with bacterial genes that allow them to survive otherwise deadly doses of toxic herbicide. Biotech companies sell the seed and herbicide as a package deal, and US farmers use hundreds of millions of pounds more herbicide because of these types of GM crops. The poison producers are called Bt crops. Inserted genes from the soil bacterium Bacillus Thuringiensis produce an insect-killing pesticide called Bt-toxin in every cell of the plant. Both classes of GM crops are linked to dangerous side effects.

Doctors and Patients: Just Say No to GMOs

“Now that soy is genetically engineered,” warns Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles, “it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.” How dangerous are GM foods? World renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava, PhD, believes they are the major reason for the recent rise in serious illnesses in the US.

The range of what GMOs might do to us is breathtaking. “Several animal studies,” according to the AAEM, reveal a long list of disorders, including: “infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, [faulty] insulin regulation, cell signaling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system.”

“There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects,” says the AAEM position paper. Based on established scientific criteria, “there is causation.”

Difficult to Trace the Damage

Outside the carefully controlled laboratory setting, it is more difficult to confidently assign GMOs as the cause for a particular set of diseases, especially since there are no human clinical trials and no agency that even attempts to monitor GMO-related health problems among the population. “If there are problems,” says biologist David Schubert, PhD, of the Salk Institute, “we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop.”

GM crops were widely introduced in 1996. Within nine years, the incidence of people in the US with three or more chronic diseases nearly doubled—from 7% to 13%. Visits to the emergency room due to allergies doubled from 1997 to 2002. And overall food related illnesses doubled from 1994 to 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control. Obesity, diabetes, gastrointestinal disorders, and autism are also among the conditions that are skyrocketing in the US.

The Lyme Induced Autism Foundation, a patient advocacy group, is not waiting for studies to prove that GMOs cause or worsen Lyme, autism, and the many other diseases on the rise since gene-spliced foods were introduced. Like AAEM, the LIA Foundation says there is more than enough evidence of harm in animal feeding studies for them to “urge doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets” and for “individuals, especially those with autism, Lyme disease, and associated conditions, to avoid” GM foods.

Another patient group, those suffering from eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), is more confident about the GMO origins of their particular disease. It was caused by a genetically engineered brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the late 1980s. It killed about 100 Americans and caused 5,000-10,000 people to fall sick or become permanently disabled. The characteristics of EMS made it much easier for authorities to identify the epidemic and its cause. It only affected those who consumed the pills; symptoms came on almost immediately; and its effects were horrific—including unbearable pain and paralysis. There was even a unique, easy-to-measure change in the white blood cell count. But even though EMS was practically screaming to be discovered, it still took the medical community more than four years—and it was almost missed.

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs.” David Suzuki, renowned Canadian geneticist.

What if the GMOs throughout our food supply are creating common diseases which come on slowly? It would be nearly impossible to confirm them as the cause. “Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients,” says AAEM president Dr. Jennifer Armstrong, “but need to know how to ask the right questions.” The patients at greatest risk are the very young. “Children are the most likely to be adversely effected by toxins and other dietary problems” related to GM foods, says Dr. Schubert. They become “the experimental animals,” our collective canaries in the coal mine.

Warnings by Government Scientists Ignored and Denied

Scientists at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had warned about all these problems back in the early 1990s. According to secret documents made public from a lawsuit, the scientific consensus at the agency was that GM foods were inherently dangerous, and might create hard-to-detect allergies, poisons, new “super” diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged their superiors to require rigorous long-term tests. But the White House had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the FDA responded by recruiting Michael Taylor, Monsanto’s former attorney, to head up the formation of GMO policy. That policy, which is in effect today, denies knowledge of the scientists’ concerns and declares that no safety studies on GMOs are required. It is up to Monsanto and the other biotech companies—who have a long history of lying about the toxicity of their earlier products—to determine if their own foods are safe.

After overseeing GMO policy at the FDA, Mr. Taylor worked on GMO issues at the USDA, and then later became Monsanto’s vice president. In the summer of 2009, he went through the revolving door again. Taylor was appointed by the Obama administration as the de facto US food safety czar at the FDA.

Dangerously Few Studies, Untraceable Diseases

“Where is the scientific evidence showing that GM plants/food are toxicologically safe, as assumed by the biotechnology companies?” This was the concluding question posed in a 2007 review of published scientific literature on the health risks of GM plants, showing that the number of studies and available data are “very scarce.”

“The experiments simply haven’t been done and we now have become the guinea pigs,” says renowned Canadian geneticist David Suzuki. He adds, “Anyone that says, ‘Oh, we know that this is perfectly safe,’ I say is either unbelievably stupid or deliberately lying.”

When consumers realize the dangers of GM foods and that the FDA has abdicated its responsibility to protect us, they usually want to opt out of this massive feeding experiment. In fact, most Americans already say they would avoid GMO brands if given a choice.

It wouldn’t take a majority of us to kick GMOs out of our food supply. Kraft and other food companies wouldn’t wait until half their market share is gone before telling their suppliers to switch to the non-GM corn, soy, etc. By using GM ingredients, they don’t offer customers a single advantage. The food doesn’t taste better, last longer, or have more nutrients. Thus, if even a tiny percentage of US consumers—say 5% or 15 million people—started avoiding GMO brands, the millions in lost sales revenue would likely force brands to remove all GM ingredients, like they already have in Europe.

But the FDA doesn’t want to give us the choice. They ignore the wishes of nine out of ten Americans for mandatory GMO labeling in order to promote the economic interests of just five biotech companies.

The Shocking Evidence of Harm from GMOs

Genetically modified (GM) foods have not been scientifically tested on human beings. (The only published human feeding study had ominous results – see later.) Instead, animals are used as our surrogates, but the few published animal safety studies are generally short-term and superficial. In fact, industry-funded research is widely criticized as designed to avoid finding problems.  They’ve got bad science—down to a science. Even still, the accumulated evidence of harm is compelling people to read ingredient labels and avoid brands with genetically modified organisms (GMOs).

Infant Mortality and Reproductive Disorders

When GM soy flour was added to the diets of female rats, most of their babies died within three weeks—compared to only a 10% death rate among mothers fed natural soy. The babies from the GM-fed group were also smaller and later had problems getting pregnant.

When male rats were fed GM soy, their testicles actually changed color—from the normal pink to dark blue. Mice testicles also showed changes, including damaged young sperm cells. And the DNA in mice embryos functioned differently when their parents ate GM soy. Mice fed GM corn had fewer babies, and their children were smaller than normal.

About two dozen US farmers say that thousands of their pigs became sterile after consuming certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile when fed the same corn. Investigators in the state of Haryana, India, report that most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, infertility, and prolapsed uteruses. Many calves died.

In the US population, the incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food, A Registered Pesticide?

When insects bite genetically modified Bt corn and cotton, they get a mouthful of a built-in toxin, produced by every cell of the plant. The poison splits open their stomach and kills them. The GM plants are registered as pesticides with the Environmental Protection Agency.

Biotech companies claim that Bt-toxin has a history of safe use, since organic farmers and others use Bt bacteria spray for natural insect control. Genetic engineers insert genes from the bacteria into the DNA of the corn and cotton, so the plants themselves do the killing.

They fail to point out that the Bt-toxin produced in GM plants:

Is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray;
Is designed to be more toxic;
Has properties of an allergen; and
Unlike the spray, cannot be washed off the plant.
But even the less toxic natural bacterial spray is harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in the Pacific Northwest, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms. Some had to go to the emergency room.

Those exact same symptoms are now being reported by farm workers handling Bt cotton grown in India. According to Sunday India, medical records confirm that “victims of itching have increased massively . . . related to Bt cotton farming.”

If GM Crops Kill Animals, How Safe Are They for Us to Eat?

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands died. Post mortems showed severe irritation and black patches in their intestines and livers. Investigators said preliminary evidence “strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin.” In a small feeding study, 100% of sheep fed Bt cotton died within 30 days, while those grazing on natural cotton plants in the adjoining field had no symptoms.

Similarly, buffalo that grazed on natural cotton plants for years without incident are reacting to the Bt variety. In one village, for example, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for a single day in January 2008. All died within three days.

Bt corn was also implicated in the deaths of cows in Germany, and horses, buffaloes, and chickens in The Philippines. Even Monsanto’s own 90-day rat feeding study showed evidence of poisoning in major organs due to their Bt corn. And a 2008 Italian government study found that Bt corn provoked immune responses in mice.

GMOs Contain Allergens

Immune system problems in GMO-fed animals are “a consistent feature of all the studies,” according to GM food safety expert Dr. Arpad Pusztai. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine specifically notes an increase in cytokines, “associated with asthma, allergy, and inflammation.” While all three conditions are on the rise in the US, it is the upsurge in food allergies among children that has generated the most alarm nationwide.

There are many reasons why GMOs might be the cause:

The GM proteins produced in GM soy, corn, and papayas have properties of known allergens. They actually fail the allergy screening protocol recommended by the World Health Organization.
The process of creating a GMO can introduce new allergens or elevate existing ones. Both GM soy and corn contain new unintended allergenic proteins, and GM soy has as much as seven times higher levels of a natural soy allergen—trypsin inhibitor.
Herbicide tolerant GM crops have considerably more residues of toxic herbicides, which may provoke reactions.
Skin prick allergy tests confirm that some people react to GM, but not to non-GM soy.
Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50%. But there are other non-GM foods that are also provoking more allergic responses now than in the past. Research shows, however, that consuming GM foods may still be the culprit by provoking sensitivity to other foods.

Mice fed Bt-toxin, for example, not only reacted to the Bt itself, they started having immune reactions to foods that were formerly harmless. Similarly, after mice ate GM peas, they started to react to other foods that previously had no impact. In addition, GM soy drastically reduces digestive enzymes in mice. If our ability to breakdown proteins is impaired, we could become allergic to a wide variety of foods.

GMOs and Liver Problems

As a primary detoxifier, the condition of the liver can point to toxins in our diet. The livers of mice and rats fed GM feed had profound changes. Some were smaller and partially atrophied, others were significantly heavier, possibly inflamed, and some showed signs of a toxic insult from eating GM food.

The Worst Finding of All? GMOs Remain Inside Us!

The only published human feeding study revealed what many find to be the most disturbing discovery. The genes inserted into GM crops transfer into the DNA of bacteria living inside our intestines and continue to function. This means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have potentially harmful GM proteins produced continuously inside of us. Although scientists only tested this on soy, if Bt genes from corn chips also transferred, they could transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories, possibly for the rest of our lives.

When doctors hear about this evidence, they often respond by citing the huge increase of gastrointestinal problems over the last decade. GM foods might be colonizing the gut flora of North Americans.

Even if GMOs helped combat global hunger, which they don’t, it would be hard to justify putting these high-risk organisms into the food supply in their current state. Especially since GM crops cross-pollinate and contaminate the environment. Their self-propagating genetic pollution may outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.

Shhhh!  Meet the Scientists Who Dared to Break the Silence on GMOs

Arpad Pusztai
Biologist Arpad Pusztai had more than 300 articles and 12 books to his credit and was the world’s top expert in his field. But when he accidentally discovered that genetically modified (GM) foods are dangerous, he became the biotech industry’s bad-boy poster child, setting an example for other scientists thinking about blowing the whistle.

In the early 1990s, Dr. Pusztai was awarded a $3 million grant by the UK government to design the system for safety testing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). His team included more than 20 scientists working at three facilities, including the Rowett Institute in Aberdeen, Scotland, the top nutritional research lab in the UK, and his employer for the previous 35 years. The results of Pusztai’s work were supposed to become the required testing protocols for all of Europe. But when he fed supposedly harmless GM potatoes to rats, things didn’t go as planned.

Within just 10 days, the animals developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, smaller brains, livers, and testicles, partially atrophied livers, and damaged immune systems. Moreover, the cause was almost certainly side effects from the process of genetic engineering itself. In other words, the GM foods on the market, which are created from the same process, might have similar affects on humans.

With permission from his Director, Pusztai was interviewed on TV and expressed his concerns about GM foods. He became a hero at his Institute—for two days. Then came the phone calls from the pro-GMO Prime Minister’s office to the Institute’s Director. The next morning, Pusztai was fired. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit, his team was dismantled, and the protocols never implemented. His Institute, the biotech industry, and the UK government, together launched a smear campaign to destroy Pusztai’s reputation.

Eventually, an invitation to speak before Parliament lifted his gag order and his research was published in the prestigious Lancet. No similar in-depth studies have yet tested the GM foods eaten every day by Americans and Canadians.

Irina Ermakova
Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences, was shocked to discover that more than half of the baby rats in her experiment died within three weeks. She had fed the mothers GM soy flour purchased at a supermarket. The babies from mothers fed natural non-GMO soy, however, only suffered a 10% death rate. She repeated her experiment three times with similar results.

Dr. Ermakova reported her preliminary findings at a conference in October 2005, asking the scientific community to replicate her study. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Her boss told her to stop doing anymore GM food research. Samples were stolen from her lab, and a paper was even set fire on her desk. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, “Maybe the GM soy will solve the overpopulation problem.”

Of the mostly spurious criticisms leveled at Ermakova, one was significant enough to raise doubts about the cause of the deaths. She did not conduct a biochemical analysis of the feed. Without it, we don’t know if some rogue toxin had contaminated the soy flour. But more recent events suggest that whatever caused the high infant mortality was not unique to her one bag of GM flour. In November 2005, the supplier of rat food to the laboratory where Ermakova worked began using GM soy in the formulation. All the rats were now eating it. After two months, Ermakova asked other scientists about the infant mortality rate in their experiments. It had skyrocketed to over 55%.

It’s been four years since these findings were reported. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s study, even though it would cost just a few thousand dollars.

Andrés Carrasco
Embryologist Andrés Carrasco told a leading Buenos Aires newspaper about the results of his research into Roundup®, the herbicide sold in conjunction with Monsanto’s genetically engineered Roundup Ready® crops. Dr. Carrasco, who works in Argentina’s Ministry of Science, said his studies of amphibians suggest that the herbicide could cause defects in the brain, intestines, and hearts of fetuses. Moreover, the amount of Roundup® used on GM soy fields was as much as 1,500 times greater than that which created the defects. Tragically, his research had been inspired by the experience of desperate peasant and indigenous communities who were suffering from exposure to toxic herbicides used on the GM soy fields throughout Argentina.

According to an article in Grain, the biotech industry “mounted an unprecedented attack on Carrasco, ridiculing his research and even issuing personal threats.” In addition, four men arrived unannounced at his laboratory and were extremely aggressive, attempting to interrogate Carrasco and obtain details of his study. “It was a violent, disproportionate, dirty reaction,” he said. “I hadn’t even discovered anything new, only confirmed conclusions that others had reached.”

Argentina’s Association of Environmental Lawyers filed a petition calling for a ban on Roundup®, and the Ministry of Defense banned GM soy from its fields.

Terje Traavik
Prominent virologist Terje Traavik presented preliminary data at a February 2004 meeting at the UN Biosafety Protocol Conference, showing that:

Filipinos living next to a GM cornfield developed serious symptoms while the corn was pollinating;
Genetic material inserted into GM crops transferred to rat organs after a single meal; and
Key safety assumptions about genetically engineered viruses were overturned, calling into question the safety of using these viruses in vaccines.
The biotech industry mercilessly attacked Dr. Traavik. Their excuse? He presented unpublished work. But presenting preliminary data at professional conferences is a long tradition in science, something that the biotech industry itself relied on in 1999 to try to counter the evidence that butterflies were endangered by GM corn.

Ironically, three years after attacking Traavik, the same biotech proponents sharply criticized a peer-reviewed publication for not citing unpublished data that had been presented at a conference. The paper shows how the runoff of GM Bt corn into streams can kill the “caddis fly,” which may seriously upset marine ecosystems. The study set off a storm of attacks against its author, ecologist Emma Rosi-Marshall, which Nature described in a September 2009 article as a “hail of abuse.”

Nothing to Hide?

When Ohio State University plant ecologist Allison Snow discovered problematic side effects in GM sunflowers, Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Dow AgroSciences blocked further research by withholding GM seeds and genes. After Marc Lappé and Britt Bailey found significant reductions in cancer-fighting isoflavones in Monsanto’s GM soybeans, the seed seller, Hartz, told them they could no longer provide samples. Research by a plant geneticist at a leading US university was also thwarted when two companies refused him GM corn. In fact, almost no independent studies are conducted that might find problems. According to a scathing opinion piece in an August 2009 Scientific American, “Agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers. . . . Only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal.”

Restricted access is not limited to the US. When a Japanese scientist wanted to conduct animal feeding studies on the GM soybeans under review in Japan, both the government and the bean’s maker DuPont refused to give him any samples. Hungarian Professor Bela Darvas discovered that Monsanto’s GM corn hurt endangered species in his country. Monsanto immediately shut off his supplies. Dr. Darvas later gave a speech on his preliminary findings and discovered that a false and incriminating report about his research was circulating. He traced it to a Monsanto public relations employee, who claimed it mysteriously appeared on her desk—so she faxed it out.

Why is Science and Debate Being Silenced?

The attacks on scientists have taken its toll. There appears to be a de facto ban on scientists asking certain questions and finding certain results.

New Zealand Parliament member Sue Kedgley told a Royal Commission in 2001: “Personally I have been contacted by telephone and e-mail by a number of scientists who have serious concerns about aspects of the research that is taking place . . . and the increasingly close ties that are developing between science and commerce, but who are convinced that if they express these fears publicly, …  or even if they asked the awkward and difficult questions, they will be eased out of their institution.”

University of Minnesota biologist Phil Regal testified before the same Commission, “I think the people who boost genetic engineering are going to have to do a mea culpa and ask for forgiveness, like the Pope did on the inquisition.” Sue Kedgley has a different idea. She recommends we “set up human clinical trials using volunteers of genetic engineering scientists and their families, because I think they are so convinced of the safety of their products, I’m sure they would very readily volunteer to become part of a human clinical trial.”

Failing that, are you willing to continue your participation?






Document Number: 3278
The World According to Monsanto

The long awaited, blockbuster film The World According to Monsanto is now available in the United States. It is a powerful tool to motivate anyone to take up the cause against genetically modified foods. We urge you to hold house parties and sponsor free public showings of the film. Use our Film Showing Guide to help publicize the film and mobilize inspired audiences to take effective action to stop GMOs.

Update On Bovine Growth Hormone (Rbgh)

But first, great news! Monsanto just sold off their bovine growth hormone (rBGH/rBST) business to Ely Lilly’s animal division, Elanco. Monsanto dumped this genetically engineered drug because snowballing consumer rejection of dairy products from cows treated with rBGH has already driven it out of Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, and 40 of the top 100 dairies.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology was one of many groups that helped bring about this victory by educating consumers about the potential health dangers (increased risks of cancer, higher fraternal twin rate, antibiotic resistant diseases, etc.). Informed people don’t want anything to do with the drug. When the numbers of concerned, discerning shoppers hit the critical mass, a tipping point in the dairy industry ensued. For the inside scoop, view our new film on rBGH, Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!, at www.YourMilkonDrugs.com. Better yet, watch it as part of the bonus material on The World According to Monsanto DVD.

Film Review: The World According to Monsanto

Directed by Marie-Monique Robin
Reviewed by Jeffrey M. Smith
Distributed by Yes! Books, www.MonsantoFilm.com, $19.95
Includes bonus film and audio CD. 

How much outrage can a single multinational corporation inspire? How much damage can they inflict? The breathtaking new film, The World According to Monsanto, features a company that sets the new standard. From Iowa to Paraguay, from England to India, Monsanto is uprooting our food supply and replacing it with their patented genetically engineered creations. And along the way, farmers, communities, and nature become collateral damage.

The Gazette says the movie “will freeze the blood in your veins.” The Hour says it’s a “horrifying enough picture” to warrant “fury.” But most importantly, this critical film opens our eyes just in time.

The film is the work of celebrated award-winning French filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, whose three years of work on four continents exposes why Monsanto has become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. Combining secret documents with accounts by victims, scientists and policy makers, she guides us through a web of misleading reports, pressure tactics, collusion, and attempted corruption. And we learn how the company systematically tricked governments into allowing dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods into our diet—with Monsanto in charge of determining if they’re safe.

Deception, Deception, Deception

The company’s history with some of the most toxic chemicals ever produced, illustrates why they can’t be trusted. Ask the folks of Anniston, Alabama, where Monsanto’s PCB factory secretly poisoned the neighborhood for decades. PCBs are Monsanto’s toxic oils used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years and are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. But Anniston residents have levels hundreds or thousands of times the average. They all know their levels, which they carry as death sentences. David Baker, who lost his little brother and most of his friends to PCB-related diseases such as cancer, says Anniston kids used to run up to him, report their PCB level and ask, “How long you think I got?”

Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company “knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors.” One Monsanto memo explains their justification: “We can’t afford to lose one dollar of business.”

Monsanto also produced the infamous Agent Orange, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than 3 million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, “thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits” because “Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen.” But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, “If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result.”

Secret documents stolen from the FDA also reveal serious health effects from Monsanto’s genetically engineered bovine growth hormone, called rBGH or rBST. In particular, the amount of a powerful hormone called IGF-1 is substantially increased in milk from treated cows. Samuel Epstein, Chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, says that approximately 60 studies link IGF-1 to “breast, colon, and prostate cancers.”

Cancer is also implicated in Monsanto’s showcase herbicide, Roundup. According Professor Robert Bellé’s research showing disrupted cell division, “Roundup provokes the first stages that lead to cancer.” Bellé, who is with the National Center for Scientific Research and the Pierre and Marie Curie Institute in France, says, “The tested doses were well below those which people normally use.”

Monsanto has promoted Roundup as harmless to both humans and the environment. But their advertised environmental claims, such as “biodegradable,” “leaves the soil clean,” and “respects the environment,” were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. In fact, Monsanto’s own studies showed that 28 days after application, only 2% of the product had broken down. They were forced to remove “biodegradable” from the label.

Above The Law

When Monsanto’s transgressions are reported to authorities, somehow the company is magically let off the hook.

When Monsanto finally did share information on PCBs with the government, for example, Ken Cook says “instead of siding with the people who were being poisoned, [the government] sided with the company.…It was outrageous!” When William Sanjour’s EPA colleague, Cate Jenkins, asked the agency to review Monsanto’s flawed Agent Orange studies, Sanjour says, “there was no investigation of Monsanto.…What they investigated was Cate Jenkins, the whistleblower! They made her life a hell.”

When Richard Burroughs of the FDA held up approval of rBGH by demanding more rigorous and relevant testing, he was fired. He says, “They figured: ‘Well, if you’re in the way, we’ll get you out of the way.’… One day, I was escorted to the door and told that was it; I was done.” Senior government scientists at Health Canada testified that their superiors were pressuring them to approve rBGH and that Monsanto had offered them an alleged bribe of $1-2 million. The scientists were later reprimanded, punished, and eventually “dismissed for disobedience.” rBGH was never approved in Canada, Europe, and most industrialized nations.

When Professor Bellé went to his administration “to let the public know about the dangers” of Roundup herbicide, he was “ordered” not to communicate his findings “due to the GMO question lurking in the background.” That question about genetically modified organisms was in relation to Monsanto’s “Roundup Ready” crops. Monsanto has the patent for 90% of the GMOs grown on the planet, and most of them are genetically modified specifically to tolerate applications of Roundup.

Corporate Coup d’état

Monsanto’s past manipulations were mere warm ups compared to the virtual government takeover used to approve GM foods. Author Jeremy Rifkin, President of the Foundation for Economic Trends, says, “I have never seen a situation where one company could have so much overwhelming influence at the highest levels of regulatory decision making.”

The problem Monsanto faced was that GMOs are inherently unsafe. They can create dangerous side effects. That was the overwhelming consensus by FDA scientists, according to 44,000 agency documents made public from a lawsuit. But the most important document, FDA’s official policy, claimed that GMOs were not substantially different. They were granted the status “Generally Recognized as Safe,” even though they failed to meet the normal criteria. Thus, no safety testing is necessary. If Monsanto declares their GM products safe, the FDA has no further questions.

Former FDA biotech coordinator James Maryanski admits on camera that the GMO policy “was a political decision,” not scientific. In fact, FDA political appointee Michael Taylor was in charge of the policy. Taylor was formerly Monsanto’s attorney and later their vice president.

Monsanto’s people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto’s facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, “Call me. We’re in the ‘de-reg’ business. Maybe we can help.”

Monsanto’s influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, “there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren’t marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress.” He admits, “when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit.”

Unlike Glickman, FDA’s Maryanski tries in vain to convince filmmaker Robin that GMOs are safe and that US regulation is adequate. But Robin had conducted four months of intensive internet research examining declassified documents, leaked internal files, scientific studies, trial transcripts, articles, and first hand accounts of whistleblowers. She was prepared.

In a priceless sequence, the film alternates between Maryanski’s assurances and public interest attorney Steven Druker reading formerly secret memos by agency scientists, describing the serious health damage that GMOs may cause. When Robin repeats these same quotes to Maryanski, he resorts to uncomfortable stuttering, stammering, and backtracking. When he ultimately tries to dismiss genetic engineering as completely safe, Robin nails him. She reads to Maryanski his own words from a 1991 memo in which he acknowledged that genetic engineering of a food supplement called L-tryptophan in the 1980s may have been responsible for a deadly epidemic that killed dozens and caused thousands to fall sick or become disabled.

Suppressing Evidence Of  Harm, Attacking GMO Scientists

When Monsanto’s GM crops hit American farm fields in 1996, virtually no safety studies had been published. The pro-GM UK government decided to commission Dr. Arpad Pusztai, the world’s leading scientist in his field, to design rigorous safety testing protocols that would convince a skeptical public to embrace GM foods. When Pusztai fed GM potatoes to rats, however, they developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth, a damaged immune system, and inhibited growth of major organs. Moreover, Pusztai’s work implicated the generic process of genetic engineering itself as the cause. That is, any GM food already on the market might create the same problems in humans.

When Pusztai went public with his concerns, he was praised for his “wonderful work” by his director at the prestigious Rowett Institute. But according to a colleague, “two phone calls from Downing Street [the home of UK Prime Minister Tony Blair] to the director” resulted in Pusztai’s sudden dismissal after 35 years. His protocols were shelved and he was the target of a relentless smear campaign, designed to destroy his reputation while promoting that of GMOs.

UC Berkeley Professor Ignacio Chapela was also targeted after he published evidence that GM corn had cross-pollinated with indigenous Mexican varieties, forever contaminating “the world’s genetic reservoir of corn.” Just after his research was published in Nature, Mary Murphy and Andura Smetacek began posting false accusations on a biotech forum website, recruiting scientists to inundate the publication with demands to retract the study. When anti-GMO campaigner Jonathan Matthews analyzed the technical headers on the two’s emails, he traced Smetacek to a Monsanto computer, and Murphy to their PR firm. The two were apparently fictitious characters created to stir things up. Matthews says, “There’s no ethics at all in what’s going on here. It shows an organization that is determined to push its products into countries around the world and it’s determined to destroy the reputation of anybody who stands in their way.”

Monster Corn And Contamination By Design

The film explores an ominous new development in Mexico that has yet to be reported in the scientific literature. Mutated and bizarrely shaped corn plants have been found “along the roadside or in people’s yards” or fields. Community organizer Aldo Gonzales says, “They are really monsters!” And whenever analyzed, the monsters turn out to be genetically engineered. Local scientists believe that when GM corn cross-pollinates with traditional varieties, some genetic effect disturbs the offspring.

One Mexican farmer realized the implications. “If we don’t manage to stop their spread in our fields, soon we’ll be forced to buy our corn seed because our own won’t work anymore?” Gonzales wonders if the contamination was intentional. He says, “Contamination only benefits multinationals like Monsanto.”

Intentional contamination of another sort appears to have happened in Paraguay, as illegal Roundup Ready seeds were smuggled in before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay’s Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, “It is possible that [Monsanto], let’s say, promoted its varieties and its seeds” before they were approved. “We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let’s say, unorthodox way.”

Once approved, large agribusinesses bought huge tracts and cut down the rainforest to plant vast Roundup Ready soybean fields. The GMOs allow them to spray by plane or mechanical spreader; to farm without farmers. Peasants who had worked the land for generations are forced out—100,000 each year leave rural areas to live in the shanty towns of the cities. In one small farm community that is holding out next to a soy field, sprayed Roundup kills their livestock and crops, and sickens their children.

Destroying Farmers

US family farmers also feel the heat. Troy Roush is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds—at a premium—each season.

Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his “family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved.” Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has “created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers’ lives.”

Massive Farmer Suicides

In many countries where Monsanto monopolizes the seeds of certain crops, they eliminate non-GMO choices to force farmers to buy GM varieties. In India, for example, where Monsanto pushes their pesticide-producing Bt cotton, “there was no non-BT hybrid seed available in the market,” says agronomist Kiran Sakhari.

Farmers had to borrow heavily to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. In spite of glowing promises of higher yields by Monsanto’s ads,   Bt cotton often performs poorly. Tragically, tens of thousands of indebted desperate farmers have resorted to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day.

Replacing Nature: “Nothing Shall Be Eaten That We Don’t Own”

Monsanto is the world’s largest seed company and many are concerned. Troy Roush says, “They are in the process of owning food, all food.” Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, “Its objective is to control all of the world’s food production.” Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, “If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it’s strategic. It’s more powerful than bombs; it’s more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world.”

The World According to Monsanto is aptly named. It is about Monsanto seeking to recreate the world in its own image, for its own benefit. They intend to replace (and patent) the entire food supply. And since their genetic pollution self-propagates in the environment, it will outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.

Such widespread permanent influence may not be safe with any individual or company. With Monsanto’s record, the results can only be catastrophic.

This powerful documentary might just inspire a global rejection of Monsanto’s plans for our world. If so, it will be the most important film in history.








Document Number: 1192
Un-Spinning the Spin Masters on Genetically Engineered Food

By Jeffrey M. Smith

Jeffrey Smith Responds to a Biotech Proponent’s Accusations and Spin

Note from Jeffrey Smith:
In September, 2005, the respected South African investigative magazine, Noseweek, ran a five-page interview with me that was described by a GMO campaigner as “the hardest knock” that the country’s biotech industry had ever taken from the media. To read the interview, go to the September 2005 issue of Spilling the Beans, at http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Newsletter/Sept05Rammeddownourthroats/index.cfm. 

Hans Lombard, a public relations consultant for the biotech industry, wrote a rebuttal to Noseweek that was pure industry spin. Fortunately, I was given the opportunity to respond. Both his letter and a condensed version of mine were published side by side in their January issue. The magazine put my full response on its website.

The following is the text of Lombard’s letter, broken up so that I can respond to each accusation.

The shortened version that was published is available with graphics and photos at http://www.seedsofdeception.com/DocumentFiles/100.pdf.

Noseweek has given permission for either the long or short versions to be reprinted in whole or in part.

PART 1

Lombard:

Gmo food safer than conventional

Allegations by Jeffrey Smith of “dangers and health risks” to humans and animals posed by GMO food in the article: "Rammed down our throats," Noseweek, September 2005 are blatant lies. Shocking, misleading information with no substantiated scientific evidence.

What he failed to tell us is that his so-called “best seller” book condemning GMO crops which he hawked around South Africahas not received the backing of any academy of science or medicine, any faculty of agriculture/science, or any agricultural research institute anywhere in the world.

Smith:

Hans Lombard, a public relations man paid to “hawk” GM foods around South Africa, provides a superb example of industry spin. He attacks so-called “lies” and “misleading information” using nonexistent safety tests that passed with flying colors, false attributions to national academies and unsupported safety claims. It is a pleasure to respond to these accusations.

“So-called” best seller without “backing”…

Seeds of Deception is the world’s bestselling book on GM foods and rated number one on the subject by the Ecologist. It documents attempted bribes, fired and threatened scientists, hijacked regulatory agencies, cover-ups, rigged research, and the ways in which industry manipulation and political collusion got genetically modified (GM) foods approved. It also explains why the foods threaten our health.

The revelations have had an impact. A master’s thesis, for example, concluded that the book had a major influence on the passage of the first state regulation on GMOs in Vermont. A state representative said, “It certainly colored every conversation in the Statehouse about GMOs. It was the subtext for everything after that, once it arrived.”

In the US, academic institutions don’t “back” books. The faculty use what they want. Even though Seeds of Deception is not an academic text book, it is assigned in several university classes, including Yale, where I spoke last year.

Substantiated scientific evidence…

I asked a prominent German biologist, Christine von Weizsaecker, to write the foreword to my German edition. She explained that she couldn’t put her name on anything in which the science isn’t absolutely correct. She therefore analyzed the book in great detail, and then had another top biologist trace every quote to its original source, to make sure it wasn’t used out of context. It passed inspection and she wrote the foreword.

Hawking my book…

My visit to Southern Africa was to speak at conferences and to share information about GM foods with the public and political leaders. It was not about promoting my book, which wasn’t even available in SA bookstores at the time. This sentence, however, is about hawking my book, which is now available through New Horizon distributors.

Lombard:

In response to only a few of his wild fear mongering and scientifically unproven allegations, here are the facts:

*GM crops are not adequately tested for safety

Quite the contrary. In fact no agricultural crop in history has been subjected to such stringent scientific and medical tests. GMO crops have passed these tests with flying colours.

The European Commission conducted 81 scientific research tests over a period of 15 years and costing R640 million. It concluded:  “GM food is both safe for humans and the environment. Biotech crops may even be safer than conventional food.”

After in-depth research by a panel of leading scientists, the Royal Scientific Society of London stated:  “There is no serious threat or even existence of any potential environmental harm or human health hazards in GM food. ” Eight academies of science—Brazil, China, India, Mexico, the Third World Academy, National Academy of Science US, Germany, France and the Royal Canadian Society—concurred.

The British Medical Association says there is very little potential for GM foods to cause harmful effects.

Smith:

Stringent tests, 81 studies…

The European Commission had funded 81 projects on GMOs, not conducted. As of 2001, when this count was made, most were in progress but not yet published. An analysis of all peer-reviewed animal feeding safety tests on GM foods, published in Nutrition and Health in 2003, found only 10.[1] Another comprehensive analysis published in October, 2005, raises that number to 19.[2] Most of these are industry-sponsored and are criticized as superficial and poorly designed. According to GMO in animal nutrition: potential benefits and risks, “relatively short-term animal feeding/production experiments, particularly as they are presently carried out, do not contribute much to GM safety.”[3] Another peer-reviewed article in Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews exposed numerous health risks of GM foods that are not being tested for, and cited “serious deficiencies in both regulatory oversight and corporate testing procedures.”[4]Geneticist David Suzuki said it a little clearer: “Any politician or scientist who tells you these products are safe is either very stupid or lying. The experiments have simply not been done.”[5]

Academies…

To claim that there are no potential health hazards from GM is absurd. To claim this as the position of eight national academies is outrageous. I called Lombard’s bluff, and read his quote to Fran Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS). She said, “The academies have issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants. If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would we have delved into these matters in these reports?”[6] One of those NAS reports even acknowledged that the current system of regulating GMOs might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.”[7]

The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe, and that the “default presumption” is that unintended, potentially hazardous side effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations are not adequate to determine the health effects,[8] the Indian Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations,[9] and the British Medical Association had called for a moratorium of GM foods altogether. Why then do we read reports from some scientific bodies that claim GM foods are totally safe?

It turns out that there is a fairly small group of biotech scientists with strong support by industry who have managed to author all sorts of “official” or official-sounding reports. The usual suspects are concentrated in the UK, and their Odes-to-Biotech are found in reports for the UK’s Royal Society and others. GMWatch.org has done a brilliant job exposing the group’s conflicts of interest, biased science, and even their repeated use of threats to other scientists who wish to publish adverse findings or opinions.

How did Lombard come up with his eight academies? I guess he’s referring to a report called Transgenic Plants and World Agriculture (2000), which lists seven of the eight as contributors. But the report hardly supports Lombard’s claim of no potential risks. On the contrary, it enumerates “the potential for allergic reactions” and “toxic compounds as a result of the GM technology.” Moreover, “Public health regulatory systems need to be put in place in every country to identify and monitor any potential adverse human health effects of transgenic plants.” Unfortunately, this recommendation has not been instituted anywhere in the world, so we don’t know if GM foods are already causing widespread health problems. 

PART 2

Lombard:

*After GM soyas were introduced in the UK, allergies skyrocketed.

The Royal Society of London denies this and says. There is no evidence that GM foods cause allergic reactions. Allergic risks posed by GM plants are no greater than those posed by conventional crops.

Long before the advent of GM crops, medical scientists determined that allergies were caused by milk, egg whites, peanuts and soya beans and will continue to do so, GM or non-GM.

If the allegations regarding allergies were true, why does the EU continue to import annually on average 17 million tons of soya from the USA and Argentine, 90% GM?

Smith:

Allergies…

An allergy specialist from Ohio told me recently, “I used to test for soy allergy. Since they have genetically altered it, I tell people just don’t eat it unless it says organic. These things are so potentially dangerous.”[10]

The British Medical Association had warned that GM foods may lead to the emergence of new allergies. A finding in March 1999 is telling. Researchers at the UK’s York Laboratory tested 4,500 people for allergic reactions and sensitivities to a wide range of foods. Soy had previously affected 10% of consumers. In 1999, however, that jumped to 15%. Soy entered the top ten list of allergens for the first time in the seventeen years of testing. Reactions included irritable bowel syndrome, digestion problems, skin complaints, chronic fatigue, headaches and lethargy. Blood tests confirmed an antibody reaction to soy. GM soy had recently entered the UK and the soy used in the study was largely GM. John Graham, spokesman for the York laboratory, said, “We believe this raises serious new questions about the safety of GM foods.”[11]

The joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Allergenicity of GM foods said, “A clear need exists to pay particular attention to allergenicity when assessing the safety of foods produced through genetic modification.”[12] But GM foods have genes from bacteria, viruses and other organisms. The proteins they create were never part of the human food supply; no one knows if they’re allergenic. According to the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 1992 policy, “At this time, FDA is unaware of any practical method to predict or assess the potential for new proteins in food to induce allergenicity and requests comments on this issue.”[13] A Washington Post article—written seven years later—said there is still “no widely accepted way to predict a new food’s potential to cause an allergy. The FDA is now five years behind in its promise to develop guidelines for doing so. With no formal guidelines in place, it’s largely up to the industry to decide whether and how to test for the allergy potential of new food.”[14] But this is problematic, according to the FDA’s own scientist, who had written years earlier, “Are we asking the crop developer to prove that food from his crop is non-allergenic? This seems like an impossible task.”[15] According to the US EPA Scientific Advisory Panel, “Only surveillance and clinical assessment of exposed individuals will confirm the allergenicity.”[16] Unfortunately, no such surveillance exists.

The FAO/WHO does suggest criteria that minimize the likelihood that allergenic GM crops would get approved. The GM soy already on the market, however, fails those criteria—sections of its GM protein are identical to known allergens. The same is true for the GM white corn used in the South African staple, millimeal. It is engineered to create a Bt toxin to kill insects. Farm workers and others exposed to Bt spray have exhibited allergic symptoms including allergic rhinitis, angioedema, dermatitis, pruritus, swelling, erythema with conjunctival injection, exacerbations of asthma, angioedema and rashes.[17]

A November 2005 study [18] found that a GM pea under development caused severe immune responses in mice, and the plans to commercialize the crop were scrapped. The tests used, however, were those typically used for medical testing, not for GM food. If those same peas were subjected to normal GM food safety assessments, they could   have sailed through the approval process. More importantly, since none of the GM crops on the market have ever been tested in this same rigorous way, they too may be harmful.

EU imports…

The EU imports GM soy for use as animal feed.  Fortunately, European food manufacturers such as Carrefour, Tesco, Asda and Marks and Spencer, are committed to switch to non-GM sources.

Lombard:

*GM cotton produced in Andra Pradesh, India, reduced yields by 18% and was subsequently banned.

Again, the Indian authorities in Andra Pradesh reject this allegation as an outright lie. Chengal Reddy, chairman of the Federation of Farmers’ Associations in Andra Pradesh, denies that there has been a Bt cotton failure.

According to him, Bt cotton plantings in 2002/03 was a roaring success. Mangala Rai, director-general of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research, says cotton farmers in Andra Pradesh increased their Bt cotton yields by 30% and reduced pesticide sprayings by 65%.

So much so, that the Indian Government  approved the planting of an additional  40 000 ha of Bt cotton in  Andra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtraand Gujarat. Furthermore, the Indian Government has approved three new Bt cotton varieties. Andra Pradash now has the choice of six Bt cotton hybrids.

If  Smith’s allegation is true, why is it that India increased the area under approved biotech cotton from 100,000 ha two years ago to 500,000 in 2004, involving more than 300,000 small-scale farmers?

Smith:

According to the April 13, 2005 Deccan Herald, “A study that tracked genetically modified Bt cotton crop for three years in Andhra Pradesh has proved conclusively that it has failed on all fronts including yield, cost of cultivation, returns to farmers and resistance to pests. On the other hand, the non-Bt cotton performed better on all counts.”[19] This was the only independent study “on Bt cotton done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages.” Conducted by Dr Abdul Qayoom, former Joint Director of Agriculture in Andhra Pradesh, and Mr Sakkari Kiran of the Permaculture Institute of India, the study showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12% more, yielded 8.3% less, and the returns over three years were 60% less.[20]

Problems with the GM variety included failure to germinate, drought damage, root-rot, leaf curl virus, brittle stems, increased pests, smaller bolls, increased labor requirements per acre and a shorter harvest season. According to three year study, some farmers complained “that they were not able to grow other crops after Bt because it had infected their soil very badly.”[21]

Years earlier, approvals of Bt cotton had been secured by an “expert team” that visited a few farmers growing it for the first time. The team issued a glowing report, claiming higher yields, less pesticides, and greater profits. When a film crew interviewed those same farmers, they discovered that just the opposite was true. They also described problems with the cotton’s quality: GM cotton was more light weight, weaker, less bright, had shorter staple length and sold for less. One farmer said, “We have to beg the traders to sell the cotton to them.” When government officials saw the video, they investigated and confirmed that the expert team’s report contradicted the facts.

Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30-60%. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. When the company refused, on June 3 the government banned Monsanto from the state. According to state agricultural commissioner Poonam Malakondiah, the state will not even allow Monsanto to carry out trials.[22] The Bt varieties that Lombard says are now sold in Andhra Pradesh are other companies’ products. But a November 8, 2005report by the Monitoring & Evaluation Committee shows stunted growth and massive pest damage to these varieties as well.[23]

Lombard can easily obtain contradictory statistics. Ask Monsanto. They commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies, not scientists. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, twelve times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.[24] Lombard quotes Chengal Reddy. Of course Reddy will use Monsanto’s statistics, as “he has worked closely with the company since the mid-1990s,”[25] and even proposed to that his group “be the operational arm”[26] of the biotech organization in the state. GMwatch.org exposes more on this “non-farmer” and his “federation” that appears to be “significantly different from that which it claims.”[27]

In spite of Monsanto’s ban in Andhra Pradesh, their faulty cotton was allowed in Madhya Pradesh. According to a November 14, 2005 article in NewKerala.com, it has been a disaster there too. Rampant wilting in 200,000 acres caused an estimated $87.5 million USD in damages. The article also described a health report that showed “Bt cotton was causing severe to moderate allergy to people coming in contact with it.”[28] On November 10, 2005, The Hindu reported that “Up to 75 per cent of the Bt cotton seeds” planted in parts of Tamil Nadu “failed to germinate this season,”[29] and on November 27 they said that India’s central government “conceded the failure of Bt cotton in Andhra Pradesh and Rajasthan.”[30]

Why are farmers still buying Bt cotton. I’m not sure. But the following accounts may help explain it. Monsanto ran a poster series called True Stories Of Farmers Who Have Sown Bt Cotton. One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits. When investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster gave the yield figures of the featured farmer—which was four times what he actually achieved. One photo of a farmer standing next to a tractor was used to suggest that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, “I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires.”

In addition to posters, the cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.

As for Lombard’s increased acreage statistics, according to the Executive Director of the Centre for Sustainable Agriculture, (the organization that helped investigate these marketing deceptions) “The assertion by Monsanto that the increase in acreage of Bt Cotton is an indication of the success of Bt Cotton is as questionable as their false advertising.”[31]

In Andhra Pradesh, 71% of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses. When they realized that they were deceived, farmers attacked the seed dealer’s office and even “tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages,” until the police rescued them.[32] Tragically, other farmers committed suicide. In Vidarbha, Maharashtra alone, between July 2 and November 17, 2005, an estimated 114 impoverished cotton farmers have taken their own lives.[33] 

PART 3

Lombard:

*Rats fed on GM Potatoes developed potentially pre-cancerous cell growth—Pusztai. Rats fed on GM tomatoes—seven of 40 died within two weeks.

These tests were never peer-proven. No scientific peer-proven data in support of these tests exists. They were dispelled as flawed by scientists worldwide.

A report in the influential Lancet magazine claimed that scientists who reviewed Pusztai’s experiments came to the conclusion that:

The study was flawed, since it had been poorly conducted and did not meet acceptable scientific standards.
The UK Advisory Committee on Novel Food Programmes (ACNFP) concluded that “no meaningful conclusions could be drawn from Pusztai’s study”.
The Royal Society of London stated: “We found no convincing evidence of adverse effects from GM potatoes. The effects were uninterpretable because of technical limitations of the experiments and the incorrect use of statistical tests.”
Pusztai was subsequently fired from the institution where he worked.

On the tomato issue Pusztai, who had nothing to do with the experiments, said the rats died with unstated reasons.

The GM tomatoes were on the market for three years and consumed by thousands of people, without any ill-effects reported by any medical or health institutions.

They were withdrawn when the company that launched the project ran into technical and financial problems.

Smith:

Potatoes…

I describe Dr. Pusztai’s story in great detail in the first chapter of my book. I interviewed him over several months, and pored over leaked documents, scientific reports and testimonies. Here’s a synopsis.

Dr. Pusztai was awarded a grant by the UK government to develop a safety testing protocol, which would eventually be required for all GM foods. Pusztai’s 20-member research team created a GM potato, engineered to produce its own insecticide, and tested it on rats. The design for the animal feeding study had already been used by Pusztai in about 60 out of the more than 300 peer-reviewed studies he had published, and it was also approved in advance by the UK government.

The results of the potato study were shocking. Nearly every system in the rats’ bodies was adversely affected by the GM potatoes. Another group was fed natural potatoes that were spiked with the insecticide that the GM variety produced. Those rats did fine. Thus, the insecticide didn’t cause the damaged organs and immune system or the prolific cell growth. Rather, it was probably changes in the potato resulting from the process of genetic engineering that was the culprit. (During the GM process, for example, natural genes can be turned off, permanently turned on, deleted, reversed, scrambled, moved or fragmented, all with potential side effects.)

When Dr. Pusztai publicly expressed his concerns about GMOs, he was a hero at his institute. But this quickly became a serious problem for the biotech industry and the pro-GM Blair government. Dr. Pusztai was the world leader in his field; he worked at the country’s most prestigious nutritional institute; using cutting edge research funded by the government, he found problems; and now he claims that GM technology may be inherently unsafe. The press was ravenous. For two days, the institute’s director led the publicity efforts, describing Pusztai’s research as a huge advance in science. Then two phone calls were allegedly placed from the UK prime minister’s office, forwarded through the receptionist, to the director. The next morning, Dr. Pusztai was released from the institute after 35 years and silenced with threats of a lawsuit. His research team was disbanded and the government never implemented any long-term testing protocol. Disinformation was widely circulated. The institute and the biotech gang at the Royal Society staged so-called peer-reviews, but didn’t use all the test data, had no nutritionists doing the critique of a nutritional study, and made sweeping claims that contradicted the research. According to a leaked document obtained by the Independent on Sunday, even three government ministers prepared “an astonishingly detailed strategy for spinning, and mobilizing support for” GM foods, including rubbishing Pusztai’s research.[34]

When Pusztai’s gag order was eventually lifted and he gained access to his data, 23 top scientists from around the world reviewed the research and came to his defense. The study was peer-reviewed and published in the prestigious Lancet (in spite of threats made to its editor by a Royal Society official). Nonetheless, as you can see in Lombard’s reply, the disinformation campaign continues.[For the record, Lombard’s attribution to the Lancet is misleading. A letter from the editor included a quote from the Royal Society’s review, which said the study was “flawed.” But the editor was actually chastising the Society for “criticizing reports of research…before those data were reviewed and published in the proper way.”[35] Pusztai’s study, including the statistics, did pass the Lancet review.]

Tomatoes…

Lombard is right that the tomato study was not peer reviewed. It was submitted by Calgene (now a subsidiary of Monsanto) to the FDA for their FlavrSavr tomato review. Industry submissions are almost never peer-reviewed and are usually so poorly designed or reported, they are actually unworthy of publication. In fact, when I asked Dr. Pusztai what his greatest shock was, it turned out to be when he read the confidential studies submitted to the UK government to get GM products approved. This was months before his controversial sacking, while he was still an ardent GM advocate. He described the industry’s studies as so superficial and so poorly done, it was clear that they were doing as little as possible to get their products on the market as quickly as possible. They were not doing real safety assessments.

In the case of the tomato, FDA documents made public from a lawsuit reveal that GM-fed rats developed stomach lesions. In spite of Calgene’s attempts to explain it away, agency scientists maintained that the findings did not meet their standard of a “demonstration of reasonable certainty of no harm.”[36] The political appointees, however, ignored their scientists and approved the tomato.

When the same lawsuit made Calgene’s rat study available, Dr. Pusztai reviewed it for the attorneys. With respect to the rats’ bleeding stomachs, he pointed out that if similar reactions were to occur in humans, “they could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.”[37] Pusztai also discovered a paragraph in the appendix which said 7 out of 40 GM-fed rats died within two weeks and were replaced. The cause of death was obliquely described as “husbandry error.” Pusztai was astounded. It is entirely unacceptable for such a study to leave out the data from rat autopsies and substitute only meaningless, unsupported opinions. Likewise, replacing dead animals in the middle of a feeding study is not scientifically justified.

One of the scientists who developed the tomato for Calgene told me that her team had been asked to evaluate the results of the rat experiment. She admitted that as plant molecular biologists, the study was totally out of their field, and they could easily have overlooked the appendix and its implications.

Consumed by thousands without any ill-effects…

Since no one monitors the health impacts of GM foods, to make the claim that there are no ill-effects demonstrates a profound ignorance of the issues.

Lombard:

*Philippines living next to a Bt maize field developed respiratory and skin reactions.

The person who published this information was Norwegian scientist Prof Terje Traavik, an ardent anti-GMO activist. His studies were, however, never peer-proven. When he was challenged to provide scientific data by Dr Nina Gloriani Barzaga from the University of the Philippines-Manila College of Public Health, he said his studies were “only preliminary and not complete.”

He was also challenged by Prof Rick Roush, director, Statewide IPM Program, University of California, USA, who comments as follows:  “Traavik never allowed any of his work to be peer-reviewed. He never offered any details of his research to any of the rest of us scientists. His work remains nothing more than a wild and implausible allegation.”

The area was visited by the Philippines Department of Agriculture, a team of medical doctors, and representatives from the College of Chest Physicians and the Manila College of Health. They came to the conclusion that the villagers showed no allergic symptoms or signs of viral respiratory infection.

More than 20 000 ha of GM maize has been grown in the Philippines during the past three years by more than 5000 farmers. Nobody has complained of an allergy.

Smith:

Nobody has complained of an allergy…

According to the Philippine publication Mindanews, “On August 8, 2003, about 100 residents from Sitio Kalyong were documented to have been suffering from headache, dizziness, extreme stomach pain, vomiting and allergies.”[38] The Filipinos lived adjacent to a GM cornfield and developed symptoms only while the corn pollen was airborne.  According to the article, similar symptoms appeared in different locations during the following two years, also corresponding with the time of pollination.

Dr. Traavik, a prominent EU virologist and director of the Norwegian Institute for Gene Ecology, tested the blood of 39 of the villagers during the first year. The blood developed an antibody response to the Bt-toxin—the pesticide that the corn was engineered to produce. Dr. Traavik presented preliminary findings in February 2004, at a Malaysian conference on GM food safety. Dr. Traavik explained to the audience, which was mostly delegates to the UN Biosafety Conference that started the next day, that the blood response increased the probability that the symptoms came from the corn. But it wasn’t proof.

I attended Dr. Traavik’s talk, in which he also presented preliminary results of four other studies. Two included results that challenged the safety claims of GM vaccines. Two studied promoters—the viral sequences that turn on the foreign genes that are inserted into GM crops. One study showed that the promoter was active in human cells, and the other showed that the promoter survived digestion in rats and ended up in their organs three days later.

Since I was giving a presentation on the health risks of GM foods at the UN conference, I spent two days interviewing Dr. Traavik and other senior scientists from his Institute about the research. When I gave my talk, I explained, as Dr. Traavik had, that his research was not yet finished, peer-reviewed or published. My job was to explain the preliminary findings in the wider context of known GM health hazards.

On the Philippine study, for example, I described how the potential dangers of breathing GM pollen had been identified years earlier by the UK Joint Food Safety and Standards Group. They had even postulated that inhaled genes might transfer into human DNA, and wrote to the US FDA, warning them about these risks of GM crops. Thus, the link between GM corn and the reactions in the Philippines is far from “wild and implausible,” as Lombard claims.

In accordance with normal scientific protocol, Dr. Traavik said he would not circulate his data or methodology until the papers were published. He is still working on the Philippine study. Three of the five presented in Malaysia have already been published, including the study confirming that GM promoters function in human cells.[39] This means that if promoters were to transfer out of GM food (which they do) and integrate into human DNA (which needs to be studied), they might permanently switch on random genes inside of us, overproducing a toxin, allergen, carcinogen, etc. In fact, if the promoters were to be inhaled in GM pollen and then transfer to human DNA… But wait, that’s probably “wild and implausible.”

19.3 million ha…

JS: GM crops are planted to 1.6% of all arable land, 98% of which is found in only 5 countries, 99.9% of which comprise only 4 crops: soy, corn, cotton and canola.

No reports of adverse effects…

This is one of the most unscientific—and dangerous—statements made by Lombard. Thousands of people had died before AIDS was discovered. Millions suffered from cigarettes before the health effects were known. Food-related illness in the US doubled between 1994 and 2001, during the time GM foods were introduced. But I can’t say that the disease rates were GM-related, and Lombard can’t say they’re not. Since no one is monitoring the population for health effects of GM foods, it could take decades to identify even serious problems.

Lombard’s statement is also an insult to the 5,000-10,000 people who fell sick due to a genetically engineered brand of the food supplement called L-tryptophan, which was sold in the US in the 1980s. More than 100 people died and many are permanently disabled. There is a new report on L-tryptophan at www.seedsofdeception.com, by a journalist who spent nearly a decade investigating this deadly epidemic. He reveals how evidence was suppressed or not followed-up, and how the FDA withheld information from the public and Congress in an apparent attempt to protect the biotech industry.

Comments…

Monsanto is a chief contributor to Lombard’s Public Relations services. That is the same company that was fined for bribing 140 Indonesian officials, that sues farmers for patent infringement when the company’s GM seeds blow onto their land, that assured us Agent Orange was safe, and whose executives’ described the ideal future as a world in which 100% of all commercial seeds were genetically engineered and patented. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning a town next to their factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct “so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society.”[40]

This same company is responsible for conducting the safety studies on its own GM foods. And in South Africa, the only country that allows the genetic modification of a food staple, the government has entrusted Monsanto with the health of its people.






Document Number: 3152
Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug
The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!.

Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 3

I know from personal experience how satisfying it is to catch some nasty multinational corporation telling lies about the safety of their product—especially when that company is Monsanto, the world’s largest maker of genetically modified (GM) foods. So I could only imagine the excitement of investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had caught a Monsanto executive on film repeatedly lying about GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).

The two worked at WTVT, a Fox television station in Tampa, Florida, and were described as a “television dream team.” Akre was a former CNN anchorwoman and reporter, Wilson a three-time Emmy Award winner whom Penthouse described as “one of the most famous and feared journalists in America.” Their four-part news series on rbGH was scheduled to begin on February 24, 1997. It was going to expose Monsanto’s lies to the world, and show how the milk from treated cows was dangerously linked to cancer.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Monsanto’s Lies

Monsanto’s dairy research director Bob Collier, PhD, was the rbGH front man who was interviewed by Jane Akre. Here is a sample of some of his claims.

Collier said, [rbGH] “is the single most-tested product in history.” The reporters, however, found that “experts in the field of domestic animal science say that this claim is demonstrably false.”

When asked why rbGH had not been approved in Europe, he said the EU “approved it technically from a safety standpoint, but the dairy policy there was such that they still have price supports . . . it proved to be a moratorium based on market issues not health issues.”

In reality, health was Europe’s key reason for banning the drug. A December 1994 letter from the Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission to the director of the FDA stated,

“Consumers in the European Community and their representatives in the European Parliament are apparently much more concerned about the unresolved human health issues related to [rbGH] than your agency was when it authorized the product.”

When Akre asked Collier whether injections “rev up” the cows, he said the hormone “does not change the basal metabolic rate, it merely increases the amount of milk produced.” But his statement is contradicted even by Monsanto’s literature.

Injected cows also have much higher levels of udder infections, which put more pus in the milk. To treat this, farmers use more antibiotics, which also end up in the milk. But Collier claimed that increased levels of antibiotics in the milk weren’t a problem, since every truckload of milk is tested. But scientists and Florida dairy officials told the reporters that each truckload is only tested for penicillin-related antibiotics. There’s also a spot check for one other antibiotic every three months Such monitoring misses most of the more than 60 varieties of antibiotics used by dairy farmers.

Collier also made the wild claim, “We have not opposed” voluntary labeling of products as rbGH-free. In truth, Monsanto filed lawsuits against two small dairies to force them to stop labeling their milk as rbGH-free. According to Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly “The dairies folded and Monsanto then sent letters around to other dairy organizations announcing the outcome of the two lawsuits—in all likelihood, for purposes of intimidation.” Years later, as the trend towards rbGH-free milk started taking off, Monsanto asked the FDA and FTC to make such label claims illegal. When the feds turned down their request, Monsanto asked state governments to ban the labels.

At one point in the interview, Akre had had enough of Collier’s lies. She was not going to let him get away with it anymore. (Here is an excerpt from my book Seeds of Deception.)

Akre redirected the conversation to IGF-1, the growth hormone associated with cancer. Akre recollected, “I asked about the limited testing for the effects of altered milk on humans. Collier tells me ‘because the concentration of IGF-1 . . . doesn’t change, there is no change in exposure, so the FDA concluded there is no indication that long-term chronic studies were justified.’”

Now Akre was ready. She reached into a stack of papers on her lap—research she had collected and some of the five pounds of documents sent to her by Monsanto, which, she is sure, they didn’t expect her to read.

Akre pulled out an FDA report published in Science 1990, stating that Monsanto’s own studies clearly show an increase of IGF-1 in milk. Colliers, who was fidgeting, clearing his throat, and stammering, was clearly uncomfortable.

He reassured her that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Government Accounting Office also review the process for human safety and concluded that Monsanto’s test process was correct. But Akre was ready again: “I pull out an American Medical Association report that says further study is needed as to the effects of IGF-1 on humans.” She points out that the NIH also said more study is needed.

Collier then tried to claim that IGF-1 is destroyed during the process of digestion, but Akre had read the studies and knew that too was false.

Akre and Wilson wove Collier’s lies throughout their 4-part series, which made it clear that rbGH was a potentially huge public health danger. They were sure the program would have a big impact. They were right, but it wasn’t what they planned.

Monsanto Threatens Fox

On the Friday before Monday’s air date, Monsanto’s lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner.” Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars—for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch’s Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for “further review.”

After the Florida station’s general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week.

Monsanto’s attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story “could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News.” The airing was postponed indefinitely.

The Florida station’s general manager and news manager were soon fired, and according to Wilson, the new general manager was a salesman with no news experience. Wilson tried to convince him to run the rbGH story on its merits. He said Monsanto’s whole PR campaign was based on the false statement that milk from rbGH-treated cows is “the same safe wholesome product we’ve always known.” But even Monsanto’s own studies showed this to be a lie, and it could be endangering the public. Wilson recounted to me,

“I tried to appeal to his basic sense of why this is news. He responded, ‘Don’t tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We’ll tell you what the news is.’”

According to Wilson, the manager offered hush money to the two reporters. They would be paid the full amount of what was remaining in their contract, but they were free to go—essentially fired. But there was a catch. They were to agree never to talk about rbGH again—not for any other news organization.

Wilson responded, “I’m never going to agree for any amount of money you offer me to gag myself from revealing in some other time and place what’s going on here.” Wilson told me,

“He looked at us with this blank stare like he’d never heard such a thing. And he said, ‘I don’t get it. What’s with you people? I just want people who want to be on TV. . . . I’ve never met any people like you before.’ He just offered us 6 figures and to him what we were being asked to do in exchange was no big deal. Why in the world would we turn it down? And lose a chance to continue to be on TV—as if that is such a big deal that one would sell one’s soul to continue to do it.”

The reporters offered to re-write the show to make it more palatable, but with each draft, Fox attorneys instructed them to make it more favorable to Monsanto. Over the next 6 months, they re-wrote the script 83 times.

Akre and Wilson “were repeatedly instructed to include unverified and even some outright false statements by Monsanto’s dairy research director.” For example, they were told to include a statement that milk from rbGH-injected cows is the same and as safe as milk from untreated cows. The reporters said that management even threatened to fire them if the statement was not included.

Akre told me, “We knew it was a lie. Monsanto’s own study showed it was a lie. Yet we were told to leave that statement in without refutation, even though we had contrary evidence. That’s falsifying the news.”

When they showed the evidence to Fox’s lawyer that Monsanto’s claims were false, according to Wilson she replied, “You guys don’t get it—it isn’t about whether you have your facts right or whether it’s true. It’s the fact that we don’t want to put up $200,000 to go up against Monsanto.”

Fox suspended the two for “insubordination,” then fired them altogether.

TV News Goes to Court

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station. They based their case on Florida whistle-blower laws, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting (or threatening to report) . to a government regulatory agency. employer misconduct, which violates any law, rule or regulation speaking out (or threatening to speak out) against their employer for breaking the law. The jury awarded Akre $425,000, agreeing that her dismissal was retaliation for her threat to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the station’s plan to report false information on television.

Fox appealed and the case was overturned. It turns out that lying on TV is not against the law. The FCC’s policy against news distortion is a policy, not a “rule, law, or regulation,” so the Florida’s whistle-blower law did not apply. Furthermore, in a move certain to chill future whistleblowers, the court used the “Non-Prevailing Party Pays” provision of the state’s whistleblower protection act to rule that Akre and Wilson pay nearly $200,000 of Fox’s legal fees.

The reporters have since been the recipients of numerous awards for their ethics and courage, including the Goldman environmental prize, considered the Nobel Prize for the environment. The Fox station eventually ran a neutered report on rbGH that contained Monsanto’s false statement that rbGH milk is unchanged. Fortunately, one of the earlier versions of the original Akre and Wilson series became public domain when it was used as an exhibit in their trial. With their blessing, I extracted footage from their excellent piece for my 18-minute film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!, which is available online Also see Part 1, and Part 2 of this series.

Email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto a bill that would require all national dairy brands that label their products as rbGH-free, to also place a false disclaimer, saying that there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated cows.






Document Number: 6787
Monsanto Forced Fox TV to Censor Coverage of Dangerous Milk Drug
The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!.

Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 3

I know from personal experience how satisfying it is to catch some nasty multinational corporation telling lies about the safety of their product—especially when that company is Monsanto, the world’s largest maker of genetically modified (GM) foods. So I could only imagine the excitement of investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had caught a Monsanto executive on film repeatedly lying about GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).

The two worked at WTVT, a Fox television station in Tampa, Florida, and were described as a “television dream team.” Akre was a former CNN anchorwoman and reporter, Wilson a three-time Emmy Award winner whom Penthouse described as “one of the most famous and feared journalists in America.” Their four-part news series on rbGH was scheduled to begin on February 24, 1997. It was going to expose Monsanto’s lies to the world, and show how the milk from treated cows was dangerously linked to cancer.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Monsanto’s Lies

Monsanto’s dairy research director Bob Collier, PhD, was the rbGH front man who was interviewed by Jane Akre. Here is a sample of some of his claims.

Collier said, [rbGH] “is the single most-tested product in history.” The reporters, however, found that “experts in the field of domestic animal science say that this claim is demonstrably false.”

When asked why rbGH had not been approved in Europe, he said the EU “approved it technically from a safety standpoint, but the dairy policy there was such that they still have price supports . . . it proved to be a moratorium based on market issues not health issues.”

In reality, health was Europe’s key reason for banning the drug. A December 1994 letter from the Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission to the director of the FDA stated,

“Consumers in the European Community and their representatives in the European Parliament are apparently much more concerned about the unresolved human health issues related to [rbGH] than your agency was when it authorized the product.”

When Akre asked Collier whether injections “rev up” the cows, he said the hormone “does not change the basal metabolic rate, it merely increases the amount of milk produced.” But his statement is contradicted even by Monsanto’s literature.

Injected cows also have much higher levels of udder infections, which put more pus in the milk. To treat this, farmers use more antibiotics, which also end up in the milk. But Collier claimed that increased levels of antibiotics in the milk weren’t a problem, since every truckload of milk is tested. But scientists and Florida dairy officials told the reporters that each truckload is only tested for penicillin-related antibiotics. There’s also a spot check for one other antibiotic every three months Such monitoring misses most of the more than 60 varieties of antibiotics used by dairy farmers.

Collier also made the wild claim, “We have not opposed” voluntary labeling of products as rbGH-free. In truth, Monsanto filed lawsuits against two small dairies to force them to stop labeling their milk as rbGH-free. According to Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly “The dairies folded and Monsanto then sent letters around to other dairy organizations announcing the outcome of the two lawsuits—in all likelihood, for purposes of intimidation.” Years later, as the trend towards rbGH-free milk started taking off, Monsanto asked the FDA and FTC to make such label claims illegal. When the feds turned down their request, Monsanto asked state governments to ban the labels.

At one point in the interview, Akre had had enough of Collier’s lies. She was not going to let him get away with it anymore. (Here is an excerpt from my book Seeds of Deception.)

Akre redirected the conversation to IGF-1, the growth hormone associated with cancer. Akre recollected, “I asked about the limited testing for the effects of altered milk on humans. Collier tells me ‘because the concentration of IGF-1 . . . doesn’t change, there is no change in exposure, so the FDA concluded there is no indication that long-term chronic studies were justified.’”

Now Akre was ready. She reached into a stack of papers on her lap—research she had collected and some of the five pounds of documents sent to her by Monsanto, which, she is sure, they didn’t expect her to read.

Akre pulled out an FDA report published in Science 1990, stating that Monsanto’s own studies clearly show an increase of IGF-1 in milk. Colliers, who was fidgeting, clearing his throat, and stammering, was clearly uncomfortable.

He reassured her that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Government Accounting Office also review the process for human safety and concluded that Monsanto’s test process was correct. But Akre was ready again: “I pull out an American Medical Association report that says further study is needed as to the effects of IGF-1 on humans.” She points out that the NIH also said more study is needed.

Collier then tried to claim that IGF-1 is destroyed during the process of digestion, but Akre had read the studies and knew that too was false.

Akre and Wilson wove Collier’s lies throughout their 4-part series, which made it clear that rbGH was a potentially huge public health danger. They were sure the program would have a big impact. They were right, but it wasn’t what they planned.

Monsanto Threatens Fox

On the Friday before Monday’s air date, Monsanto’s lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner.” Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars—for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch’s Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for “further review.”

After the Florida station’s general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week.

Monsanto’s attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story “could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News.” The airing was postponed indefinitely.

The Florida station’s general manager and news manager were soon fired, and according to Wilson, the new general manager was a salesman with no news experience. Wilson tried to convince him to run the rbGH story on its merits. He said Monsanto’s whole PR campaign was based on the false statement that milk from rbGH-treated cows is “the same safe wholesome product we’ve always known.” But even Monsanto’s own studies showed this to be a lie, and it could be endangering the public. Wilson recounted to me,

“I tried to appeal to his basic sense of why this is news. He responded, ‘Don’t tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We’ll tell you what the news is.’”

According to Wilson, the manager offered hush money to the two reporters. They would be paid the full amount of what was remaining in their contract, but they were free to go—essentially fired. But there was a catch. They were to agree never to talk about rbGH again—not for any other news organization.

Wilson responded, “I’m never going to agree for any amount of money you offer me to gag myself from revealing in some other time and place what’s going on here.” Wilson told me,

“He looked at us with this blank stare like he’d never heard such a thing. And he said, ‘I don’t get it. What’s with you people? I just want people who want to be on TV. . . . I’ve never met any people like you before.’ He just offered us 6 figures and to him what we were being asked to do in exchange was no big deal. Why in the world would we turn it down? And lose a chance to continue to be on TV—as if that is such a big deal that one would sell one’s soul to continue to do it.”

The reporters offered to re-write the show to make it more palatable, but with each draft, Fox attorneys instructed them to make it more favorable to Monsanto. Over the next 6 months, they re-wrote the script 83 times.

Akre and Wilson “were repeatedly instructed to include unverified and even some outright false statements by Monsanto’s dairy research director.” For example, they were told to include a statement that milk from rbGH-injected cows is the same and as safe as milk from untreated cows. The reporters said that management even threatened to fire them if the statement was not included.

Akre told me, “We knew it was a lie. Monsanto’s own study showed it was a lie. Yet we were told to leave that statement in without refutation, even though we had contrary evidence. That’s falsifying the news.”

When they showed the evidence to Fox’s lawyer that Monsanto’s claims were false, according to Wilson she replied, “You guys don’t get it—it isn’t about whether you have your facts right or whether it’s true. It’s the fact that we don’t want to put up $200,000 to go up against Monsanto.”

Fox suspended the two for “insubordination,” then fired them altogether.

TV News Goes to Court

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station. They based their case on Florida whistle-blower laws, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting (or threatening to report) . to a government regulatory agency. employer misconduct, which violates any law, rule or regulation speaking out (or threatening to speak out) against their employer for breaking the law. The jury awarded Akre $425,000, agreeing that her dismissal was retaliation for her threat to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the station’s plan to report false information on television.

Fox appealed and the case was overturned. It turns out that lying on TV is not against the law. The FCC’s policy against news distortion is a policy, not a “rule, law, or regulation,” so the Florida’s whistle-blower law did not apply. Furthermore, in a move certain to chill future whistleblowers, the court used the “Non-Prevailing Party Pays” provision of the state’s whistleblower protection act to rule that Akre and Wilson pay nearly $200,000 of Fox’s legal fees.

The reporters have since been the recipients of numerous awards for their ethics and courage, including the Goldman environmental prize, considered the Nobel Prize for the environment. The Fox station eventually ran a neutered report on rbGH that contained Monsanto’s false statement that rbGH milk is unchanged. Fortunately, one of the earlier versions of the original Akre and Wilson series became public domain when it was used as an exhibit in their trial. With their blessing, I extracted footage from their excellent piece for my 18-minute film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!, which is available online Also see Part 1, and Part 2 of this series.

Email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto a bill that would require all national dairy brands that label their products as rbGH-free, to also place a false disclaimer, saying that there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated cows.





Document Number: 4308
FDA Promotes Unsafe Milk Due to Industry Pressure
The following is the second part of a series called Get Our Milk Off Drugs, written in response to pending legislation that would interfere with dairies who want to label their products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Although the bill was passed in the Kansas legislature, it would effect the labeling of every product sold in the state, including all national brands. Therefore, we ask everyone to email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto the bill. Furthermore, since Governor Sebelius is expected to become the new Secretary of Health and Human Services, the email asks her to use her new appointment to ban this dangerous drug once and for all.

The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs–Just Say No!.



Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 2

(See part 1 for the link between bovine growth hormone (rbGH) and cancer.)

“The whole rbGH thing represents fundamental flaws in the regulatory process. . . . It was bad science and bad regulation.”

This was the conclusion of former FDA veterinarian Richard Burroughs, who was a lead reviewer in the approval process of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) for nearly five years. The drug “was approved prematurely without adequate information,” says Burroughs, whose life and career became a casualty in a perfect storm of industry manipulation and political collusion.

As the only member of the FDA team who had dairy herd experience, Burroughs wrote the original protocols for evaluating the safety of rbGH on cows. The FDA didn’t conduct the tests themselves. It was always the drug’s maker who performed the studies and reported the results. But according to Burroughs, they “would come in and try to negotiate the protocols to water them down.” And when they ultimately presented their findings, Burroughs was shocked to discover, “They just went out and skewed the data.”

The drug’s maker Monsanto, for example, claimed that only a handful of cows developed udder infections, but documents later revealed the actual number to be 9,500. Furthermore, infected cows were often dropped from company studies altogether. And in tests designed to show that rbGH injections did not interfere with fertility, leaked FDA documents showed how researchers added cows to the study that were pregnant prior to injection.

According to Burroughs, even FDA officials “suppressed and manipulated data to cover up their own ignorance and incompetence.” He said that since the science behind the rbGH studies was well outside the expertise of agency employees, rather than admit they were in over their heads, “the Center decided to cover up inappropriate studies and decisions.”

One of the problems they faced was that Monsanto flooded them with huge amounts of irrelevant information, making it hard for them to properly analyze what was important. “We were overwhelmed by the magnitude of the research,” says Burroughs. At one point, the Human Safety Division reviewed forty volumes of submissions in just two weeks.

Burroughs refused to accept compromises on safety and demanded more tests. But in late 1989, he was fired and some of his tests canceled. “I was told that I was slowing down the approval process,”

At a trial that later reinstated him at the FDA, his former boss admitted that Burroughs had been set up. When he rejoined the agency, officials never let him see any rbGH data again and made his life miserable. He soon quit.

Rigging the numbers

Although some FDA scientists vehemently defended rbGH, their claims don’t hold up. They said, for example, that bovine growth hormone does not increase substantially in milk from treated cows. The study they cited, however, shows a 26% increase of the hormone. Furthermore, the cows used for that study had received a substitute rbGH formulation, at only 2% of the normal injected dosage.

The FDA scientists claimed that 90% of the bovine growth hormone in the milk was destroyed during pasteurization, so it wouldn’t matter even if there had been a substantial increase. But they failed to mention that the researchers pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal, and even then only destroyed 19% of the hormone. So they spiked the milk with powdered hormone–146 times the naturally occurring levels–heated that mixture 120 times longer than normal, and under those artificial conditions were able to destroy 90% of the hormone.

Canadian Government Scientists Say FDA Evaluation was a Façade

Years after the drug was on the market, Canadian government scientists analyzed the FDA’s approval process and wrote a lengthy and scathing report. It recounted omissions, contradictions, weaknesses, and gaps in the FDA’s approval process. Known as the Gaps Analysis Report, it concluded that the FDA’s “1990 evaluation was largely a theoretical review taking the manufacturer’s conclusions at face value. No details of the studies nor a critical analysis of the quality of the data was provided.”

According to the report, since rbGH was a hormone, “its chemistry should have prompted more exhaustive and longer toxicological studies in laboratory animals.” These are “usually required . . . to ascertain human safety.” Because they weren’t conducted, “such possibilities and potential as sterility, infertility, birth defects, cancer and immunological derangements were not addressed.”

Studies normally used to determine whether a drug is carcinogenic will test two different species for about two years–the lifetime of mice or rats. But Monsanto tested rbGH on rats for 28 or 90 days. FDA official John Scheid later admitted to the Associated Press that the agency had never actually examined the raw data from Monsanto’s rat feeding study; rather they based their conclusions on a summary provided by Monsanto. According to Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly, “relying on a summary of a study, rather than on detailed data from the study, would violate FDA’s published procedures.”

The Gaps report showed that the FDA “improperly reported” data from the feeding study, arriving at false and unsupported conclusions of safety. When the Canadians pointed out that 20 to 30 percent of the rats fed rbGH developed antibody responses, the FDA was forced to admit that they had accidentally overlooked the antibody study entirely. Furthermore, the Canadian report showed that some male rats which were fed the hormone developed cysts on their thyroid and changes in their prostate gland, which should have prompted further investigation.

The Canadian report also pointed out that injected cows suffer from “numerous adverse effects” and that the milk and meat from sick cows may make us sick. Hormone-treated cows can develop birth defects, reproductive disorders, udder infection, foot and leg injuries, metabolic disorders, uterine infections, indigestion, bloat, diarrhea, lesions, and shortened lives. Cows on the drug for only eight months had much larger hearts, livers, kidneys, ovaries, and adrenal glands. The Canadians wrote that although the significant changes in the health of cows “may have had an impact on human health,” this was not taken into consideration by the FDA when they approved the drug.

Monsanto Hijacks Regulators

Bovine growth hormone was the first genetically engineered animal drug reviewed by the FDA, and there was a lot of pressure to get it approved quickly. Both the first Bush and Clinton White Houses had ordered the agency to promote biotechnology and the agency was apparently doing whatever it took to follow orders.

Disgruntled FDA employees wrote an anonymous letter to Congressmen, claiming that the whole rbGH evaluation process was embroiled in fraud and conflict of interest. For example, they complained of the role of Dr. Margaret Miller.

“[Miller] wrote the FDA’s opinion on why milk from [rbGH]-treated cows should not be labeled. However, before coming to FDA, Dr. Margaret Miller was working for the Monsanto company as a researcher on [rbGH]. At the time she wrote the FDA opinion on labeling, she was still publishing papers with Monsanto scientists on [rbGH]. It appears to us that this is a direct conflict of interest to have in any way Dr. Miller working on [rbGH].”

On April 15, 1994, three Congressmen responded to the letter’s allegations by asking the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate. The congressmen wrote, “The entire FDA review of rbGH seemingly has been characterized by misinformation and questionable actions on the part of both FDA and the Monsanto Company officials.” The letter also describes the previous attempt by the GAO to investigate the rbGH approval process, which they “had to abandon . . . because of the Monsanto Company’s refusal to make available to them all pertinent clinical and related data.” The letter directed the GAO to look into potential conflicts of interest not only for Margaret Miller, but also for Michael Taylor and Susan Sechen.

Sechen formerly conducted Monsanto-sponsored research on rbGH, and then joined the FDA to become the lead reviewer for the drug. Taylor used to be Monsanto’s outside attorney, working with them, according to the Congressmen’s letter, “regarding food labeling and regulatory issues.” The FDA created a new position for Taylor, as Deputy Commissioner for Policy. He was in charge of overseeing the formation of the agency’s policy on rbGH, which ultimately allowed rbGH on the market without adequate testing, and without mandatory labeling.
Taylor even wrote a paper expressing an opinion that if a dairy was to label its milk as rbGH-free, it should also include a bold disclaimer stating, “The FDA has determined that no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-supplemented and non-rbGH-supplemented cows.” This was a suggestion, not a requirement. But the Kansas legislature passed a law on April 3, 2009 making it a requirement for products sold in the state–including all national dairy brands. (Ask Governor Sebelius to veto that bill.)

Taylor also oversaw the FDA’s dangerous hands-off policy on genetically modified foods, which also benefited Monsanto at the expense of public health. He eventually left the FDA for the USDA, where he worked on GMO issues. Taylor then took the position of vice president for Monsanto. He now works closely with the Obama administration on food safety.

Milk Controversy Spills into Canada

In 1998, six Canadian government scientists, including those who wrote the Gaps Analysis Report, testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, even though they were convinced it was unsafe. They also testified that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to approve the drug without further tests. (A Monsanto representative told national Canadian television that the scientists had obviously misunderstood an offer for research money. US court documents later revealed that at the same time Canadian officials accused them of attempted bribery, Monsanto was actively offering bribes to about 140 government officials in Indonesia, trying to gain approval for their genetically modified seeds.)

In words reminiscent of Burroughs’ experience at the FDA years earlier, the Canadian scientists told the Senate committee, “pharmaceutical manufacturers have far too much influence in the drug approval process.” Scientists “often feel that their careers are threatened if they stand in the way of a drug they don’t believe is safe.” And “managers without scientific experience regularly overrule their decisions.”

One of the whistle-blowing scientists to testify, Shiv Chopra, revealed that the policy in the department is to “serve the client.” The client, however, is no longer defined as the public: “The client is now the industry.”

“We have been pressured and coerced to pass drugs of questionable safety, including [rbGH],” Chopra said. He “testified that one of his managers threatened to ship him and his colleagues to other departments where they would ‘never be heard of again’ if they didn’t hurry favorable evaluations of rbGH.”

Soon after testifying, Chopra was suspended by his department for five days without pay. The cause, he later told another Senate committee, was retaliation for his testimony.

In spite of blatant efforts within the government to approve rbGH, Canada ultimately banned it. Nonetheless, the health of Canadians is still impacted, as much of their imported milk is from drugged cows US.

The time for banning rbGH in the US is long overdue. Ask Governor Sebelius, who plans to be our next Secretary of Health and Human Services, to do so as her first act.

Read part 1, and part 3 of this series.







Document Number: 8472
Governor Sebelius Must Veto Kansas Bill That Endangers Milk Safety
Governor Sebelius wants to be our new Secretary of Health and Human Services. But before she is sworn in, she has an important job to do, which will demonstrate that she is serious about protecting the safety of our food supply. A bill passed the Kansas legislature on April 3rd, which would restrict any national US dairy from properly labeling their milk products as free from genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Governor Sebelius must veto it before the April 16th deadline.
Send Governor Sebelius an email urging her to do so.

Here is the first in a multi-part series explaining why Drugged Milk is dangerous, and how corporate manipulation, bad science, and political collusion pushed it into our food supply.

Also check out the 18-minute documentary Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!

Get Our Milk Off Drugs, Part 1

Milk from rbGH-treated cows may increase risk of cancer

Growth hormones are created in the pituitary gland. Back in the 1930s, they discovered that injecting cows with their own pituitary extracts boosted milk production. But the process was too expensive and not commercially viable—until genetic engineering came along.

Monsanto scientists took the cow gene that creates growth hormones, altered it, and inserted it into E. coli bacteria to create a living drug factory. The bacteria-created hormone is similar, but not identical to the naturally occurring variety. Monsanto marketed it under the brand name Posilac. It is also called recombinant bovine growth hormone (rbGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST).When injected into a cow, it boosts their whole metabolism. Milk production goes up by about 5%. But cows often get sick and die young.

Approved in the United States in 1993, by 2002 rbGH was used on 22% of the nation’s dairy cows. It is banned in the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.

Milk from treated cows is different from normal milk. It has more pus, more antibiotics, more bovine growth hormone, and most importantly, higher levels of the hormone insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1). IGF-1 is one of the most powerful growth hormones in the human body and is naturally present in cows’ milk.

Milk drinkers increase their IGF-1 levels. One study showed a 10% increase. Another, analyzing diets of more than 1,000 nurses, showed milk was the food most associated with high IGF-1 levels. Neither of these studies used milk from cows treated with rbGH. If they had, the results may have been considerably more significant, since levels of IGF-1 in milk from treated cows can be up to 10 times higher, and according to rbGH expert Samuel Epstein MD, detection methods may underestimate the amount and impact of this increase by up to forty fold.

High IGF-1 levels is a huge cancer risk, according to more than three dozen studies. A Harvard study of 15,000 white males found those with elevated blood levels to be four times more likely to get prostate cancer than average men. In a Lancet study, premenopausal US women below age 50 with high IGF-1 levels were seven times as likely to develop breast cancer. “With the exception of a strong family history of breast cancer,” the authors warned, “the relation between IGF-1 and risk of breast cancer may be greater than that of other established breast cancer risk factors.” The International Journal of Cancer described a “significant association between circulating IGF-1 concentrations and an increased risk of lung, colon, prostate, and pre-menopausal breast cancer.” A 1999 European Commission report concluded: “Avoidance of rbGH dairy products in favor of natural products would appear to be the most practical and immediate dietary intervention to . . . (achieve) the goal of preventing cancer.”

There are a few ways in which IGF-1 may promote cancer. It causes cells to divide. It reduces programmed cell death (apoptosis) in tumor cells. And it inhibits the ability of various anti-cancer drugs to kill cultured human breast cancer cells.

The link between IGF-1 and cancer prompted the American Nurses Association to call for the elimination of rbGH in dairy production. The American Medical Association’s past president urged hospitals to serve only rbGH-free milk, and over 160 hospitals have already pledged to do so. Schools nationwide have also banned drugged milk.

Consumer reaction has prompted a tipping point in the dairy industry. Over the last three years, companies such as Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Dannon, Yoplait, and more than half of the nation’s top 100 dairies have committed to stop using rbGH in some or all of their products. But the Kansas legislation, if not vetoed by Governor Sebelius, would require all brands that sell rbGH-free in the state, including national brands, to add a large and deceptive disclaimer to their package which falsely claims that rbGH does not change the quality of the milk. The bill even dictates the placement of the disclaimer. This would likely discourage some dairies from making rbGH-free claims on their package. And without that, they might also abandon their rbGH-free status altogether.

In short, this misguided legislation may ultimately take away your choices for healthier milk and promote cancer.

Please email Governor Sebelius, asking her to veto this misguided bill, before the April 16th deadline

Also check out the video on rbGH. Drink rbGH-free milk. And read part 2 and part 3 of this blog, including hijacked regulators, fired whistleblowers, suppressed news coverage, and more.






Document Number: 3623
Anniversary of a Whistleblowing Hero


Twelve years ago, a 150-second TV broadcast changed our world; everyone everywhere owes a debt of gratitude to the man whose life it turned upside down—in his effort to protect ours. On August 10, 1998, eminent scientist Dr. Arpad Pusztai (pronounced Poos-tie) dared to speak the truth.

He had been an enthusiastic supporter of genetic engineering, working on cutting edge safety research with genetically modified (GM) foods. But to his surprise, his experiments showed that GM foods were inherently dangerous. When he relayed his concerns during a short television interview in the UK, things got ugly. With support from the highest levels of government, biotech defenders quickly mobilized a coordinated attack campaign trying to distort and cover up the evidence.

It worked for a while, but when an order of Parliament lifted Dr. Pusztai’s gag order, the revelations touched off a media firestorm that ultimately kicked GM foods out of European supermarkets, and derailed the industry’s timetable to quickly replace virtually all food with genetically engineered alternatives.

I recount the dramatic story of Dr. Pusztai below. In Part 2, I respond point-by-point to the biotech industry’s denial and spin over the Pusztai affair, which is still being hyped in their new attack website.

Pusztai’s Hot Potatoes

By early 1996, genetically modified tomatoes had been sold in US supermarkets for more than a year, and GM soy, corn, and cottonseed were about to be widely planted. But not a single peer-reviewed study on the safety of GM foods had been published, and there was not even an agreed-upon protocol for answering the question,"Is this stuff safe?”

The UK government was about to change all that, and Hungarian born chemist Dr. Arpad Pusztai was their man to do it. He beat out 27 competing scientists for a £1.6 million grant to develop a safety testing protocol; it was supposed to eventually be required for all GM food approvals in Europe.

A Spud with Fire-Power

Pusztai’s team was working with the vegetable equivalent of a James Bond car—complete with built-in weaponry. A potato was outfitted with an assassin gene from the snowdrop plant; the gene produced"GNA lectin,” a protein that kills insects.

How did Dr. Pusztai feel about the fact that his prestigious Rowett Institute was preparing to release killer potatoes into supermarkets worldwide? Fine, actually. He knew that the GNA lectin was harmless—not to insects mind you, but to us mammals. Dr. Pusztai was the world’s leading expert on lectin proteins, and the GNA lectin was the one he knew most about. He had studied it for nearly seven years.

But when Dr. Pusztai fed the GM potato to rats using his new safety testing protocol, he got a shock. Nearly every system in the rats’ bodies was adversely affected—several in just 10 days. Their brains, livers, and testicles were smaller, while their pancreases and intestines were enlarged. The liver was partially atrophied. Organs related to the immune system, including the thymus and the spleen, showed significant changes. Their white blood cells responded to an immune challenge more slowly, indicating immune system damage.


In all cases, the GM potato created proliferative cell growth in the stomach and small and large intestines; the lining was significantly thicker than controls.  Although no tumors were detected, such growth can be precancerous.

Side Effects of Genetic Engineering Implicated

Dr. Pusztai and his team knew that the GNA lectin had not caused the damage. Other rats had been fed natural potatoes spiked with the same amount of GNA insecticide that the GM spud produced—and they did fine. The control group fed natural potatoes without added lectin were also in good shape. And in a previous experiment, Dr. Pusztai had fed rats an enormous quantity of the lectin, about 700 times the amount produced in the GM potato, again with no effect.

The damage to the rats, it appeared, came rather from the unintended side effects of the genetic engineering process. These effects (from gene insertion and cell cloning) may include massive collateral damage in a plant’s DNA, with hundreds or thousands of mutations. Important natural genes can be inadvertently turned off, permanently turned on, deleted, reversed, scrambled, moved, fragmented, or changed in their activity level.

Dr. Pusztai wanted to find out precisely what went wrong in his potatoes, so he asked the government to provide more funds to conduct follow-up studies. But Prime Minister Tony Blair, his ministers, and his entire political party, were all unapologetic biotech cheerleaders trying desperately to promote them to a skeptical public. Exposing problems with GMO technology wasn’t on the government’s agenda. Additional funds were not forthcoming.

Biotech Damage Control Kicks In

The UK television show "World in Action" asked Dr. Pusztai for an interview. With permission from his Institute’s director, he spoke generally about his concerns with GMOs based on the findings. He was careful not to reveal the details of his study, which was still unpublished.

His 150-second interview was aired on August 10, 1998. The European Press went wild and Dr. Pusztai was propelled to the status of hero at the Rowett Institute. The Institute’s director, Professor Phillip James, took over all the publicity efforts, described the research as a huge advance in science, and wrote in a press release,"a range of carefully controlled studies underlie the basis of Dr. Pusztai’s concerns.”

On the afternoon of August 11th, two phone calls were allegedly placed from the UK prime minister’s office, forwarded through the Institute’s receptionist, to Professor James. Dr. Pusztai’s hero status was revoked.

The next morning, the director suspended Dr. Pusztai after 35 years of service. He was silenced with threats of a lawsuit and his twenty member research team disbanded. The government never implemented their GMO safety testing protocol.

The Institute released numerous statements, some contradicting each other, others misrepresenting the research, but all designed to discredit Dr. Pusztai and the implications of his findings.

Seven months (and one heart attack) later, Dr. Pusztai’s gag order was lifted when the Parliament invited him to testify. As the true details of the study began to emerge, the media responded. About 750 articles on GMOs were pumped out within the month.

Biotech advocates swung into action. According to a leaked document obtained by The Independent on Sunday, three government ministers prepared"an astonishingly detailed strategy for spinning, and mobilizing support for” GM foods."One of [the] ministers’ main concerns,” said the report,"was to rubbish research by Dr. Arpad Pusztai.”

The ministers’ campaign relied on the participation of certain scientists, including those in the Royal Society, who could voice uncompromising support for GMOs. According to the newspaper, many of these scientists, while promoted as"independent,” had received compensation directly or indirect from the biotech companies. The Independent admonished the government’s actions as a"a cynical public relations exercise.”

But the spin campaign was too little, too late. By the end of April 1999, just 10 weeks after Dr. Pusztai’s gag order was lifted, the public’s distrust of GMOs reached a tipping point. Use of GM ingredients had become a marketing liability. Within a single week nearly every major food company committed to stop using GMOs in Europe.

Editor Threatened

With his data finally returned to him, Dr. Pusztai and a colleague submitted their paper to a renowned scientific journal, The Lancet. Its editor, Richard Horton, told The Guardian,"there was intense pressure on The Lancet from all quarters, including the Royal Society, to suppress publication.” The paper passed the peer review and was set to appear on October 15, 1999.

On October 13, Horton received a call from a senior member of the Royal Society. According to the Guardian, Horton,"said the phone call began in a ‘very aggressive manner.’ He said he was called ‘immoral’ and accused of publishing Dr. Pusztai’s paper which he ‘knew to be untrue.’ Towards the end of the call Dr. Horton said the caller told him that if he published the Pusztai paper it would ‘have implications for his personal position’ as editor.”

Although Horton declined to name the caller, the Guardian"identified him as Peter Lachmann, the former vice-president and biological secretary of the Royal Society and president of the Academy of Medical Sciences.” Lachmann had been one of the co-signers on the Royal Society’s open letter attacking Pusztai. He also had extensive financial ties to the biotech industry. In spite of his threats, The Lancet went forward with publication.

Courage, Integrity, and the Public’s Right to Know

In the years since this controversy, Dr. Pusztai has given more than 200 lectures around the world on GMOs. He has been commissioned by the German government, academic publications, and others to do comprehensive analyses of GMO safety studies. In 2005, he received the Whistleblower Award from the Federation of German Scientists (VDW). And in 2009, he and his wife, Dr. Susan Bardocz—also an expert on GMO safety and formerly of the Rowett Institute—were presented with the Stuttgart Peace Prize for their tireless advocacy for independent risk research, as well as their courage, scientific integrity, and their undaunted insistence on the public’s right to know the truth.

In 2008, on the tenth anniversary of his TV show, Dr. Pusztai reflected:

"On this anniversary I have to admit that, unfortunately, not much has changed since 1998. In one of the few sentences I said in my broadcast ten years ago, I asked for a credible GM testing protocol to be established that would be acceptable to the majority of scientists and to people in general. 10 years on we still haven’t got one. . .

"All of us asked for independent, transparent and inclusive research into the safety of GM plants, and particularly those used in foods. There is not much sign of this either. There are still ‘many opinions but very few data;’ less than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific papers have been published describing the results of work relating to GM safety that could actually be regarded as being of an academic standard; and the majority of even these is from industry-supported labs. . .”

Although pro-GM governments and the biotech industry continue ignore the mounting evidence of harm, there is now a movement among many medical doctors, scientists, and the public, to reject GM food, create a tipping point of consumer rejection against them in North America, and put GMOs back into the laboratory where they belong.

I describe Dr. Pusztai’s story in more detail in the first chapter of Seeds of Deception; his findings are also featured among the 65 documented health risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in my book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods.

New Website, Old Lies

Earlier this year, GMO advocates Bruce Chassy and David Tribe launched an attack site against Genetic Roulette. As part of their attempt to defend the safety of GMOs, they assail Dr. Pusztai’s work by reiterating the same faulty, self-contradicting arguments that were made during the smear campaign.

See Part 2 of this article, where their misleading arguments are exposed. This is the first in a series of point-by-point rebuttals to their website’s allegations.







Document Number: 9224
Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters
“This study was just routine,” said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto’s genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn’t shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths—a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)—so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

“Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs’ growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly.”

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said “The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile.”

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Hair Growing in the Mouth

Earlier this year, Surov co-authored a paper in Doklady Biological Sciences showing that in rare instances, hair grows inside recessed pouches in the mouths of hamsters.

“Some of these pouches contained single hairs; others, thick bundles of colorless or pigmented hairs reaching as high as the chewing surface of the teeth. Sometimes, the tooth row was surrounded with a regular brush of hair bundles on both sides. The hairs grew vertically and had sharp ends, often covered with lumps of a mucous.”

(The photos of these hair bundles are truly disgusting.)



At the conclusion of the study, the authors surmise that such an astounding defect may be due to the diet of hamsters raised in the laboratory. They write, “This pathology may be exacerbated by elements of the food that are absent in natural food, such as genetically modified (GM) ingredients (GM soybean or maize meal) or contaminants (pesticides, mycotoxins, heavy metals, etc.).” Indeed, the number of hairy mouthed hamsters was much higher among the third generation of GM soy fed animals than anywhere Surov had seen before.

Preliminary, but Ominous

Surov warns against jumping to early conclusions. He said, “It is quite possible that the GMO does not cause these effects by itself.” Surov wants to make the analysis of the feed components a priority, to discover just what is causing the effect and how.

In addition to the GMOs, it could be contaminants, he said, or higher herbicide residues, such as Roundup. There is in fact much higher levels of Roundup on these beans; they’re called “Roundup Ready.” Bacterial genes are forced into their DNA so that the plants can tolerate Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. Therefore, GM soy always carries the double threat of higher herbicide content, couple with any side effects of genetic engineering.

Years of Reproductive Disorders from GMO-Feed

Surov’s hamsters are just the latest animals to suffer from reproductive disorders after consuming GMOs. In 2005, Irina Ermakova, also with the Russian National Academy of Sciences, reported that more than half the babies from mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks. This was also five times higher than the 10% death rate of the non-GMO soy group. The babies in the GM group were also smaller and could not reproduce.



In a telling coincidence, after Ermakova’s feeding trials, her laboratory started feeding all the rats in the facility a commercial rat chow using GM soy. Within two months, the infant mortality facility-wide reached 55%.



When Ermakova fed male rats GM soy, their testicles changed from the normal pink to dark blue! Italian scientists similarly found changes in mice testes (PDF), including damaged young sperm cells. Furthermore, the DNA of embryos from parent mice fed GM soy functioned differently.

An Austrian government study published in November 2008 showed that the more GM corn was fed to mice, the fewer the babies they had (PDF), and the smaller the babies were.

Central Iowa Farmer Jerry Rosman also had trouble with pigs and cows becoming sterile. Some of his pigs even had false pregnancies or gave birth to bags of water. After months of investigations and testing, he finally traced the problem to GM corn feed. Every time a newspaper, magazine, or TV show reported Jerry’s problems, he would receive calls from more farmers complaining of livestock sterility on their farm, linked to GM corn.

Researchers at Baylor College of Medicine accidentally discovered that rats raised on corncob bedding “neither breed nor exhibit reproductive behavior.” Tests on the corn material revealed two compounds that stopped the sexual cycle in females “at concentrations approximately two-hundredfold lower than classical phytoestrogens.” One compound also curtailed male sexual behavior and both substances contributed to the growth of breast and prostate cancer cell cultures. Researchers found that the amount of the substances varied with GM corn varieties. The crushed corncob used at Baylor was likely shipped from central Iowa, near the farm of Jerry Rosman and others complaining of sterile livestock.

In Haryana, India, a team of investigating veterinarians report that buffalo consuming GM cottonseed suffer from infertility, as well as frequent abortions, premature deliveries, and prolapsed uteruses. Many adult and young buffalo have also died mysteriously.

Denial, Attack and Canceled Follow-up

Scientists who discover adverse findings from GMOs are regularly attacked, ridiculed, denied funding, and even fired. When Ermakova reported the high infant mortality among GM soy fed offspring, for example, she appealed to the scientific community to repeat and verify her preliminary results. She also sought additional funds to analyze preserved organs. Instead, she was attacked and vilified. Samples were stolen from her lab, papers were burnt on her desk, and she said that her boss, under pressure from his boss, told her to stop doing any more GMO research. No one has yet repeated Ermakova’s simple, inexpensive studies.

In an attempt to offer her sympathy, one of her colleagues suggested that maybe the GM soy will solve the over population problem!

Surov reports that so far, he has not been under any pressure.

Opting Out of the Massive GMO Feeding Experiment

Without detailed tests, no one can pinpoint exactly what is causing the reproductive travesties in Russian hamsters and rats, Italian and Austrian mice, and livestock in India and America. And we can only speculate about the relationship between the introduction of genetically modified foods in 1996, and the corresponding upsurge in low birth weight babies, infertility, and other problems among the US population. But many scientists, physicians, and concerned citizens don’t think that the public should remain the lab animals for the biotech industry’s massive uncontrolled experiment.

Alexey Surov says, “We have no right to use GMOs until we understand the possible adverse effects, not only to ourselves but to future generations as well. We definitely need fully detailed studies to clarify this. Any type of contamination has to be tested before we consume it, and GMO is just one of them.”






Document Number: 8655
Pseudo-Scientific Defense of GMO Safety is Smoke and Mirrors


Three years after I wrote Genetic Roulette, pro-GM scientists have finally taken me up on my challenge to supply evidence that counters any of the 65 risks highlighted in the book. So, it will be a great pleasure for me to respond to the 65 arguments recently posted on a new attack-Jeffrey website. Their effort offers a priceless opportunity to not only revisit each health risk, but also to show more precisely where and how the biotech industry comes up short in its defense. Be sure to subscribe to my Huffington Post blog to catch the fun.

In my initial challenge to the GMO industry, I sought rigorous, independent scientific data that would enrich the global discussion and better characterize GMO risks. But the posts written by biotech apologists Bruce Chassy and David Tribe demonstrate without doubt how flimsy and unsupported the industry’s claim is that GMOs are safe. Their evidence is neither independent nor rigorous. Instead, Chassy and Tribe merely dust off the same old false assumptions and blatant fabrications that have long been exposed as hollow and even shameless. GMWatch describes it as “disinformation and ad hominem attack dressed up as ‘the open-minded search for truth.’”

Dr. Brian John offers this take on the new site:

The whole exercise is utterly grotesque—and is based on the hoary old line that they (Chassy and Tribe) represent “proper” science and that anybody who disagrees with them or who provides “inconvenient” evidence is by definition either a charlatan or a nutter. Their line is that proper peer-reviewed science always shows that GM products are entirely safe, and that on the other side there is nothing but “misinformation.” That of course is a grotesque distortion—there are scores of peer-reviewed papers that Chassy and Tribe have to explain away as aberrations or as based on fraudulent research. In a bizarre sort of way, one has to admire their strange obsession, and one cannot dispute the vast amount of effort that they have put in to their latest exercise in vilification. Poison pours off every page on the web site.

And this is from the review of the site by GMWatch,

New Site Pushes Disinformation

The only thing that’s surprising about this desperate attempt on the part of the GM brigade to smear Jeffrey Smith’s book Genetic Roulette is that it took them so long. Jeffrey’s book has been out there since 2007 and we have seen it light fires under activists and scientists alike. They usually say something like: “I had no idea that all this scientific research showing problems with GM foods was out there.” Then they say: “Why weren’t we told?”

Jeffrey performed a great public service in publishing his book. But—and we hope he takes this as the compliment it’s meant to be—Jeffrey emphatically is not the point of this book. It’s a collection of scientific studies—many of them peer reviewed and published—showing negative findings on GM crops and foods. There are also cautionary statements by conservative, careful, and experienced scientists, based on solid data.

All Jeffrey does is present this dry-ish material in a way that’s understandable by the most scientifically challenged and jargon-phobic among us. As a talented science communicator, he stands aside and lets the findings speak for themselves, in the clearest of terms.

As Tribe and Chassy want to rubbish Jeffrey Smith’s book, they also have to rubbish the work of the scientists who carried out these studies, along with the judgment of the editors and peer reviewers of the scientific journals where the papers were published.

Tribe and Chassy will also have to prove that all the scientists within the US government who expressed warnings about the dangers of GMOs, and who are quoted in Jeffrey’s book, were out of their minds when they spoke or wrote those words. And if they were, then what does that say for the US regulatory system that the biotech industry likes to put forward as assuring safety? Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it

So Jeffrey Smith’s great sin, it seems, is to let the science speak for itself. This is the opposite of what Tribe and Chassy do. They grab a selection of worrying scientific findings that are foregrounded in the book. Then they engage in a childish game of wild speculation and distraction in a desperate attempt to make the data mean something other than what they obviously do mean. . .

When I wrote Genetic Roulette, I collaborated with more than 30 scientists, referenced hundreds of publications, and had each of the 65 health risks reviewed by at least three scientists. We all did our very best to make sure the information was accurate and up-to-date. I will likewise take the time necessary to prepare proper responses to Chassy and Tribe’s arguments. Look for them on my Huffington Post blog.

Safe eating,

Jeffrey






Document Number: 8780
PLU Codes Do Not Indicate Genetically Modified Produce


Let’s put a rumor to rest. No, the 5-digit PLU codes on produce do not tell you what is genetically modified or natural. This urban legend has circulated long enough, even on the best of websites. It’s time to take it down.

The 4-digit PLU codes on the sometimes-pain-in-the-neck labels glued to apples, for example, tell the checkout lady which is a small Fuji (4129) and which is a Honeycrisp (3283). She’ll know what to charge you and the inventory elves will know what’s what. If there’s a 5-digit code starting with 9, then it’s organic.

These numbers, organized by the Produce Marketing Association, have nothing to do with you. According to Kathy Means, Association Vice President of Public Relations and Government Affairs, this is an optional convention for retailers and their supplier and is not designed as a communication tool for customers. If you want to know which items are organic, look for the word Organic; and stop squinting at tiny codes.

GMO codes are hypothetical

Those that run PLU-universe figured that someday some retailer might want to distinguish between a GMO and a non-GMO for price or inventory purposes. So they created a convention of 5 digits starting with an 8, just in case it catches on. But it hasn’t. No one uses that number 8 as far as we can tell. And why would they? Most Americans say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled.

Some seed companies don’t even want gardeners to know which seed is genetically modified. One company that sells zucchini seeds outfitted with virus genes announced that they would refuse to sell seed packets in Vermont, since the state legislature requires GM seeds to be labeled.

Shopping Guide helps you avoid GMOs

Where does that leave you—if you happen to be one of those finicky eaters who values your immune and reproductive systems, and don’t want your kids to end up with the organ damage common among GMO-fed lab animals?

Fortunately, we’ve got you covered. Go to www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com and peruse the long lists of non-GMO and GMO brands by category. Download a two-page version, order the pocket guide, or even equip your iPhone with the new app “ShopNoGMO”.

Although a list of non-GMO brands won’t help you figure out if your produce is genetically modified, the great news is that there are only 4 GMO veggies or fruits at this point: papaya, but only from Hawaii and no where else; some zucchini and yellow squash, and some corn on the cob. For these, unless it says organic or boasts a non-GMO sign in the store, eating them is a gamble. It could be GMO.

If you’re not sure if GMOs are bad for you, we’ve got you covered there too. Visit www.HealthierEating.org, and read, listen, or watch, and find out why more and more doctors and medical organizations are prescribing non-GMO diets to all patients.





Document Number: 6233
Rude Awakening


A wise customer wanted to find out if the corn nuts she was eating were from genetically modified (GM) corn. She emailed the company and got a shocking reply. It began:

“Thank you for your contact. We are not aware of any GMO free corn in the U.S. We feel it is a ridiculous concern based on very poor science.”

The email, reproduced at the blog of Kelly the Kitchen Kop, even recommended:

“. . . if these concerns are truly important to you, you may be better served at a health food store.

We appreciate your patronage.

The Customer Support Team,

American Importing Co., Inc.”

Talk about being opinionated and misinformed.

There’s overwhelming evidence showing that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are unsafe. And there are plenty of sources for non-GMO corn.

Did this email get you angry? Are you thinking about flooding the company’s email with hostile missives? I had another idea.

I phoned the company owner.

I figured that although the email’s author was clearly misled, I also knew all about Monsanto and the other devious corporations that dis-informed him—and how they skillfully depict GMO critics as ridiculous and unscientific.

When I got President Andy on the phone and asked if his products were genetically modified (GM), it didn’t take me long to realize that he was almost certainly the author of his company’s tactless email. He launched into a diatribe blasting GMOs as the most misconceived issue in the entire food industry.

As I took notes documenting his string of incorrect statements, (no, there is no GMO wheat yet, same with apples; no there was not a massive death of monarch butterflies in Europe), he heard my keyboard tapping and stopped momentarily to ask who I was. I told him that I was a leading spokesperson on the dangers of GMOs, that I wrote the world’s bestselling book on the subject, and that I was doing a blog based on an email response sent by his customer service.

That didn’t slow him down in the least. Andy continued his rant, which literally went on for 12 minutes. I was impressed.

When he finally ran out of steam, I decided to begin my response by agreeing with him—that we certainly do need to apply real science on this issue. Then I told him the truth.

I told Andy of concerns by FDA scientists that GMOs might create serious, hard-to-detect health hazards, and how Monsanto’s man placed at the top of the agency ignored and covered-up the warnings. As a result, the FDA lets GMOs onto the market without any required safety tests.

I told Andy that I worked with more than 30 scientists to document 65 health risks of GMOs for my book Genetic Roulette, which cites peer-reviewed science, industry research, and medical investigations, among its 1100+ endnotes.

I told Andy about the American Academy of Environmental Medicine’s condemnation of GMOs, and their prescription of non-GMO diets for all patients. And how this renowned physician’s organization linked GMOs to infertility, immune system dysfunction, gastrointestinal problems, organ damage, and disruption of insulin and cholesterol regulation.

And I told Andy how the same corporations that fed him the lie that GMOs are safe, fired and gagged scientists who discovered that they’re not.

Now Andy was impressed.

And he realized he had been duped—that the information given to him and others in the food industry had been “filtered” by those earning profits from GMOs. He said that the science that I presented was not getting to the executives in the food industry, to people like him who want to give customers healthy food.

Andy was again on a roll, but with a different agenda. He now urged me to get in front of the decision makers in the food industry, and he even offered to help make it happen.

I told Andy that I was impressed by his passion, which he had unleashed on me like a fire hose at the beginning of the call. And I knew that once armed with the real evidence against GMOs, he could use that same passion and make a big difference.

Andy committed to order and read Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. And while waiting for it to arrive, he and his colleagues will review my keynote speech online, Everything You HAVE TO KNOW About Dangerous Genetically Modified Foods.

Before we hung up, Andy thanked me over and over for not being reactive to his initial onslaught, and for staying with him and leading him through the science.

I now have a new friend. And I am reminded again about the importance of educating leaders in the food industry as part of our campaign to rid the food supply of GMOs.

If you know a food company executive, please take the time to send him or her a link to the online video presentation, to the article showing that doctors now prescribe non-GMO diets, and to a summary of the GMO health risks. It’s time well spent.

And if they run a very large food company, please introduce me. I’m on a roll.

Safe eating.






Document Number: 2930

Supermarket News Forecasts Non-GMO Uprising
For a couple of years, the Institute for Responsible Technology has predicted that the US would soon experience a tipping point of consumer rejection against genetically modified foods; a change we’re all helping to bring about. Now a December article in Supermarket News supports both our prediction and the role the Institute is playing.

"The coming year promises to bring about a greater, more pervasive awarenes" of the genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in our food supply, wrote Group Editor Robert Vosburgh, in a trade publication that conventional food executives and retailers use as a primary source of news and trends in the industry. Vosburgh describes how previous food "culprits" like fat and carbs "can even define the decade in which they were topical," and suggests that GMOs may finally burst through into the public awareness and join their ranks.






Document Number: 2075
When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.

But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.

Oops. A study just proved them wrong.

Doctors at Sherbrooke University Hospital in Quebec found the corn’s Bt-toxin in the blood of pregnant women and their babies, as well as in non-pregnant women.i (Specifically, the toxin was identified in 93% of 30 pregnant women, 80% of umbilical blood in their babies, and 67% of 39 non-pregnant women.) The study has been accepted for publication in the peer reviewed journal Reproductive Toxicology.

According to the UK Daily Mail, this study, which “appears to blow a hole in” safety claims, “has triggered calls for a ban on imports and a total overhaul of the safety regime for genetically modified (GM) crops and food.” Organizations from England to New Zealand are now calling for investigations and for GM crops to be halted due to the serious implications of this finding.

Links to allergies, auto-immune disease, and other disorders

There’s already plenty of evidence that the Bt-toxin produced in GM corn and cotton plants is toxic to humans and mammals and triggers immune system responses. The fact that it flows through our blood supply, and that is passes through the placenta into fetuses, may help explain the rise in many disorders in the US since Bt crop varieties were first introduced in 1996.

In government-sponsored research in Italyii, mice fed Monsanto’s Bt corn showed a wide range of immune responses. Their elevated IgE and IgG antibodies, for example, are typically associated with allergies and infections. The mice had an increase in cytokines, which are associated with “allergic and inflammatory responses.” The specific cytokines (interleukins) that were elevated are also higher in humans who suffer from a wide range of disorders, from arthritis and inflammatory bowel disease, to MS and cancer (see chart).

Elevated interleukins	Associations
IL-6	Rheumatoid arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis, various types of cancer (multiple myeloma and prostate cancer)
IL-13	Allergy, allergic rhinitis, ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease)
MIP-1b	Autoimmune disease and colitis.
IL-12p70	Inflammatory bowel disease, multiple sclerosis
The young mice in the study also had elevated T cells (gamma delta), which are increased in people with asthma, and in children with food allergies, juvenile arthritis, and connective tissue diseases. The Bt corn that was fed to these mice, MON 810, produced the same Bt-toxin that was found in the blood of women and fetuses.

When rats were fed another of Monsanto’s Bt corn varieties called MON 863, their immune systems were also activated, showing higher numbers of basophils, lymphocytes, and white blood cells. These can indicate possible allergies, infections, toxins, and various disease states including cancer. There were also signs of toxicity in the liver and kidneys.iii

Natural Bt is dangerous

Farmers have used Bt-toxin from soil bacteria as a natural pesticide for years. But they spray it on plants, where it washes off and biodegrades in sunlight. The GM version is built-in; every plant cell has its own spray bottle. The toxin doesn’t wash off; it’s consumed. Furthermore, the plant-produced version of the poison is thousands of times more concentrated than the spray; is designed to be even more toxic; and has properties of known allergens—it actually fails the World Health Organization’s allergen screening tests.iv

The biotech companies ignore the substantial difference between the GM toxin and the natural bacteria version, and boldly claim that since the natural spray has a history of safe use in agriculture, it’s therefore OK to put the poison directly into our food. But even this claim of safe use of Bt spray ignores peer-reviewed studies showing just the opposite.

When natural Bt-toxin was fed to mice, they had tissue damage, immune responses as powerful as cholera toxinv, and even started reacting to other foods that were formerly harmless.vi Farm workers exposed to Bt also showed immune responses.vii The EPA’s own expert Scientific Advisory Panel said that these mouse and farm worker studies “suggest that Bt proteins could act as antigenic and allergenic sources.”viii But the EPA ignored the warnings. They also overlooked studiesix showing that about 500 people in Washington state and Vancouver showed allergic and flu-like symptoms when they were exposed to the spray when it was used to kill gypsy moths.

Bt cotton linked to human allergies, animal deaths


Indian farm workers are suffering from rashes and itching and other symptoms after coming into contact with Bt cotton.
Now thousands of Indian farm laborers are suffering from the same allergic and flu-like symptoms as those in the Pacific Northwest simply from handling genetically engineered cotton plants that produce Bt-toxin. According to reports and records from doctors, hospitals, and pharmacies, as well as numerous investigative reports and case studies, workers are struggling with constant itching and rashes; some take antihistamines every day in order to go to work.

It gets worse.


All thirteen buffalo of a small Indian village died after grazing for a single day on Bt cotton plants.
When they allow livestock to graze on the Bt cotton plants after harvest, thousands of sheep, goats, and buffalo died. Numerous others got sick. I visited one village where for seven to eight years they allowed their buffalo to graze on natural cotton plants without incident. But on January 3rd, 2008, they allowed their 13 buffalo to graze on Bt cotton plants for the first time. After just one day’s exposure, all died. The village also lost 26 goats and sheep.

One small study in Andhra Pradesh reported that all six sheep that grazed on Bt cotton plants died within a month, while the three controls fed natural cotton plants showed no adverse symptoms.

Living pesticide factories inside us?

Getting back to the Bt-toxin now circulating in the blood of North American adults and newborns—how did it get there? The study authors speculate that it was consumed in the normal diet of the Canadian middle class. They even suggest that the toxin may have come from eating meat from animals fed Bt corn—as most livestock are.

I’d like to speculate on another possible source. But I warn you, it’s not pretty.

The only human feeding study every published on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) was conducted on Roundup Ready soybeans. Here’s their back story: Scientists found bacteria growing in a chemical waste dump near their factory, surviving the presence of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide. The herbicide normally kills bacteria, but this organism had some special gene that allowed it to survive. So Monsanto scientists figured, “Let’s put it into the food supply!”

By forcing that genes from that bacterium into soybean plants’ DNA, the plants then survive an otherwise deadly dose of Roundup herbicide—hence the name Roundup Ready.

In the human studyx, some of the subjects were found to have Roundup Ready gut bacteria! This means that sometime in the past, from eating one or more meals of GM soybeans, the gene that had been discovered in the chemical waste dump and forced into the soy, had transferred into the DNA of bacteria living inside their intestines—and continued to function. That means that long after we stop eating GMOs, we may still have dangerous GM proteins produced continuously inside of us.

When the results of the study emerged, the funding from the pro-GMO UK government mysteriously dried up, so they were not able to see if the same type of gene transfer happens with Bt genes from, say, corn chips. If it does, it means that eating Bt corn might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories—continually manufacturing Bt-toxin from within our digestive systems.

I don’t know of a test that can confirm that this is happening, but the Canada study may be showing the results—where Bt-toxins are found in the blood of a very high percentage of people.

If the “living pesticide factory” hypothesis is correct, we might speculate even further. Bt-toxin breaks open the stomach of insects. Could it similarly be damaging the integrity of our digestive tracts? The biotech companies insist that Bt-toxin doesn’t bind or interact with the intestinal walls of mammals, and therefore humans. But here too they ignore peer-reviewed published evidence showing that Bt-toxin does bind with mouse small intestines and with intestinal tissue from rhesus monkeys.xi In the former study, they even found “changes in the electrophysiological properties” of the organ after the Bt-toxin came into contact.xii

If Bt-toxins were causing leaky gut syndrome in newborns, the passage of undigested foods and toxins into the blood from the intestines could be devastating. Scientists speculate that it may lead to autoimmune diseases and food allergies. Furthermore, since the blood-brain barrier is not developed in newborns, toxins may enter the brain causing serious cognitive problems. Some healthcare practitioners and scientists are convinced that this is the apparent mechanism for autism.

Thus, if Bt genes were colonizing the bacteria living in the digestive tract of North Americans, we might see an increase in gastrointestinal problems, autoimmune diseases, food allergies, and childhood learning disorders—since 1996 when Bt crops came on the market. Physicians have told me that they indeed are seeing such an increase.

The discovery of Bt-toxin in our blood does not confirm all this speculation, but it does provide food for thought. And hopefully, that food is non-GMO.

Our Institute for Responsible Technology joins other organizations worldwide calling for an immediate ban on GM food crops, and the commencement of rigorous independent scientific research on the safety of GMOs in general, and Bt-toxin in particular.





Document Number: 9252
Cap the Gene Spill
It’s been a year since we started watching BP’s oil spew into the Gulf day after day. Although that’s been plugged and cleanup is underway, a more insidious form of pollution continues without containment, with much longer term consequences. You might think I’m talking about Fukushima’s nuclear catastrophe. Actually, the pollution I’m referring to about can outlast even thousands of years of active nuclear waste.

Watch this two-minute video Cap the Gene Spill, directed by Alex Bogusky, to find out how genes from genetically modified crops self-propagate and permanently alter the gene pool—for all future generations.

Alex is described by Fast Company as “the Elvis of advertising,” a “pop-culture Houdini,” and the “daddy of 21st-century advertising.” He designed the Truth Campaign for tobacco, brought the king to Burger King, was crowned “Creative Director of the Decade” by Adweek, and was a partner at a $1.5 billion company that Advertising Age named “Agency of the Decade,”…and then he walked away. Alex realized he could no longer speak his truth.

Now, under his own banner of The Fearless Revolution, he’s harnessing the power of truth to create “an educated and empowered consumer,” who will act as “a sudden and powerful counterbalance to corporate power.”

Alex and I would like you to know the truth about genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Enjoy this first in a series of videos, appropriately released on Earth Day.

After viewing, please consider making a donation to our Institute for Responsible Technology, which works everyday to help cap the gene spill. Your donation will be doubled this month by a generous matching grant from Nutiva.

Safe eating,

Jeffrey Smith






Document Number: 5457
GMOs Linked to Organ Disruption in 19 Studies
A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.

“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”

The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.

Feed’em longer!

One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.

Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”

“Pesticide Plants”

Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.

When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”

GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”

Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”

It’s not the same stuff that farmers spray

Regulators claim that the Bt-toxin produced inside GM corn is safe. They say that the Bt gene comes from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which has been safely applied as a spray-on insecticide by farmers in the past. But the authors insist that “the argument about ‘safe use history’ of the wild Bt protein . . . cannot, on a sound scientific basis, be used for direct authorizations of . . . GM corns,” without conducting proper long-term animal feeding studies.

In order to justify their claim that the wild Bt-toxin is safe, the authors state that it must first be separately tested on animals and humans and then authorized individually for food or feed, which it has not. And even if the wild variety had been confirmed as safe, the GM versions are so different, they must require their own independent studies. The paper states:

“The Bt toxins in GMOs are new and modified, truncated, or chimerical in order to change their activities/solubility in comparison to wild Bt. For instance, there is at least a 40% difference between the toxin in Bt176 [corn] and its wild counterpart.”

Even though the isolated Bt-toxin from GM corn has not been tested on animals, rodent studies on corn containing the toxin do show problems. Male rats fed Monsanto’s MON863 corn, for example, had smaller kidneys with more focal inflammation and other “disrupted biochemical markers typical of kidney filtration or function problems.”

Stop with the dumb excuses

If statistically significant problems show up in their studies, biotech company researchers often attempt to explain away the adverse findings. But the authors of this review paper describe their excuses as unscientific, obsolete, or unjustified.

When male and female animals have different results, for example, biotech advocates claim that this couldn’t possibly be related to the feed. Since both genders eat the same amount, they argue, both would have to show the same reaction in all of their organs, etc. And if the group of animals fed with less of the GMO feed exhibit more severe reactions than the group fed the larger amount, advocates claim that this discrepancy also means that the GMOs could not be the cause, since there must always be a linear dose relationship.

The authors of this paper, however, point out that effects found in a GMO animal feeding study “cannot be disregarded on the rationale that it is not linear to the dose (or dose-related) or not comparable in genders. This would not be scientifically acceptable.” In fact, most “pathological and endocrine effects in environmental health are not directly proportional to the dose, and they have a differential threshold of sensitivity in both sexes. This is, for instance, the case with carcinogenesis and endocrine disruption.”

What’s the culprit, pesticide or plant?

The shortcomings of the feeding studies make it impossible to determine whether a particular problem is due to the added pesticide, such as Roundup residues or Bt-toxin, or due to the genetic changes in the modified plants’ DNA.

Mice fed Roundup Ready soybeans, for example, showed numerous changes indicating increased metabolic rates in the liver (i.e. irregular hepatocyte nuclei, more nuclear pores, numerous small fibrillar centers, and abundant dense fibrillar components). Since studies on Roundup herbicide also show changes in the liver cells of mice and humans, the Roundup residues within the soybeans may be a significant contributing factor to the metabolic changes.

Similarly, rats fed Roundup Ready corn showed indications that their kidneys leaked. Such an effect “is well correlated with the effects of glyphosate-based herbicides (like Roundup) observed on embryonic kidney cells.” Thus, the rats’ kidney problems may also be caused by the Roundup that is accumulated within Roundup Ready corn kernels.

In addition to the herbicide, the Bt-toxin insecticide produced inside GM corn might also cause disorders. The authors state, “The insecticide produced by MON810 [corn] could also induce liver reactions, like many other pesticides.” Studies do confirm significant liver changes in rats fed Bt corn.

On the other hand, “unintended effects of the genetic modification itself cannot be excluded” as the possible cause of these very same health problems. The process of gene insertion followed by cloning plant cells (tissue culture) can cause massive collateral damage in the plant’s DNA with potentially harmful side-effects. In MON810 corn, for example, the insertion “caused a complex recombination event, leading to the synthesis of new RNA products encoding unknown proteins.” The authors warn that “genetic modifications can induce global changes” in the DNA, RNA, proteins, and the numerous natural products (metabolites), but the faulty safety assessments are not designed to adequately identify these changes or their health impacts.

Population at risk

In addition to the shortcomings mentioned above, the paper shows how GMO feeding trials are “based on ancient paradigms” with “serious conceptual and methodological flaws,” employ statistical methods that obscure the findings, add irrelevant control groups that confuse and confound the analysis, and rely on numerous assumptions that either remain untested or have already proved false.

Unlike drug approvals, biotech companies do not conduct human studies. They would therefore fail to identify both general human health reactions, and the potentially more serious ones endured by sub-populations. “If some consumers suffer from stomach problems or ulcers,” for example, the paper states, “the new toxins will possibly act differently; the digestion in children could be affected too.” The paper recommends the implementation of post market monitoring, which, among other things, “should be linked with the possibility of detecting allergenicity reactions to GMOs in routine medicine.”

But even if authorities wanted to conduct epidemiological studies on GMOs, the authors acknowledge that they “are not feasible in America, since there is no organized traceability of GMOs anywhere on the continent.” Not only is labeling of GMOs urgently needed to allow such studies to proceed, the study says:

“The traceability of products from animals fed on GMOs is also crucial. The reason for this is because they can develop chronic diseases which are not utterly known today…. Labeling animals fed on GMOs is therefore necessary because some pesticide residues linked to GMOs could pass into the food chain.”

They also point out that “even if pesticides residues or DNA fragments are not toxic nor transmitted by themselves” nevertheless, “nobody would want to eat disabled or physiologically modified animals after long-term GMOs ingestion.”

“New experiments,” they concluded, “should be systematically performed to protect the health of billions of people that could consume directly or indirectly these transformed products.”

In the meantime, for those not willing to wait for the new studies, we recommend consulting the Non-GMO Shopping Guide at www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.





Document Number: 4882
The US is mobilizing against GMOs!
Have you caught the non-GMO buzz lately? GMOs are being blogged about, tweeted about, reported on, and talked about more than ever before. There were rallies all over the US in March, more rallies scheduled, and the topic is catching fire. A food executive at the recent natural products expo said, “This feels like the time we’ve been waiting for.” An activist at a recent festival said, “I am so amazed at how much people want to know about GMOs—our table was bombarded! I feel like we’re at a turning point.  I hope you do too.”

I certainly do, and we need to make sure this momentum grows into the tipping point of consumer rejection that we’ve been working for. This is a perfect time to pitch in.

Sign up for the Non-GMO Tipping Point Network, where you can join local and national Non-GMO Working Groups to do effective, compelling outreach. We have about 1500 people already, and we’re just getting started.
Become trained to speak about GMOs. I’ll be offering 10 one-day workshops and some online webinars, so you can involved wherever you are.
Please help us with a donation, which will be MATCHED BY NUTIVA! (up to $10K for April donations). Helping to reclaim a non-GMO food supply is a great way to celebrate Earth Month. Thank you to Nutiva and thank you to our wonderful contributors.
I personally have been racing to keep up with all the incredible opportunities (or as I prefer to say, Harvest all the low-hanging Non-GMO fruit). I leave for Canada this week, Colorado the next, and Texas, Connecticut, New York, California, Chicago, and Seattle soon after. Check out the calendar. In the four months between mid-January and mid-May, I’ll have been at home for a total of just one month.

It has now become impossible for me to travel so much, and write, and edit footage, and contact individuals and organizations, while also managing our staff and the operations of the Institute. So we’re now interviewing for a new Executive Director to run the show here, which will free me up to focus on getting the message out.

The rest of our staff are also swamped now, and could surely use more dedicated volunteers on critical jobs. Please look over our Help Wanted page if you have time and energy to contribute to our team.

Thanks for all your help. See you on the road…







Document Number: 3410

In Praise of the Non-GMO Project
There’s been some high voltage opinions darting about the blogosphere about the Non-GMO Project, which is the new third-party verifying organization for companies making Non-GMO claims. I have been watching and working with this organization for many years and I want to weigh in. I have unqualified support of the mission, tactics, and integrity of the organization. In fact, last year we made the requirement that for any product to be listed as non-GMO in our Non-GMO Shopping Guide or iPhone app ShopNoGMO, it had to be enrolled in the Non-GMO Project.

At some other time I’d like to share what I believe to be the pivotal role that the Non-GMO Project plays in coordinating the non-GMO activities of the natural products industry and in giving consumers reliable non-GMO choices. These are, in my opinion, extremely important for driving the tipping point of consumer rejection against GMOs—which is our Institute’s focus.

In this blog, however, I want to address the integrity of the leaders of the Project. It’s an important consideration, as those of us who avoid GMOs trust them to determine the validity of non-GMO claims.

It turns out we’ve already been placing trust in these folks for decades, as they are among the pioneers who created the natural food movement and the organic label, and have led the ever expanding push towards healthier products and socially responsible practices. They also have a long history of taking bold and sometimes unprecedented steps against GMOs.

This is by no means a formal biography. It’s just what I have learned from my years of interacting with them and why I’ve come to deeply respect them.

Craig Winter’s Short List

Craig Winters was a Non-GMO Hero. He was the founding leader of the Campaign for Labeling Genetically Engineered Foods and was a devout campaigner. He also was the main GMO activist who “worked” the natural food industry for years, disseminating materials, raising money, and rallying the troupes. In September 2003, at the Natural Foods Expo East, I launched my first book Seeds of Deception. Craig invited me to join a GMO meeting he had set up. He explained that he invited the very best industry leaders on the non-GMO topic. They were at the forefront, banging the non-GMO drum so that no one else in the industry could go to sleep on this issue. Furthermore they remained independent, carrying the real voice of the natural products consciousness in an industry more and more dominated by divisions of major food conglomerates. When I arrived at the meeting, I was introduced to a group that was to later comprise the majority of the board members of the Non-GMO Project. They are highlighted below.

The only retailer at the table was Bob Gerner. The Non-GMO Project was started at his two stores in El Cerrito and Berkeley California. Bob had been a pioneer of the natural foods industry. He was baking granola in Bay Area kitchens 40 years ago and had started Westbrae Organics. He then moved on to become the owner of the Natural Grocery Company. By the time we met at Expo East, he had made the bold move of selling the stores to his employees, sacrificing his personal finances to support his business ethics and ideals. The owner-employees funded staff time for socially responsible activities, among which was a Non-GMO Committee. It was this committee that recruited other retailers to collectively request/demand verified non-GMO products from vendors. This was the humble start of the Non-GMO Project in 2003.

Bob is a current member of the Board, as are two others representing the original retailers in the Project, Patrick Conner of The Big Carrot Natural Food Market, a worker owned food co-op in Toronto, and Mark Squire of Good Earth in Fairfax, CA. The Big Carrot Membership had already voted in 2001 to research the ingredients in every single food item in the store, in order to kick out products with GMOs. Devoting hundreds of labor hours in research, they learned first hand how valuable a uniform standard for non-GMO labeling would be and how urgently a standard was needed. Mark Squire of Good Earth had worked on the creation of the organic standards and applied his experience in helping to build the new standard for non-GMOs. Mark was also a leader in the successful ballot initiative that banned the planting of GMOs in Marin County, California.

At the Craig Winters meeting, Michael Funk was the unofficial ringleader. In fact, he had been organizing and funding natural food industry efforts against GMOs ever since I started on this issue in 1996. Michael is Chairman and founder of United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI), the largest natural foods distributor. He has distributed GMO books and films to his staff, hosted GMO speakers at company sponsored events, and provides industry updates on GMOs at the Expos. UNFI distributes our Institute’s Non-GMO Shopping Guide and GMO Health Risks brochures for free to retailers, and I have spent many hours in discussion with Michael configuring strategies and sharing updates.

Some of those discussions occurred in the fall of 2006. At the time, we wanted the Non-GMO Project to be embraced by the whole industry, but Michael knew that it first needed to expand beyond just a retailer initiative; other stakeholders needed to be represented. Selection of the new board members, he said, was key. They had to be leaders of high integrity, already committed to fighting GMOs, and able to rally the rest of the industry. That’s when the remaining members of Craig’s initial Expo meeting got tapped.

Arran Stephens, CEO and founder of Nature’s Path, was among them. In the preface of my book Seeds of Deception, Arran wrote, “We are now in the middle of the largest feeding experiment in history and we human beings are the guinea pigs.” His commitment to a non-GMO future is rooted in his spirituality, which is the mainstay of his life. For many years, Arran made sure that Nature’s Path products boldly proclaimed Non-GMO on their packaging. But when a giant Canadian food chain declared that they would not allow any products in their stores with such a label, Arran came up with a brilliant alternative. Although Nature’s path removed the sentence from the outside of their cereal boxes, they actually printed a complete advertisement against GMOs on the four inside walls! Bravo, Arran.

Nature’s Path has always tested their products for GMOs, and when the Non-GMO Project began and introduced even more stringent testing, the company signed up immediately. Nature’s Path has always been organic, always independent (for two generations now) and always a trailblazer.   (Dag Falck, Organic Program Manager at Nature’s Path, is now the current Nature’s Path representative on the Non-GMO Project Board.)

It takes about 60 seconds in the presence of Michael Potter, CEO of Eden Foods, to realize that he’s nobody’s yes man. Michael’s a radical, say-what’s-on-your-mind kind of guy, and has been the committed food cop at his company, making absolutely sure his products meet stringent standards—particularly non-GMO. Long before the Non-GMO Project came along, Eden Foods had a stringent, state of the art “Identity Preservation Program” in place, where they tested and documented the non-GMO status of all their ingredients. Michael was quite happy to see the Non-GMO Project come online, so that other companies with loose standards would have to tighten their act.

Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms, is a well-respected family farmer and businessman. He had been quietly educating other rice growers about GMO risks, who came to appreciate his foresight in 2006, after GM rice contamination caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to the US rice industry. Grant knows first-hand the need for tight segregation standards, and the cost of contamination.

The business card of Organic Valley’s George Siemon says CIEIO (say that out loud). George is the one who said no to Wal-mart. That’s right. He turned down the chance for his milk to continue to be sold in the largest retail chain because he wouldn’t have enough to sell through the smaller outlets that had grown up with his co-op. Organic Valley (OV) has been rushing to embrace all the best and greenest practices, including the complex task of verifying the non-GMO status of all the feed sources for all its co-op members.

I have spoken at company or company-sponsored meetings of every one of these board members. I have seen first hand that they are not only the vanguard of non-GMO food brands, but are also implementing a range of other policies and systems that walk their green talk. I’ve stood on the roof in UNFI’s Rocklin warehouse, for example, looking at a humongous solar panel system, which powers their huge deep freeze unit. Nature’s Path offers downsized packaging of cereals for a better eco-footprint. Organic Valley has implemented on-farm energy sourcing and asks its farmer members to implement a comprehensive list of healthy, green practices.

Three other board members who were not at Craig’s meeting but who are non-GMO pioneers include Whole Foods Market, John Fagan, and Megan Westgate.

Whole Foods Market’s seat on the Non-GMO Project Board is represented by Joe Dickson, the company’s Quality Standards Coordinator. I was first made aware of the company’s non-GMO position by Whole Foods Market’s Vice President of Quality Standards & Public Affairs, Margaret Wittenberg. She was an icon in the mandatory GMO labeling fight back when I started in 1996. She, along with Michael Funk, were at the forefront of organizing the industry to take a stand for labeling—working with the now defunct Mothers for Natural Law. Four years later, I witnessed the ripple effect throughout the natural food industry when Whole Foods committed to working with all of its own private label (store brand) products from non-GMO sources. They have since enrolled these products in the Non-GMO Project, which has meant that hundreds of their suppliers, co-packers, ingredient providers, and processors also got enrolled. Their multi-million dollar expenditure has made it much easier for smaller brands to also get verified non-GMO, since many of them use the same supporting vendors that are now enrolled.

Also on the board is John Fagan, PhD, whose integrity on the genetics issue was made clear to the world in 1994 when gave back NIH grant money worth over $1.32 million. This unprecedented move, which was trumpeted in media worldwide, was due to John’s concerns that his pioneering cancer DNA work would provide tools that could later be used to genetically engineer humans with inheritable “designer” traits. John also developed the first testing methods that could identify food and grain as GMO or non-GMO. This alone allowed countries and companies alike to finally say no to GMOs, and formed the basis for the continuing global fight.

In Megan Westgate’s previous role as the Outreach Coordinator at the Food Conspiracy Co-op in Tucson, she was in charge of a program that 95% of Americans say they are in favor of—labeling GMOs. Every single item in the store had a shelf tag that indicated the GMO risk for its ingredients. This monumental and very challenging task made it abundantly clear that a coordinated effort with a universal non-GMO standard was essential. When she learned about the Non-GMO Project, she saw it as the obvious solution. She became a volunteer, and is now the Executive Director. Megan has used amazing skill at accommodating diverse opinions on this hot topic. She not only fields input from a wide variety of stakeholders, she also has to reign in the board, the fiercely independent titan’s of the natural food industry. (I’m so glad I don’t have her job.)

As you can see, these board members ain’t too shabby. And now we are seeing the fruits of their labors, with thousands of products enrolled, and hundreds of retailers more engaged in GMO consumer education than ever before.

One of the best things about my job is that I get to meet some fantastic world leaders and visionaries, who are setting the trends for a healthier future. I’m glad to have taken this time to introduce you to a few of the gems I’ve found. And I hope that you, like I, can feel good that those at the helm of one of the most important food organizations of our time are worthy of your confidence.

Safe eating,

Jeffrey






Document Number: 213
Monsanto’s Roundup Triggers Over 40 Plant Diseases and Endangers Human and Animal Health
The following article reveals the devastating and unprecedented impact that Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide is having on the health of our soil, plants, animals, and human population. On top of this perfect storm, the USDA now wants to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, which will exacerbate this calamity. Please tell USDA Secretary Vilsack not to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa today. [Note: typos corrected from Jan 16th, see details]

While visiting a seed corn dealer’s demonstration plots in Iowa last fall, Dr. Don Huber walked past a soybean field and noticed a distinct line separating severely diseased yellowing soybeans on the right from healthy green plants on the left (see photo). The yellow section was suffering from Sudden Death Syndrome (SDS), a serious plant disease that ravaged the Midwest in 2009 and ’10, driving down yields and profits. Something had caused that area of soybeans to be highly susceptible and Don had a good idea what it was.


The diseased field on the right had glyphosate applied the previous season. Photo by Don Huber
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.

This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.

Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)



Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.
Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease

More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.

(Monsanto incentivizes farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to also use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. For example, they only provide warranties on the approved herbicide brands and offer discounts through their “Roundup Rewards” program. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)*

The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.

The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin, damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984 that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).
The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.

Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.
“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”

By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”

Roundup promotes human and animal toxins


Photo by Robert Kremer
Some of the fungi promoted by glyphosate produce dangerous toxins that can end up in food and feed. Sudden Death Syndrome, for example, is caused by the Fusarium fungus. USDA scientist Robert Kremer found a 500% increase in Fusarium root infection of Roundup Ready soybeans when glyphosate is applied (see photos and chart). Corn, wheat, and many other plants can also suffer from serious Fusarium-based diseases.

But Fusarium’s wrath is not limited to plants. According to a report by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, toxins from Fusarium on various types of food crops have been associated with disease outbreaks throughout history. They’ve “been linked to the plague epidemics” of medieval Europe, “large-scale human toxicosis in Eastern Europe,” oesophageal cancer in southern Africa and parts of China, joint diseases in Asia and southern Africa, and a blood disorder in Russia. Fusarium toxins have also been shown to cause animal diseases and induce infertility.

As Roundup use rises, plant disease skyrockets

When Roundup Ready crops were introduced in 1996, Monsanto boldly claimed that herbicide use would drop as a result. It did—slightly—for three years. But over the next 10 years, it grew considerably. Total herbicide use in the US jumped by a whopping 383 million pounds in the 13 years after GMOs came on the scene. The greatest contributor is Roundup.

Over time, many types of weeds that would once keel over with just a tiny dose of Roundup now require heavier and heavier applications. Some are nearly invincible. In reality, these super-weeds are resistant not to the glyphosate itself, but to the soilborne pathogens that normally do the killing in Roundup sprayed fields.

Having hundreds of thousands of acres infested with weeds that resist plant disease and weed killer has been devastating to many US farmers, whose first response is to pour on more and more Roundup. Its use is now accelerating. Nearly half of the huge 13-year increase in herbicide use took place in just the last 2 years. This has serious implications.

As US farmers drench more than 135 million acres of Roundup Ready crops with Roundup, plant diseases are enjoying an unprecedented explosion across America’s most productive crop lands. Don rattles off a lengthy list of diseases that were once under effective management and control, but are now creating severe hardship. (The list includes SDS and Corynespora root rot of soybeans, citrus variegated chlorosis (CVC), Fusarium wilt of cotton, Verticillium wilt of potato, take-all root, crown, and stem blight of cereals, Fusarium root and crown rot, Fusarium head blight, Pythium root rot and damping off, Goss’ wilt of corn, and many more.)

In Brazil, the new “Mad Soy Disease” is ravaging huge tracts of soybean acreage. Although scientists have not yet determined its cause, Don points out that various symptoms resemble a rice disease (bakanae) which is caused by Fusarium.

Corn dies young

In recent years, corn plants and entire fields in the Midwest have been dying earlier and earlier due to various diseases. Seasoned and observant farmers say they’re never seen anything like it.

“A decade ago, corn plants remained green and healthy well into September,” says Bob Streit, an agronomist in Iowa. “But over the last three years, diseases have turned the plants yellow, then brown, about 8 to 10 days earlier each season. In 2010, yellowing started around July 7th and yield losses were devastating for many growers.”

Bob and other crop experts believe that the increased use of glyphosate is the primary contributor to this disease trend. It has already reduced corn yields significantly. “If the corn dies much earlier,” says Bob, “it might collapse the corn harvest in the US, and threaten the food chain that it supports.”

A question of bugs

In addition to promoting plant diseases, which is well-established, spraying Roundup might also promote insects. That’s because many bugs seek sick plants. Scientists point out that healthy plants produce nutrients in a form that many insects cannot assimilate. Thus, farmers around the world report less insect problems among high quality, nutrient-dense crops. Weaker plants, on the other hand, create insect smorgasbords. This suggests that plants ravaged with diseases promoted by glyphosate may also attract more insects, which in turn will increase the use of toxic pesticides. More study is needed to confirm this.

Roundup persists in the environment

Monsanto used to boast that Roundup is biodegradable, claiming that it breaks down quickly in the soil. But courts in the US and Europe disagreed and found them guilty of false advertising. In fact, Monsanto’s own test data revealed that only 2% of the product broke down after 28 days.

Whether glyphosate degrades in weeks, months, or years varies widely due to factors in the soil, including pH, clay , types of minerals, residues from Roundup Ready crops, and the presence of the specialized enzymes needed to break down the herbicide molecule. In some conditions, glyphosate can grab hold of soil nutrients and remain stable for long periods. One study showed that it took up to 22 years for glyphosate to degrade only half its volume! So much for trusting Monsanto’s product claims.


Glyphosate can attack from above and below. It can drift over from a neighbors farm and wreak havoc. And it can even be released from dying weeds, travel through the soil, and then be taken up by healthy crops.

The amount of glyphosate that can cause damage is tiny. European scientists demonstrated that less than half an ounce per acre inhibits the ability of plants to take up and transport essential micronutrients (see chart).

As a result, more and more farmers are finding that crops planted in years after Roundup is applied suffer from weakened defenses and increased soilborne diseases. The situation is getting worse for many reasons.

The glyphosate concentration in the soil builds up season after season with each subsequent application.
Glyphosate can also accumulate for 6-8 years inside perennial plants like alfalfa, which get sprayed over and over.

Wheat affected after 10 years of glyphosate field applications.
Glyphosate residues in the soil that become bound and immobilized can be reactivated by the application of phosphate fertilizers or through other methods. Potato growers in the West and Midwest, for example, have experienced severe losses from glyphosate that has been reactivated.

Glyphosate can find its way onto farmland accidentally, through drifting spray, in contaminated water, and even through chicken manure!
Imagine the shock of farmers who spread chicken manure in their fields to add nutrients, but instead found that the glyphosate in the manure tied up nutrients in the soil, promoted plant disease, and killed off weeds or crops. Test results of the manure showed glyphosate/AMPA concentrations at a whopping 0.36-0.75 parts per million (ppm). The normal herbicidal rate of glyphosate is about 0.5 ppm/acre.

Manure from other animals may also be spreading the herbicide, since US livestock consume copious amounts of glyphosate—which accumulates in corn kernels and soybeans. If it isn’t found in livestock manure (or urine), that may be even worse. If glyphosate is not exiting the animal, it must be accumulating with every meal, ending up in our meat and possibly milk.

Add this threat to the already high glyphosate residues inside our own diets due to corn and soybeans, and we have yet another serious problem threatening our health. Glyphosate has been linked to sterility, hormone disruption, abnormal and lower sperm counts, miscarriages, placental cell death, birth defects, and cancer, to name a few. (See resource list on glyphosate health effects.)

Nutrient loss in humans and animals

The same nutrients that glyphosate chelates and deprives plants are also vital for human and animal health. These include iron, zinc, copper, manganese, magnesium, calcium, boron, and others. Deficiencies of these elements in our diets, alone or in combination, are known to interfere with vital enzyme systems and cause a long list of disorders and diseases.

Alzheimer’s, for example, is linked with reduced copper and magnesium. Don Huber points out that this disease has jumped 9000% since 1990.

Manganese, zinc, and copper are also vital for proper functioning of the SOD (superoxide dismustase) cycle. This is key for stemming inflammation and is an important component in detoxifying unwanted chemical compounds in humans and animals.

Glyphosate-induced mineral deficiencies can easily go unidentified and untreated. Even when laboratory tests are done, they can sometimes detect adequate mineral levels, but miss the fact that glyphosate has already rendered them unusable.

Glyphosate can tie up minerals for years and years, essentially removing them from the pool of nutrients available for plants, animals, and humans. If we combine the more than 135 million pounds of glyphosate-based herbicides applied in the US in 2010 with total applications over the past 30 years, we may have already eliminated millions of pounds of nutrients from our food supply.

This loss is something we simply can’t afford. We’re already suffering from progressive nutrient deprivation even without Roundup. In a UK study, for example, they found between 16-76% less nutrients in 1991, compared to levels in the same foods in 1940.

Livestock disease and mineral deficiency

Roundup Ready crops dominate US livestock feed. Soy and corn are most prevalent—93% of US soy and nearly 70% of corn are Roundup Ready. Animals are also fed derivatives of the other three Roundup Ready crops: canola, sugar beets, and cottonseed. Nutrient loss from glyphosate can therefore be severe.

This is especially true for manganese (Mn), which is not only chelated by glyphosate, but also reduced in Roundup Ready plants (see photo). One veterinarian finds low manganese in every livestock liver he measures. Another vet sent the liver of a stillborn calf out for testing. The lab report stated: No Detectible Levels of Manganese—in spite of the fact that the mineral was in adequate concentrations in his region. When that vet started adding manganese to the feed of a herd, disease rates dropped from a staggering 20% to less than ½%.

Veterinarians who started their practice after GMOs were introduced in 1996 might assume that many chronic or acute animal disorders are common and to be expected. But several older vets have stated flat out that animals have gotten much sicker since GMOs came on the scene. And when they switch livestock from GMO to non-GMO feed, the improvement in health is dramatic. Unfortunately, no one is tracking this, nor is anyone looking at the impacts of consuming milk and meat from GM-fed animals.

Alfalfa madness, brought to you by Monsanto and the USDA

As we continue to drench our fields with Roundup, the perfect storm gets bigger and bigger. Don asks the sobering question: “How much of the hundreds of millions of pounds of glyphosate that have been applied to our most productive farm soils over the past 30 years is still available to damage subsequent crops through its effects on nutrient availability, increased disease, or reduced nutrient of our food and feed?”

Instead of taking urgent steps to protect our land and food, the USDA just made plans to make things worse. In December they released their Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on Roundup Ready alfalfa, which Monsanto hopes to reintroduce to the market.

Alfalfa is the fourth largest crop in the US, grown on 22 million acres. It is used primarily as a high protein source to feed dairy cattle and other ruminant animals. At present, weeds are not a big deal for alfalfa. Only 7% of alfalfa acreage is ever sprayed with an herbicide of any kind. If Roundup Ready alfalfa is approved, however, herbicide use would jump to unprecedented levels, and the weed killer of choice would of course be Roundup.

Even without the application of glyphosate, the nutritional quality of Roundup Ready alfalfa will be less, since Roundup Ready crops, by their nature, have reduced mineral . When glyphosate is applied, nutrient quality suffers even more (see chart).

The chance that Roundup would increase soilborne diseases in alfalfa fields is a near certainty. In fact, Alfalfa may suffer more than other Roundup Ready crops. As a perennial, it can accumulate Roundup year after year. It is a deep-rooted plant, and glyphosate leaches into sub soils. And “Fusarium is a very serious pathogen of alfalfa,” says Don. “So too are Phytophthora and Pythium,” both of which are promoted by glyphosate. “Why would you even consider jeopardizing the productivity and nutrient quality of the third most valuable crop in the US?” he asks in frustration, “especially since we have no way of removing the gene once it is spread throughout the alfalfa gene pool.”

It’s already spreading. Monsanto had marketed Roundup Ready alfalfa for a year, until a federal court declared its approval to be illegal in 2007. They demanded that the USDA produce an EIS in order to account for possible environmental damage. But even with the seeds taken off the market, the RR alfalfa that had already been planted has been contaminating non-GMO varieties. Cal/West Seeds, for example, discovered that more than 12% of their seed lots tested positive for contamination in 2009, up from 3% in 2008.

In their EIS, the USDA does acknowledge that genetically modified alfalfa can contaminate organic and non-GMO alfalfa, and that this could create economic hardship. They are even considering the unprecedented step of placing restrictions on RR alfalfa seed fields, requiring isolation distances. Experience suggests that this will slow down, but not eliminate GMO contamination. Furthermore, studies confirm that genes do transfer from GM crops into soil and soil organisms, and can jump into fungus through cuts on the surface of GM plants. But the EIS does not adequately address these threats and their implications.

Instead, the USDA largely marches lock-step with the biotech industry and turns a blind eye to the widespread harm that Roundup is already inflicting. If they decide to approve Monsanto’s alfalfa, the USDA may ultimately be blamed for a catastrophe of epic proportions.

Please send a letter to USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, urging him not to approve Roundup Ready alfalfa, and to fully investigate the damage that Roundup and GMOs are already inflicting.






Document Number: 5631
New Years Inspirational Message
THINK HUGE. Thinking “Big” is so last century

This is the need of the time. HUGE thinking. Life is not content anymore with mere bigness. The demand today is far greater.

Every quarter of our precious world is calling to us. So many threats to our planet, to our food, to our life. Countless species teetering. Future generations line up outside our door to see if we will answer.

We have no instruction manual, no role model or reference point in our long history to tell us what to do.

Nevertheless we say Yes! We cast aside small cramped thinking and leap into that greater role that has been waiting to serve us.

Then comes magic.

As we outstretch our arms to hold the HUGENESS of the world, we at once become held by it. As we seek to lead, we are mysteriously guided. As we draw out the depths of our energy and courage, we become lifted by a greater power, imbued with wisdom and patience.

What seemed insurmountable becomes inevitable.

What seemed oppressive becomes our honor and privilege to unwind.

And our lives, which appeared to us as mere waves, become the ocean.

It’s time to THINK HUGE. Grace will follow.







Document Number: 3353
Are you a GMO Dragon Slayer?
	You remember those heroic stories of dragon slayers where the hero was able to vanquish the beast by targeting the one vulnerable spot in its armor? Well, I believe that we are modern dragon slayers and our dragon is GMOs. I know we can vanquish the GMO dragon if we target its most vulnerable spot — consumer rejection.The non-GMO movement is more fired up in the US than ever before. We have had unprecedented news coverage, high-profile court victories, thousands more products boasting non-GMO labels, and millions of people avoiding GMOs. The signs of a coming tipping point are here.
In January of 1999, GM advocates arrogantly predicted that within just five years they would replace 95% of the world’s commercial seeds with GMOs. But within four months, the tipping point of consumer rejection by Europeans was achieved, and the food companies there committed to stop using GM ingredients.Although this derailed their timetable, it hasn’t stopped the biotech industry from pursuing their ultimate goal — a takeover of the world’s food supply. As they’ve raced to push GMOs into more types of food, our movement has worked to fend off each new attempt, stopping GM rice, wheat, and eggplant; creating GM-free zones; winning court cases against GM alfalfa and sugar beets; kicking out GM bovine growth hormone from most dairies; and much more.Now we’re at a critical crossroads in the US. The biotech industry is pushing hard to re-introduce GM alfalfa, to resuscitate GM sugar beets, and to feed us all GM fish. They are lobbying again to promote GM wheat and rice, and they have hundreds of other GM foods ready and waiting in laboratories. They want to put their plans of replacing nature back on track.
Someone overheard an executive at a recent biotech conference say, “The one person we really have to do something about is that Jeffrey Smith.”

Why would they be worried about little ol’ me? Because it’s not really me they’re concerned about, it’s us — and the tipping point against GMOs that we are going to collectively achieve.

We are preparing bold new dragon-slaying actions for 2011, but need your help.

Please invest in a non-GMO future.

The leverage of your donation is simply enormous.

Click here to donate now.

Our collective work to stop GMOs ultimately influences every person on earth, the entire ecosystem, and all future generations. We have a lot on the line.

Help us slay the GMO Dragon by donating at this important time.

Thank you for making your donation today!

Best Wishes and Happy New Year!

Jeffrey Smith








Document Number: 9800

Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes – Part 1: Killer Tomatoes
Remember the pictures of the fish tomatoes? For years they were an unofficial emblem of the anti-GMO movement. They depicted how anti-freeze genes from an Arctic fish were forced into tomato DNA, allowing the plants to survive frost. Scientists really did create those Frankentomatoes, but they were never put on the market. (Breyers low-fat ice cream, however, does contain anti-freeze proteins from Arctic fish genes, but that’s another story.)

The tomato that did make it to market was called the Flavr Savr, engineered for longer shelf life. Fortunately, it was removed from the shelves soon after it was introduced.

Although there are no longer any genetically modified (GM) tomatoes being sold today, the FDA’s shady approval process of the Flavr Savr provides a lesson in food safety—or rather, the lack of it—as far as gene-spliced foods are concerned. We know what really went on during the FDA’s voluntary review process of the Flavr Savr in 1993, because a lawsuit forced the release of 44,000 agency memos.

(Those same memos, by the way, also showed that FDA scientists had repeatedly warned their superiors about the serious health risks of genetically modified organisms [GMOs]. They were ignored by the political appointees in charge, who allow GMOs onto the market without any required safety studies.)

Bleeding stomachs

Calgene, the tomatoes’ creator-in-chief (now a part of Monsanto), voluntarily conducted three 28-day rat feeding studies. Before I share the gory details, I must commend the Calgene scientists who were committed to transparency and full disclosure with the FDA. Unlike all other subsequent voluntary submissions from biotech firms to the agency, Calgene provided detailed feeding study data and full reports. Dr. Belinda Martineau, one of Calgene’s tomato makers, writes in First Fruit about their commitment to an open process while they attempted to introduce the world’s first GM food crop.

Calgene tested two separate Flavr Savr tomato lines. Both had the same gene inserted into the same type of tomato. The process of insertion and the subsequent cloning of the cells into GM plants can cause lots of unique and unpredicted consequences. The two lines, therefore, were not considered identical.

The rats that ate one of these Flavr Savr varieties probably wished they were in a different test group. Out of 20 female rats, 7 developed stomach lesions—bleeding stomachs. The rats eating the other Flavr Savr, or the natural tomatoes, or no tomatoes at all, had no lesions.

If we humans had such effects in our stomachs, according to Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a top GMO safety and animal feeding expert, it “could lead to life-endangering hemorrhage, particularly in the elderly who use aspirin to prevent thrombosis.”

The lab that performed the study for Calgene acknowledged that the results “did suggest a possible treatment related” problem. FDA scientists repeatedly asked Calgene to provide additional data in order to resolve what they regarded as outstanding safety questions. The director of FDA’s Office of Special Research Skills wrote that the tomatoes did not demonstrate a “reasonable certainty of no harm,” which is the normal standard of safety. The Additives Evaluation Branch agreed that “unresolved questions still remain,” and the staff pathologist stated, “In the absence of adequate explanations by Calgene, the issues raised by the Pathology Branch … remain and leave doubts as to the validity of any scientific conclusion(s) which may be drawn from the studies’ findings.”

Oh yeah, some rats died

The team that had obtained the formerly secret FDA documents sent the full Flavr Savr studies to Dr. Pusztai for review and comment. While reading them, he happened across an endnote that apparently the FDA scientists either did not see or chose to ignore. The text nonchalantly indicated that 7 of the 40 rats fed the Flavr Savr tomato died within two weeks. The dead rats had eaten the same tomato line as those that developed lesions. In the other groups, fed the other Flavr Savr line, a natural tomato control, or a water control, only one rat had died.

But the endnote summarily dismissed the cause of death as husbandry error, and no additional data or explanation was provided. The dead rats were simply replaced with new ones.

When I discussed this finding with Dr. Pusztai over the phone, he was beside himself. He told me emphatically that in proper studies, you never just dismiss the cause of death with an unsupported footnote. He said that the details of the post mortem analysis must be included in order to rule out possible causes or to raise questions for additional research. Furthermore, you simply never replace test animals once the research begins.

Questionable follow-up study

Calgene repeated the rat study. This time, one male rat from the non-GM group of 20, and two females from the GM-fed group of 15, showed stomach lesions. Calgene claimed success. They said that the necrosis (dead tissue) and erosions (inflammation and bleeding) were “incidental” and not tomato-related. The FDA staff pathologist, however, was not convinced. He responded that “the criteria for qualifying a lesion as incidental were not provided.” Further, he said that the disparity between the studies “has not been adequately addressed or explained.”

In reality, the new study was not actually a “repeat.” They used tomatoes from a different batch and used a freeze-dried concentrate rather then the frozen concentrate used in the previous trial. Dr. Martineau explained to me that by freeze-drying, it allowed them to put more of the concentrated tomato into each rat. But Dr. Pusztai said that altering the preparation of the food can lead to different results. He also pointed out that humans were more likely to consume frozen concentrate compared with freeze-dried.

In spite of the outstanding issues, the political appointees at the FDA concluded that the lesions were not related to the GM tomatoes. To be on the safe side, however, Calgene on its own chose not to commercialize the tomato line that was associated with the high rate of stomach lesions and deaths. The other line went onto supermarket shelves in 1994.

Faulty science rules the day

This was the very first GM food crop to be consumed in the US. It was arguably the most radical change in our food in all of human history. It was the product of an infant science that was prone to side-effects. Yet it was placed on the market without required labels, warnings, or post-marketing surveillance. One hopes that the FDA would have been exhaustive in their approval process, holding back approvals until all doubts were extinguished. But the agency was officially mandated with promoting biotechnology and bent over backwards to push GMOs onto the market. As a result, their evaluation was woefully inadequate.

Having discovered problems in the stomach, for example, Dr. Pusztai said they should have looked further down the digestive system at the intestines as well, but they didn’t. They should have increased the number of animals in the experiment to strengthen the findings, but they didn’t. And they should have used young (e.g. month-old) and pregnant animals as is done with pharmaceutical studies, but they didn’t.

They did, however, use rats with vast differences in starting weights. This invalidates any conclusions that there were no significant differences in weight gain, feed intake, or organ weights between GM- and non-GM-fed groups. The starting weights in the Flavr Savr experiment ranged from 130 to 258 grams for males, and 114 to 175 grams for females. Contrast that with the hundreds of rat feeding trials conducted by Dr. Pusztai, where the starting weights were within a range of 1 or 2 grams.

Dr. Pusztai also pointed out that the experimental tomatoes were grown at different locations and harvested at different times, which further increases the variability of results.

The FDA’s defense that the bleeding stomachs did not come from the Flavr Savr diet was also an exercise in faulty science. They blamed the lesions on mucolytic agents in the tomato (i.e. components that dissolves thick mucus); but according to Dr. Pusztai, tomatoes are not known to contain mucolytic agents. The FDA also claimed that it might be the food restriction in the rats’ diet—but the rats ate as much as they wanted. Or maybe it was the animal restraint—but the rats were not restrained.

The explanation that stuck to the wall was that the process of force-feeding the tomatoes through tubes was the reason for the stomach lesions. But as Dr. Pusztai and FDA scientists both observed, there was no adequate explanation as to why the rats fed GM tomatoes in the earlier study had the higher rate of lesions.

Dr. Pusztai said the “study was poorly designed and executed and, most importantly, led to flawed conclusions.” He warned, “the claim that these GM tomatoes were as safe as conventional ones is at best premature and, at worst, faulty.”

Fortunately, the Flavr Savr tomatoes lacked flavor. They also got mushy (unless they were handled in such a way that the company spent more money getting them to market than it could sell them for). They were taken off the market by the time Monsanto bought Calgene in 1997.

After the Flavr Savr’s superficial review and controversial approval, no subsequent GMO producer has ever presented such detailed safety test data to the FDA.







Document Number: 7033


Jeffrey Smith
The leading consumer advocate promoting healthier, non-GMO choices
Posted on 2:05 pm December 20, 2010
Wikileaks: US Should Retaliate Against EU for Genetically Modified Resistance
IRT NEWS TEAM UPDATE: Jeffrey Smith talks to Democracy Now! about the U.S. diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks which reveals that the Bush administration drew up ways to retaliate against Europe for refusing to use genetically modified seeds. Watch the interview.

“Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU” [Emphasis added] –Recommendation by US Ambassador to France, Craig Stapleton.

Wikileaked cables released over the weekend revealed more about the US’ role as a global bully, trying to thrust unpopular genetically modified (GM) crops onto cautious governments and their citizens. In a 2007 cable from Craig Stapleton, then US Ambassador to France, he encouraged the US government to “reinforce our negotiating position with the EU on agricultural biotechnology by publishing a retaliation list.” A list, he added, that “causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility.”

The stated reason for their attack was that “Europe is moving backwards not forwards” on GMOs, with “France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the [EU] Commission.” The Ambassador was concerned that France and others would put a ban on the cultivation of Monsanto’s GM corn seeds called Mon 810, engineered with a gene that produces a toxic insect-killing pesticide in every cell. Mon 810 is the first GM crop approved for planting EU-wide and has been a test case for biotech expansionism into the continent.

According to the cable, the Ambassador also rejected the France’s new “Grenelle” environment process, which looks beyond just the science of new technologies to also take into account “common interest.” Evidently a government that looks out for common interest is just too much for Ambassador Stapleton. He wrote, “Combined with the precautionary principle, this is a precedent with implications far beyond MON-810 BT corn cultivation.”

He was also upset about France’s draft biotech law that “would make farmers and seed companies legally liable for pollen drift.” This concept that the “polluter pays” is a foundational principle of US law–except for GMOs. Here Stapleton also wants France to give a free pass for Monsanto and the other GM seed companies.

The French government and EU Commission tried to placate the US suggesting that the rejections of Mon 810 “are only cultivation rather than import bans.” But Stapleton says, “We see the cultivation ban as a first step, at least by anti-GMO advocates, who will move next to ban or further restrict imports.”

The ambassador fails to point out that a de facto ban of GM ingredients in food has been in place since 1999, not by the government, but by the food industry. They have kept GMOs out of their products due to widespread consumer concern about the health effects. Since foods containing GMOs must be labeled in Europe, companies always source non-GMO food to avoid that label.


The exception is animal feed. EU law does not require meat or other animal products to label whether GMOs were fed to the animals. This loophole has allowed lots of US- and Brazil-grown GMO animal feed to be shipped to Europe. According to the cable, “The [French] environment minister’s top aide told us that people have a right not to buy meat raised on biotech feed.” Offering consumers a choice on GMOs is not on the US government agenda.

Ambassador Stapleton had been a co-owner with George W. Bush of the Texas Rangers baseball team. Once Bush was in office, Stapleton became US Ambassador to the Czech Republic, and then in France. His pro-GMO stance was in-line with the Bush administration, which used a WTO lawsuit to try to force Europe to accept GMOs.

Stapleton’s tone in the letter was insistent. “We should not be prepared to cede on cultivation because of our considerable planting seed business in Europe.”

He said, “Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices. In fact, the pro-biotech side in France — including within the farm union — have told us retaliation is the only way to begin to begin to turn this issue in France.”

Update:

France banned Mon 810 in early 2008. Several other EU nations have also banned it.
In 2009, the American Academy of Environmental Medicine stated that animal feeding studies on GMOs showed significant health disorders. They called on the US government to institute an immediate moratorium, and asked all doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets in the meantime.
This year, the major French retailer Carefour introduced a new “Reared without GMOs” label for meat raised on non-GMO feed.
The Non-GMO Shopping Guide released in the US lists thousands of products that do not use GM ingredients, either directly or via animal feed.







Document Number: 4445
Biotech Propaganda Cooks Dangers out of GM Potatoes
Don’t worry your little heads over the gene-spliced foods on your plates. Just trust companies like Monsanto when they tell you their genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are perfectly safe.

That’s the upshot of a new website created on behalf of the biotech industry by GMO advocates Bruce Chassy and David Tribe. While they attempt to discredit the scientific evidence in my book Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, instead they offer priceless examples of distortion, denial, and spin. Their site is yet another example of why we can’t trust GMOs, Monsanto, or the so-called scientists who support them.

In a series of rebuttals, I expose this charade and show why healthy eating starts with no GMOs. (To find out how to avoid GMOs, go to NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.)

In Part 1, I recounted the story of scientist-turned-whistleblower Dr. Arpad Pusztai. Here, I provide a point by point refutation of Chassy and Tribe’s unwarranted attack on Dr. Pusztai and their distortion of his findings.

Exposing the Spin on Spuds

1. Experts say no scientific conclusion can be made from the work. Two separate expert panels reviewed this research and concluded that both the experimental design and conduct of the experiments were fatally flawed, and that no scientific conclusion should be drawn from the work. (Royal Society 1999; Fedoroff and Brown 2004)

Dr. Pusztai’s research design had already been used in over 50 peer-reviewed published studies conducted at the Rowett Institute, the most prestigious nutritional institute in the UK. Furthermore, the design was explicitly approved in advance by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC)—the UK government’s main funding body for the biological sciences.

The validity of the work was also confirmed by an independent team of 23 top scientists from around the world who reviewed the research, as well as The Lancet, that published it.

But Chassy and Tribe instead reference their partners-in-spin from the Royal Society. As indicated in Part 1, at the Society there are plenty of scientists with close ties to the biotech industry who came in quite handy during the Pusztai affair. They staged a so-called peer-review—the first in the Society’s 350-year history—but it was more of a hatchet job. The reviewers didn’t even bother to look at all the research data. Dr. Pusztai told me he had offered to provide the complete findings and to meet with them to answer questions, but they refused.

The editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, denounced the Royal Society’s unprecedented condemnation of Dr. Pusztai as “a gesture of breathtaking impertinence to the Rowett Institute scientists who should be judged only on the full and final publication of their work.” He called it a “reckless decision” that abandoned “the principles of due process”.

The team that the Royal Society assembled to do the review was telling. They had publicly announced that anyone who had previously commented on the Pusztai situation would be excluded to avoid bias, but then went ahead and included four people who had previously co-signed a letter condemning Dr. Pusztai. In addition, several members had financial ties to biotech companies, and four were co-producers of the Royal Society’s controversial 1998 pro-GMO report that called for the rapid introduction of GM foods. The Royal Society also abandoned the normal protocols of choosing a review team with specific scientific qualifications to evaluate the study in question. Their members clearly did not have the relevant experience to review such a nutritional study.

It came as no surprise that the Royal Society’s partial review denounced the findings. Furthermore, it made sweeping claims that actually contradicted the study’s design and data.

The coordinator of the review, Rebecca Bowden, later headed the Royal Society’s science policy division, which, according to The Guardian, “is to mould scientific and public opinion with a pro-biotech line,” and to “counter opposing scientists and environmental groups.”

Chassy and Tribe also name Fedoroff and Brown as the second so-called expert panel. They weren’t a panel at all; they wrote a book, Mendel in the Kitchen, a devotional ode to biotech. According to a review in Nature, “It is the things they choose not to include, and the inclusion of some sweeping generalizations, that give the book its decidedly pro-genetic-engineering slant. . . . Although the authors state in their introductory chapter, ‘Which view will seem right to you depends on what you consider conventional, and on how you define the ways of nature,’ the rest of the book attempts to convince readers that only one view is right.”

In addition, a critique of an article by Fedoroff about the Pusztai affair illustrates how many of her statements and conclusions were not based on the research and were clearly false.

2. No differences were seen between the groups of animals. Experts who reviewed the data stated that there were no meaningful differences between control and experimental groups, that the same cellular differences could be seen in all groups—GMO-fed or not—and that too few animals were used to allow statistical significance to be achieved. (Royal Society 1999)



Again, Chassy and Tribe turn to their friends in the Royal Society for support, but as you can see in the photos, the cellular differences in the lining of the stomach and intestines were substantial. This potentially precancerous cell growth was seen in all the GMO-fed groups, but not the controls.

Chassy and Tribe chose not to cite Federoff on this point, probably because she correctly acknowledges, “The results showed that rats fed the transgenic potatoes had significantly lower organ weights. . . . Lymphocyte responsiveness was depressed in the animals fed the transgenic potatoes expressing GNA.”

As for statistical significance, only two statisticians have done an analysis with access to all the raw data: a member of Pusztai’s research team and a member of The Lancet review team. Both determined that the results were statistically significant.

3.The diets were protein-deficient

By this time, Dr. Pusztai had designed and published 270 studies. The diet parameters for this study were consistent with other animal tests and practices. There was sufficient protein for the animals to grow, and the vast majority of the protein in the rats’ diets came from the potatoes—which is the preferred way to expose potato-related problems.

More importantly, the rats fed the normal potatoes did not suffer from the maladies of those that ate the GMOs. Thus, the protein levels, which were consistent among all groups, were clearly not the cause.

By contrast, in safety studies funded by the biotech industry, they often use too much protein. According to a 2003 paper (PDF) in Nutrition and Health that analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods, the percentage of protein used in Monsanto’s study on Roundup Ready soybeans was “artificially too high.” This “would almost certainly mask, or at least effectively reduce, any possible effect of the [GM soy].” They concluded, “It is therefore highly likely that all GM effects would have been diluted out.” This was the primary study that Monsanto used to claim its GM soybeans were safe for human consumption.

4. Different groups of rats received different diets.

Chassy and Tribe may be referring to false accusations by Sir Aaron Klug, who attacked The Lancet editor for his decision to publish Pusztai’s paper. Klug claimed that the design was fatally flawed because the rats received different protein content. It appears that Sir Aaron, as well as Chassy and Tribe, failed to actually read Pusztai’s published study, which states that all diets had the same protein and energy content. Furthermore, the animals were pair-fed, meaning they were given the same amount of food. In contrast, biotech industry studies usually allow animals to eat as much as they want—which can also mask effects.

Dr. Pusztai did vary the diets in ways that helped to isolate the cause of problems. In different experiments he fed raw, baked, and boiled potatoes. In all his experiments he used an additional control group: non-GMO potatoes (actually the parents of the GMOs) that were spiked with the GNA lectin. According to experts, Dr. Pusztai’s variations made it superior to the design of other GMO safety studies. The 2003 Nutrition and Health analysis hailed it as unique and “remarkable in that the experimental conditions were varied and several ways were found by which to demonstrate possible health effects of GM foods.”

5. Some rats were fed raw potatoes—raw potatoes are toxic to rats and might cause disturbances to gastrointestinal cells.

This feeble argument was also attempted in 1998 to distort the findings, but the studies design rules out this assertion. In trials where raw GM potatoes were fed to rats, the raw parent non-GMO potato was also fed to other groups of rats (either with our without added GNA lectin). Those fed the non-GMO raw potatoes did not suffer the fate of those fed the GMOs. If raw potatoes were at fault, all the rats would have been similarly damaged.

6. Three different varieties of potatoes were fed to the three different groups of rats (Royal Society 1999).

Here again, the details don’t support the accusation, but rather show how the advocates spin facts to confuse.

The study did use three different potatoes. There was a parent non-GMO potato, and two GM potato lines created from the parent. The two lines were produced at the same time, under the same conditions, using the same GNA lectin transgene. But because of the unique and unpredicted effects of the GMO transformation process mentioned in Part 1, the two GM potatoes were not identical. One had the same protein content as the parent, but its “twin” had less.

In the animal feeding studies, however, they always compared one non-GM potato (the parent) to just one of the GM “offspring.” And whenever they used the GM line that had less protein, they compensated by adding lactalbumin (a superior quality milk protein) so that the overall protein content was equal between all groups.

7. The Lancet published the paper by Ewen and Pusztai over the objections of reviewers.

The Lancet actually tripled their normal number of reviewers to six. Chassy and Tribe falsely claim that multiple reviewers objected; in fact it was only one–GMO advocate John Pickett. The other five wanted the paper to be published.

But Chassy and Tribe use the phrase, “objections of reviewers,” falsely implying that multiple reviewers sought to stop the publication. According to Claire Robinson of GM Watch,

“You may think that Tribe and Chassy are unaware of this, but you’d be wrong. David Tribe has published on his own blog the criticism of Pusztai’s work by Nina Fedoroff, contained in her book Mendel in the Kitchen, where she concedes that The Lancet‘s ‘editor, Richard Horton, stood by the publication [of Pusztai's paper]. Five of 6 reviewers had favored publication and he believed that it was appropriate for the information to be available in the public domain.’”

8. When The Lancet published the work, editors there published a critical analysis in the same issue.

Indeed, the key point of that critical analysis is that more studies were needed to isolate the cause of the profound damage to the rats. Bravo. Of course more studies were needed. But Dr. Pusztai was turned down in his request for follow-up funds. In fact, no one has yet applied his advanced safety testing protocols to the GM foods already on the market to see if they cause the same damage in rats or humans.

Furthermore, the analysis in The Lancet states, “Particular attention must be given to the detection and characterization of unintended effects of genetic modification.” The authors specifically recommend the use of new technologies that can analyze holistic changes in gene expression, protein production, and metabolites. They insist that “Inferences about such [side] effects can no longer be based solely on chemical analysis of single macronutrients and micronutrients and known crop specific antinutrients or toxins.”

That was published 11 years ago. But biotech companies still refuse to employ these modern holistic detection techniques to see if there might be new allergens, toxins, carcinogens, or anti-nutrients in the GMOs that millions of people eat everyday.

Advanced Studies Confirm New Allergen and Dangers in GMOs

In 2007, independent scientists finally published a holistic protein analysis of one GM crop, Monsanto’s Mon 810 Bt corn, which had been fed to consumers for the previous 10 years. Sure enough, due to “the insertion of a single gene into a [corn] genome,” 43 proteins were significantly increased or decreased. “Moreover, transgenic plants reacted differentially to the same environmental conditions, . . . supporting the hypothesis that they had a strongly rearranged genome after particle bombardment” by a gene gun. The authors acknowledged that gene gun insertion can cause “deletion and extensive scrambling of inserted and chromosomal DNA.”

One of the changed proteins in the GM corn was gamma zein, “a well-known allergenic protein.” That allergen was not found in the natural corn, however. The gene that produces gamma zein is normally shut off in corn. But somehow it was switched on in Monsanto’s variety. That means that some people who are not normally allergic to corn might react to GM corn (which, of course, is unlabeled in North America).

The authors of the study were far less worried about their discovery of this new allergen, compared to the fact that a number of proteins “exhibited truncated forms having molecular masses significantly lower than the native ones.” Such alterations, which they describe “as a major concern,” may transform harmless proteins into a dangerous ones. Furthermore, their presence in GM corn means that truly massive unexpected side effects have taken place in the plants’ biochemistry.

9. “Perhaps in some misguided sense of fairness or balance, some journals have published unsound papers that make claims about the safety of GM crops. . . . Peer-review is not always a guarantee that researchers’ conclusions are sound.”

On this point I totally agree. An excellent example is Monsanto’s 1996 feeding study in the Journal of Nutrition, which claimed that their Roundup Ready soybeans were substantially equivalent to natural soybeans.

In addition to showing that Monsanto used too much protein, mentioned above, the 2003 paper in Nutrition and Health (PDF said, the “level of the GM soy was too low and would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur.” In one of the trials, for example, researchers substituted only one tenth of the natural protein with GM soy protein. In two others, they diluted their GM soy six- and twelve-fold.

According to Dr. Pusztai, who had published several studies in that same nutrition journal, the Monsanto paper was “not really up to the normal journal standards.” He told the authors of Trust Us, We’re Experts, “It was obvious that the study had been designed to avoid finding any problems. Everybody in our consortium knew this.”

More examples of how Monsanto rigged their study:

Using older animals: Monsanto researchers tested the GM soy on mature animals, not young ones. “With a nutritional study on mature animals,” says Pusztai, “you would never see any difference in organ weights even if the food turned out to be anti-nutritional. The animals would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything.”
Never weighing organs: But even if there were organ development problems, the study wouldn’t have picked it up. That’s because the researchers didn’t even weigh the organs, “they just looked at them, what they call ‘eyeballing,’” says Pusztai. “I must have done thousands of postmortems, so I know that even if there is a difference in organ weights of as much as 25 percent, you wouldn’t see it.”
Omitting data: In fact, according to Nutrition and Health, “No data were given for most of the parameters.” The paper didn’t even describe the exact feed composition used in the trials—normally a journal requirement.
Obscuring findings: When Monsanto analyzed the composition of GM versus non-GM soy, instead of comparing test plots grown side-by-side, Monsanto pooled data from many sites and climates. This makes it extremely difficult to achieve statistically significant differences, due to the high variability.
Hiding incriminating evidence: Although the paper referred to one side-by-side test plot, for some reason the data from that study was not in the article. Years later, medical writer Barbara Keeler discovered the missing data from the journal archives and found out why it had been kept hidden. The omitted evidence not only demonstrated that Monsanto’s GM soy had significantly lower levels of protein, a fatty acid, and an essential amino acid, their toasted GM soy meal contained nearly twice the amount of a soy lectin, which can interfere with the body’s ability to assimilate nutrients. Furthermore, a known soy allergen called trypsin inhibitor was as much as 7 times higher in the toasted GM soy, compared to non-GMO soy! According to Keeler’s opinion piece published in the Los Angeles Times, the study had several red flags and “should have prompted researchers and the FDA to call for more testing.” But the FDA never got the data.
It’s no wonder why GMO expert Dr. Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union, the organization that publishes Consumer Reports, concluded that Dr. Pusztai’s potato research is “a much better-designed study than the industry-sponsored feeding studies I have seen in peer-reviewed literature that deal with Round-Up Ready soybeans or Bt corn.”

10. Even if his study were correct, it would only prove that those specific potatoes were unsafe, and not that all GM crops are unsafe.

Dr. Pusztai’s research showed that the unpredicted side effects from the process of genetic engineering were the likely cause of the damage to his rats. This has been the big sore spot for the biotech industry, which produces its GMOs using the same process.

Even on David Tribe’s own blog, Nina Federoff is quoted as saying:

“the very process through which the plants are put during the introduction of the transgene . . . can cause marked changes in both the structure and expression of genes.”

She is referring to the process of “tissue culture,” where a gene-spliced cell is cloned into a plant. Both the insertion of the gene and the subsequent cloning can cause significant, unpredictable changes. Of the two, the cloning creates more DNA mutations. That is probably why Federoff says, “The likeliest source of the variation he [Pusztai] detected . . . was the culture procedure itself.”

The mutations are unique to each GM plant line, but even massive disruptions do not necessarily mean that a particular GMO is unsafe. It could even be healthier. It’s a genetic roulette. Therefore, Chassy and Tribe are technically correct: even though the GMO transformation process is unpredictable and inherently risky, not every GM crop is necessarily hazardous. As Federoff says, “new materials and new varieties derived using culturing techniques must be evaluated for both their growth and their food properties.”

The trouble is, the superficial studies conducted on GMOs miss most of the potential problems. The lax standards were originally the fault of the Food and Drug Administration. Their own scientists’ calls for in-depth, long-term safety studies, but they were overruled by the political appointee in charge—Monsanto’s former attorney and later their vice president. (Now the US Food Safety Czar.)

The editor of The Lancet wrote,

“It is astounding that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992,” which states that they do not believe it is “necessary to conduct comprehensive scientific reviews of foods derived from bioengineered plants. . . .This stance is taken despite good reasons to believe that specific risks may exist. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health. The companies should have paid greater attention to the possible risks to health.”

11. For the record, the potatoes in question were a research project; they were never submitted to regulators and they were never commercialized.

True, they never went to market. But if by using the term “research project,” Chassy and Tribe, like others before them, are implying that the potatoes were never intended to be introduced, that is false. The Rowett Institute and the company Cambridge Genetics were planning to commercialize the GNA potato and had contracts specifying how the royalties were to be divided. (The company was to reap the advantage of getting free safety studies.)

What’s quite telling is that if these same hazardous potatoes had been evaluated in the same superficial manner that biotech companies normally test their GMOs, the spuds would have easily landed on supermarket shelves. This was made apparent to Dr. Pusztai about two years into his research. He was asked to review several confidential industry studies that were used to get GM soy, corn and tomatoes approved in the UK. Reading those studies, he says, was one of the greatest shocks of his life. The studies were so superficial, so poorly done, he realized what he was doing and what industry was doing were diametrically opposed. “I was doing safety studies,” he said. “They were doing as little as possible to get their foods on the market as quickly as possible.”

A few weeks later, when he Dr. Pusztai confirmed that his GM potato caused considerable health problems in rats, he realized that his dangerous potatoes could have sailed through industry ‘safety’ studies, which don’t assess the immune system, organ damage, gut lining, hormonal system, cancer development, reproduction, etc.

12. Scientists are expected to submit their findings to peer-review and publication in scientific journals.

Yes, and Dr. Pusztai’s study was published. But the safety research conducted by the biotech industry is almost never published. It is usually submitted in secret to regulatory authorities and neither peer-reviewed nor available for public inspection.

This double standard was pointed out by a Member of the UK Parliament, Dr. Williams, during testimony related to the Pusztai case.

“As I understand, all of the evidence taken by the advisory committee [that approves GM foods for human consumption] comes from the commercial companies, all of that is unpublished. This is not democratic, is it? . . .

“So we leave it completely to the advisory committee and its good members to take all of these decisions on our behalf, where all of the evidence comes, simply, in good faith, from the commercial companies? There is a hollow democratic deficit here, is there not? . . .”

“How is the general public out there to decide on the safety of GM foods when nothing is published on the safety of GM foods?”

Science in the Corporate Interest

Dr. Pusztai warns:

“We must not underestimate the financial and political clout of the GM biotechnology industry. Most of our politicians are committed to the successful introduction of GM foods. We must therefore use all means at our disposal to show people the shallowness of these claims by the industry and the lack of credible science behind them, and then trust to people’s good sense, just as in 1998, to see through the falseness of the claims for the safety of untested GM foods.”

The bastardization of science is not unique to GMOs. It’s pervasive. Consider these numbers. One third of the 500 UK scientists surveyed had been asked to change their research conclusions by their sponsoring customer. And these folks worked in government or recently privatized institutes. “A study of major research centers in the field of engineering,” according to The Atlantic, “found that 35 percent would allow corporate sponsors to delete information from papers prior to publication.” And a Tufts University study of 800 scientific papers showed that “more than a third of the authors had a significant [undisclosed] financial interest in their reports.”

We have seen how corporatized research of drugs has resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths and disease. But hazards in our food supply, especially those that persist in the environment generation after generation, may dwarf the other problems we’ve seen. Exposing the truth about GMOs is absolutely urgent. Again in Dr. Pusztai’s words:

“The problems with GM foods may be irreversible and the true effects may only be seen well in the future. The situation is like the tobacco industry. They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading evidence that showed that the problem wasn’t so serious. And all the time they knew how bad it was. Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it is going to be problematic, if it is going to cause us real health problems, then tobacco will be nothing in comparison with this.”






Document Number: 928
Court Victory: Bovine Growth Hormone Labeling
ATTENTION SHOPPERS. An appeals court just upheld your right to easily choose drug-free milk from drug-free cows. This is a victory.

We’re talking genetically modified bovine growth hormone, also known as rbGH, rbST, and crack for cows. It’s been condemned by the American Public Health Association, American Nurses Association, and numerous others due to its potential for increasing cancer risk.

Banned in most other countries and banished from most US dairies, it still lurks behind friendly “All Natural” labels of companies like Breyers Ice Cream.

Before Monsanto sold off its rbGH division to Eli Lilly in 2008, they lobbied hard to their friends in state governments trying to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as our rbGH-free. They almost won in Ohio—that is until an appeals court struck down the state’s label-muzzlng laws on Thursday, Sept 30th. If the decision had gone the other way, it would have forced all national brands that sold products in Ohio to remove statements like rbGH-free and artificial hormone free from their cartons.

The courts still allow Ohio to require a disclaimer on the cartons of those dairies who proclaim to not use the drug. But they told Ohio that they couldn’t require that the disclaimer be on the same panel of the package as the drug-free claim. Which is very good news.

I propose that dairies use a different disclaimer than that now required by Ohio law. Here’s what I propose:

Ohio governor Strickland and other politicians who cater more to the interests of biotech companies than consumers, require that we state, ‘According to the FDA, there is no significant difference between the milk from cows injected with rbST compared to those not injected.’ There, we’ve said it.

But don’t be misled.

There is a BIG difference in the milk from drugged cows. Its got more of the hormone IGF-1, which is correlated with a much higher cancer risk. The milk has lower nutritional quality. And because injected cows often get udder infections, the milk has more pus and antibiotics.

So who wrote this ridiculous disclaimer? That would be Monsanto’s former attorney, Michael Taylor, who was put in charge of FDA policy when rbGH was approved. He later became Monsanto’s vice president, and is now the US Food Safety Czar. But even as our czar, Taylor doesn’t force us to use this disclaimer. It was Ohio and four other state governments that made Taylor’s suggestion a requirement. And that is why you’re now reading this milk carton instead of the nearby cereal box.

Since the court (as well as scientists at the FDA) acknowledge these differences in the milk, how can state governments get away with forcing companies like ours to include the disclaimer? The operative words are ‘no significant difference.’ The variations are statistically different, so in this case, significant is purely a judgment call.

Perhaps in the FDA’s judgment, your nutritional intake is not all that important. There are, after all, lots of under-nourished Americans out there eating FDA-approved junk food everyday. What’s one more? And from a cosmic perspective, when you consider the billions of people on earth, the vast expanse of the universe, and eons of time, even contracting an antibiotic-resistant disease or getting cancer might not be considered significant.

We, however, think it is. And we do care about your health. That’s why we don’t use the genetically modified cow drug in our herds. It’s better for the health of the cows, for the health of Mother Earth, and for you and your family’s health.

Any takers for this new disclaimer?

Thank you, 6th Circuit Court, for allowing us to more easily know which milk to avoid.







Document Number: 8902
Throwing Biotech Lies at Tomatoes – Part 2: The Liars
I write about the Flavr Savr in Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods. Two biotech advocates, Drs. Chassy and Tribe, created a GMO disinformation site that allegedly discredits all 65 health risks highlighted in the work. I have already shown that their attack on the first risk, Dr. Pusztai’s potatoes, was based on pure PR spin and scientific sleight of hand. Below I respond to their accusations regarding the Flavr Savr.

1. (Chassy and Tribe) FDA records clearly show that experts stated that the process of introducing stomach tubes can damage the rats’ stomachs and/or end up placing test material in the lungs. . . The reader is not told that regulators approved the tomato because their concerns had been fully satisfied that the GM tomato was not toxic.

As indicated in Part 1, the actual scientists at the FDA wrote memo after memo declaring that the higher rates of lesions in the GM-fed group could not be explained away, and that they were not fully satisfied by the explanations. The discrepancy between what the political appointees at the agency stated publicly, and the concerns expressed in private memos by the scientific staff, has been clearly documented.

In fact, one memo reveals that during their Flavr Savr review, the FDA was making blatant and possibly illegal exceptions. One person wrote, “It has been made clear to us that this present submission [Flavr Savr] is not a food additive petition and the safety standard is not the food additive safety standard. It is less than that but I am not sure how much less.” According to attorney Steven Druker, who is an expert in US food safety law, the FDA’s own regulations clearly state that a lower standard should not have been applied in this instance.

As for the stomach lesions, without repeating the study with the same tomatoes, in the same concentration, with larger sample sizes, we can’t be confident that the GM line was the cause. But likewise, we can’t be confident that they were not. It’s another example of too few data.

2. No real differences were seen between groups of animals in the study. Contrary to Smith’s claims, expert pathologists stated that mild gastric erosions were seen at similar levels in both GM and non-GM fed rats.

This is quite a bizarre statement, given that seven female rats had stomach lesions in the first study, compared to none in the other feeding groups. Even the experimenters said that the results suggest a treatment-related effect. I guess if you completely ignore the main rat study in question, which apparently Chassy and Tribe would like us all to do, then you will not see significant differences. But putting blinders on to ignore inconvenient evidence does not prove safety or demonstrate good science.

3a. Rats might have been injured . . . by accidental administration of test material into the lung instead of the stomach.

3b. Gastric lesions can be caused by acidosis brought on by fasting.

Neither of these arguments address why 7 of 20 females fed GM tomatoes had lesions while the controls, reared under the same conditions, did not. Furthermore, since the rats did not fast but ate as much as they wanted, why would they throw in this irrelevant point (if not to obscure the truth)?

4. Smith is actually asking the reader to believe that the FDA would approve a lethal product.

Believe it! The FDA approves lethal products all the time. According to a report by the United States General Accounting Office, more than half of the drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985 had severe or fatal side-effects that had not been detected during the agency’s review and testing. In other words, after drug companies spent an estimated 12 years and $231 million dollars to research, test, and secure new drug approval through a very hands-on FDA approach, most of the drugs had to be taken off the market or required major label changes due to missed safety issues.

With GMOs, the situation is far more dangerous. The FDA doesn’t require a single study, the complex biology of GM crops may produce far more side-effects than drugs, GM foods are fed to the entire population, and they are not labeled or monitored, so symptoms are difficult or impossible to track.

5. There is no evidence of animal deaths. . . . Smith may have confused the words necrosis and dead cells with animal deaths. Careful reading reveals that the regulatory record does not mention any animal deaths which surely would have been of concern had they occurred. . . . This claim (in Pusztai and others 2003) appears to be blatantly untrue.

They would hope it was untrue. But just because they didn’t have access to the 44,000 documents made public from the lawsuit does not mean that the deaths did not occur. I can assure you they did, and that Dr. Pusztai, widely recognized as the world’s leading expert in his field and author of more than 300 studies, would not mistake dead cells for animal deaths.
In fact, on page 18 of the IRDC Report, it refers to “necroscopy data” on each animal. Necroscopy is an examination of a dead body, not dead cells.

The reason why the FDA scientists did not raise this issue is that they apparently either did not read the endnote, or simply accepted the unsupported conclusion on face value, which said that the necroscopy suggested that the deaths were due to a husbandry error and not test-article related. Even the Calgene scientists didn’t raise eyebrows at the finding. It wasn’t until a highly experienced animal feeding study expert like Dr. Pusztai reviewed the original papers that this oversight became apparent.

6. Interestingly, eating too many tomatoes can kill rats.

It is odd that Chassy and Tribe first claim that no rats died and then try to argue that if rats did die, tomato overdose could be the culprit. Since all the rats were fed under similar conditions, their killer-tomato argument fails to explain why 7 of 40 GM-fed animals died, compared to only 1 in the other groups.

7. These products are assessed carefully for safety before they are marketed, and—more importantly—there is no scientific reason to believe they pose and (sic) new or different risks.

To claim that there are no new potential health hazards from GMOs is absurd. Fran Sharples, the Director of the Board on Life Sciences at the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), told me, “The academies have issued numerous reports on assessing the risks of transgenic plants. If the academy believed there were no such potential risks, why would we have delved into these matters in these reports?” One of those NAS reports even acknowledged that the current system of regulating GMOs might not detect “unintended changes in the composition of the food.”

The Royal Society of Canada stated that it is “scientifically unjustifiable” to presume that GM foods are safe and that the “default presumption” is that unintended, potentially hazardous side-effects are present. A WHO spokesperson said that current regulations are not adequate to determine the health effects; the Indian Council of Medical Research called for a complete overhaul of existing regulations; and the American Academy of Environmental Medicine called for a moratorium of GM foods altogether.

Since Chassy and Tribe are fond of using the FDA policy as support for their position, I am happy to quote Linda Kahl, an FDA compliance officer, who directly contradicts their ridiculous assertion. In a memo that summarized the position of FDA scientists about GMOs, she stated, “the processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different, and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks.”

What’s Chassy and Tribe’s real motive?

Many of the arguments presented by Chassy and Tribe are easily and completely countered by the evidence. If one were feeling especially generous, one might guess that they simply weren’t aware of the strong concerns voiced in quotes by FDA scientists, the incidence of stomach lesions in the first study, or the fact that the rats didn’t fast. But these points were contained within the very passage of Genetic Roulette that they were supposedly critiquing. If they actually read the book, which we must assume they did, then they absolutely knew that their counter-arguments were directly contradicted by FDA memos and study reports, and thus were utterly false.

Why then did they construct their website in the first place? It appears that they are not really motivated to make cogent scientific counter-arguments, but instead are hoping that the readers blindly accept their baseless condemnation of Genetic Roulette and never actually read the book.

This tactic is similar to other techniques used by the biotech industry that I describe in Genetic Roulette. GMO advocates, for example, often write up lengthy studies or reports that hardly anyone ever reads in detail. Instead, people generally look at the abstract and/or conclusion and accept the authors’ declaration that the findings demonstrate GMO safety. But when an expert actually takes the time to go through the details, he or she discovers that the conclusions are entirely unsupported and unjustified. In some cases, they are in direct opposition to the data.

It took the biotech industry three years to create their so-called academic review of Genetic Roulette. The mere fact that after all that time they could not put together even the most basic scientific arguments is a tribute to the authenticity of the book. If they could have used science to counter it, they would have. But they didn’t. They used spin.

It will continue to be my delight to go through each of their pages to expose their “scientific” sleight-of-hand. But I am much more motivated to spend my time taking steps that will end the genetic engineering of the food supply, rather than trying to convince the handful of people who accidentally wander onto Chassy and Tribe’s disinformation site. So have patience.






Document Number: 1039

Dr. Oz
Watching the health impacts of genetically modified foods discussed on national TV this week was a rare event. In fact, the Dr. Oz Show, which aired on Genetically Modified Foods December 7th 2010, marks the first time any major entertainment show has covered the health dangers of Genetically Modified Foods in the United States. Kudos to Dr. Oz and his producers for taking on this important subject. Let’s hope it’s the first of many network shows to also inform consumers about the dangers of GMOs and how to make healthier non-GMO choices.

We recorded the show at the Rockefeller Studio in New York two weeks earlier. Since the actual taping was about half an hour and the footage consumers would see needed to fit into 15 minutes, everything depended on the editing. When I watched our lead segment on Tuesday morning, I was pleased with the points that Michael Hansen of the Consumers Union and I were able to convey:

The FDA doesn’t require any labeling or safety testing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Animal feeding studies, however, show numerous problems that link GMOs to allergies, reproductive disorders, accelerated aging, etc.
GE salmon, for example, may trigger more allergies.
The biotech industry attacks scientists who make these discoveries, and tries to distort or deny their findings.
Medical groups are nonetheless asking all physicians to prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone.
Shoppers can look for the Non-GMO Project seal on packaging.
Or consumers can use the Non-GMO Shopping Guide to choose from thousands of healthier non-GMO brands, especially for children are most at risk to the dangers.
When I mentioned this last point, the audience erupted into spontaneous applause. After all, 80% of them polled in the pre-program survey said that they would avoid GMOs if given a choice—and IRT’s Guide gives them that choice.

Their applause also confirmed that they did not accept the statements from the pro-GM scientist, who tried her best to pretend that GMOs were entirely safe. And from what I have been hearing in numerous emails since the show aired—the TV audience came to the same conclusion.

One nutritionist, for example, told me, “Friends, family, and clients are calling me left and right, stating that now they’re ready to believe what I’ve been telling them about GMOs! This is a huge step forward.”

Of course the short interview didn’t allow us to go into depth, and it would have been better for consumers to just have Michael and me on, so that we could go into greater detail about the issue. It was nevertheless a great victory in our mission to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection—to drive GMOs out of the market. It was both a milestone and a stepping stone.

Feel free to suggest to other national talk shows that they too take this on. I’m game…

Healthy Eating,

Jeffrey







Document Number: 2057

Compelling Stories About Our National Non-GMO Movement
Happy Thanksgiving

Celebrating our National Non-GMO Movement

A young woman came up to me at a Cambridge bookstore just before my presentation. “I heard you on Coast to Coast radio last year,” she said. “You changed my life.” No one had ever said anything like that to me before. I was deeply touched.

That was 2004. It was just 8 months since launching Seeds of Deception and I had already toured five continents. I didn’t know it at the time, but I was just getting started. And I would meet countless others whose lives were also transformed by the truth about genetically modified (GM) foods.

The world today is quite different than when I started out as a non-GMO road warrior. Most Americans had said they would avoid genetically modified organisms if labeled, but now millions are no longer waiting. They’re actively seeking non-GMO foods. And many are enthusiastically getting the word out to others.

As a personal thank you, I wanted to share a few stories from this year’s travels in the US about individuals whose commitments to non-GMO eating were inspired by rather compelling circumstances.

Non-GMO Doctoring

I spent some time at the medical practices of two Chicago area doctors who, like many I know, prescribe non-GMO diets to everyone. The doctors had told me that taking people off of GM foods is a very important part of health and healing, but I didn’t appreciate the full extent of it until I spoke with their patients. One after the other they described chronic symptoms that quickly improved or disappeared after changing their diets—skin conditions, irritable bowel, migraines, weight problems, fatigue, and much more.

At the end of my interviews I asked one of the doctors, “Where did you first learn about the health impacts of GMOs?” She smiled, “From you.” I held back tears.

The patients I interviewed had avoided GMOs by switching to organic food; some had also eliminated processed foods and/or specific food categories, so it was not clear how much of the improvements were based on avoiding GMOs versus other healthy changes. Soon after the visit, however, I came across other folks where the impact of a non-GMO diet was not ambiguous at all.

Animals on the Mend

These were veterinarians and farmers who had taken livestock—pigs and cows—off of GMO feed. What do you suppose happened? Death rates dropped, still born rates were down, litter size was up, and overall health improved. One farmer was ecstatic about the huge increase in milk production in his herd; another described how healthy his pigs looked—even down to reduced blood shot eyes.

The vets I spoke with had all been in practice long before 1996, when GMOs were introduced. Each had his stories about the surge in diseases and disorders after GM feed came on the scene. One told me that the jump in dog and cat allergies correlated exactly with the introduction of GM pet food. Whenever he switched his allergic animals to an organic (non-GMO) brand, their symptoms such as itching would usually disappear. Others described inflammation, infections, and gastrointestinal disorders.

Both vets and farmers saw differences inside GM-fed animals during autopsies or butchering, including liver damage, stomach ulcers, discoloration, and an awful stench. One farmer said that after seeing the alterations inside GM-fed animals, he and his wife started a strict non-GMO policy for their family’s meat.

(Apparently the vets who started their practices after GMOs entered the food supply consider all these problems normal.)

A Movement of Non-GMO Eaters and Feeders

Although some might dismiss these stories as “anecdotal,” the doctors, patients, vets, and farmers do not. Nor do the two autism organizations I visited, who now specify a non-GMO diet as part of the treatment protocol. These are just a few examples of the informed individuals, families, and organizations around the nation who are getting the message loud and clear—GMOs are NOT healthy.

We now have a movement in America. A BIG ONE! Thanks to you, we’re a force of nature—like the Earth’s immune system—a vast network rejecting dangerous genetically modified organisms. We will soon reach our goal—the tipping point of consumer rejection—which will force GMOs out of the market.

To respond to this new movement, our Institute is making some significant shifts—which I will tell you about very soon. But I wanted to take this opportunity to share these stories and to thank you for being part of this historic movement.

Much love and happy holidays,

Jeffrey






Document Number: 6730
Download this song at the Natural News website!

“Just say no to GMOs is the Battle Hymn for our new Organic Republic. Take
action against Monsanto and their mad scientists and indentured politicians.”
- Ronnie Cummins, Director, Organic Consumers Association www.OrganicConsumers.org

“Mike Adams has combined his talents of honest health reporting and surprising music composition to create a song that is a modern call to action against the dangerous and imminent genetic modification of our entire food supply.”
- Kevin Gianni, founder, the Renegade Health Show www.RenegadeHealth.com

“If the youth of any generation are the catalyst for real change, Mike Adams just put the next generation on the map when it comes to saying no to genetically modified foodstuffs.”
- Robert Scott Bell, host and creator of the Robert Scott Bell radio show www.RobertScottBell.com





Document Number: 5040
Crisis Position
Safe Food News 2000
Richard Strohman, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California at Berkeley
When you insert a single gene into a plant or an animal, the technology will work. You will be able to move that gene from organism A to organism B. You will be able to know that the transfer was successful. You will be able to know that the gene is being expressed, and even that the function of the gene is being expressed. So you'll get the desired characteristic. But you will also get other effects that you couldn't have predicted from your original assumptions. You will have also produced changes in the cell or the organism as a whole that are unpredictable. And that's what the science is having to deal with.
"The reason why Monsanto can claim scientific soundness is that they are only answering the technical question, 'Can I move this gene and this characteristic from A to B?' They are not asking the questions that the current understanding of cell biology demands. You can ask the technical question and get the answer you are looking for. You can take a gene from A and put it into B. We know that. But that's the only question we can answer with certainty. We now realize that there are a whole host of other questions.
"Genes exist in networks, interactive networks which have a logic of their own. The technology point of view does not deal with these networks. It simply addresses genes in isolation. But genes do not exist in isolation. And the fact that the industry folks don't deal with these networks is what makes their science incomplete and dangerous. If you send these new genetic structures out into the world, into hundreds of thousands of acres, you're going into the world with a premature application of a scientific principle.
"We're in a crisis position where we know the weakness of the genetic concept, but we don't know how to incorporate it into a new, more complete understanding. Monsanto knows this. DuPont knows this. Novartis knows this. They all know what I know. But they don't want to look at it because it's too complicated and it's going to cost too much to figure out. The number of questions, the number of possibilities for what happens to a cell, to the whole organism when you insert a foreign gene, are almost incalculable. And the time it would take to assess the infinite possibilities that arise is beyond the capabilities of computers. But that's what you get when you're dealing with living systems."
http://www.mindfully.org/GE/Strohman-Safe-Food.htm
on this page
Crisis Position
Dr. Richard Lacey
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Risks of GM Food
Genetic Meltdown
The Threat of GMOs
Philip Regal, PhD

more scientists speak
The Virus Hazard
Cancer Risk
Ewen Statement
BMA Statement
BMA Says No to GMOs
Biotech Myths
A Geneticist's Opinion About GE
Unraveling the DNA Myth
gmo issues
Scientific Studies
Corporate Ties
Regulatory
Other GMOs
Farmer's Woes
In the Field
Global South
 




Document Number: 4328
Declaration of Dr. Richard Lacey, M.D., Ph.D.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et al. Plaintiffs
v. Donna Shalala, et al. Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-1300 (CKK)
I, Richard Lacey, state:
1. I reside at [ ] Leeds, UK.
2. I earned both a B.A. in biochemistry and an M.D. from the University of Cambridge and a Ph.D. in genetics from the University of Bristol. Since 1971, I have been a member of the Royal College of Pathologists, and since 1983, I have been Professor of Medical Microbiology at the University of Leeds. (I have been on Emeritus status since 1995.)
3. I am an expert in food safety issues, and my background makes me especially qualified to assess the potential risks of genetically engineered food products. I served four years on a U.K. government advisory panel on food as it relates to human and animal health, and I have written five books on food safety, including one published by Cambridge University Press in 1994 containing a detailed discussion of genetically engineered food. (This book has been translated into Japanese and Polish.) In addition, I have written over 200 articles published in standard scientific journals and attended and spoken at numerous scientific conferences both in the U.K. and abroad. (A list of my publications and honors is attached.)
4. In 1989, I anticipated that there could be serious health risks to the British cattle and human populations from the practice of feeding cattle rendered meat from sheep and other animals. I published my warnings in Food Microbiology, 1990. In this article, I explained the nature of the malady that could result. This was the first prediction of what eventually became the "mad cow" epidemic in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, the governmental authorities were slow to respond to my warning. Had they properly assessed and acted upon the information I presented, much hardship would have been avoided, and the citizens would not have been subjected to as high a degree of risk. (Because of the long latency period between exposure to the infectious agent and development of symptoms, there is a potential for widespread incidence of infection within the British public over the next forty years.)
5. It is my considered judgment that employing the process of recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering) in producing new plant varieties entails a set of risks to the health of the consumer that are not ordinarily presented by traditional breeding techniques. It is also my considered judgment that food products derived from such genetically engineered organisms are not generally recognized as safe on the basis of scientific procedures within the community of experts qualified to assess their safety. Paragraphs 6 through 10 explain why these new foods entail higher risks, and paragraphs 12 through 15 explain why none of them is generally recognized as safe.
6. Recombinant DNA technology is an inherently risky method for producing new foods. Its risks are in large part due to the complexity and interdependency of the parts of a living system, including its DNA. Wedging foreign genetic material in an essentially random manner into an organism's genome necessarily causes some degree of disruption, and the disruption could be multi-faceted. Further, whether singular or multi-faceted, the disruptive influence could well result in the presence of unexpected toxins or allergens or in the degradation of nutritional value. Further, because of the complexity and interactivity of living systems -- and because of the extent to which our understanding of them is still quite deficient -- it is impossible to predict what specific problems could result in the case of any particular genetically engineered organism. Prediction is even more difficult because even when dealing with one variety of a food-producing organism and one particular set of foreign genetic material, each insertion event is unique and can yield deeply different results.
7. The mechanics and risks of recombinant DNA technology are substantially different from those of natural methods of breeding. The latter are typically based on sexual reproduction between organisms of the same or closely related species. Normally, entire sets of genes are paired in an orderly manner that maintains a fixed sequence of genetic information. Every gene remains under the control of the organism's intricately balanced regulatory system. The substances produced by the genes are those that have been within the species for a long stretch of biological time. (In cases where mating is between closely related species, there is generally close correspondence between the substances produced by each.) In contrast, biotechnicians take cells that are the result of normal reproduction and randomly splice a chunk of foreign genetic material into their genome. This always disturbs the function of the region of native DNA into which the material wedges. Further, the foreign genes will usually not express within their new environment without a big artificial boost, which is supplied by fusing them to promoters from viruses or pathogenic bacteria. As a result, these genes operate essentially as independent agents outside the host organism's regulatory system, which can lead to many deleterious imbalances. Moreover, this unregulated activity produces substances that have never been in the host species before and are usually very different from any that have -- which could lead to problems even if production were at a low rather than a high level. There are several other major differences between genetic engineering and traditional breeding, all of which could, as can the above-mentioned ones, induce the presence of unpredicted toxins or allergens or the degradation of nutritional value.
8. Consequently, whereas we can generally predict that food produced through conventional breeding will be safe, we cannot make a similar prediction in the case of any genetically engineered food.
9. Therefore, the only way even to begin to assure ourselves about the safety of a genetically engineered food-yielding organism is through carefully designed long-term feeding studies employing the whole food; and it would be necessary to test each distinct insertion of genetic material, regardless of whether the same set of genetic material in the same type of organism has previously been tested.
10. Even if the most rigorous types of testing were performed on each genetically engineered food, it might not be possible to establish that any is safe to a reasonable degree of certainty, as is possible in the case of most ordinary chemical additives. However, we at least would be in a far better position than now to have greater confidence in these new foods.
11. I regularly attend professional conferences in my specialities and I keep abreast of the scientific literature. I also stay in communication with many life scientists and health professionals.
12. To the best of my judgment, neither genetically engineered foods as a general class nor any genetically engineered food in particular is generally recognized as safe among those experts qualified by training and experience to evaluate their safety.
13. I base this judgment on two factors. First, although many life scientists (including some molecular biologists) claim that genetically engineered foods pose no unreasonable risk, I know of many well-qualified life scientists who do not think that their safety has been established. For instance, a recent official statement of the British Medical Association seriously questions the assumption that genetically engineered foods are in general as safe as those produced by traditional methods. In my opinion, the number of scientists who are not convinced about the safety of genetically engineered foods is substantial enough to prevent the existence of a general recognition of safety. Second, there is insufficient evidence to support a belief that genetically engineered foods are safe. I am not aware of any study in the peer-reviewed scientific literature that establishes the safety of even one specific genetically engineered food let alone the safety of these foods as a general class. Few properly designed toxicological feeding studies have even been attempted, and I know of none that was satisfactorily completed. Those who claim that genetically engineered foods are as safe as naturally produced ones are clearly not basing their claims on scientific procedures that demonstrate safety to a reasonable degree of certainty. Rather,they are primarily basing their claims on a set of assumptions that, besides being empirically unsubstantiated, are in several respects at odds with the bulk of the evidence.
14. The main assumptions are: (a) that producing food through recombinant DNA technology in itself entails no greater risks than producing it through sexual reproduction between members of the same species and (b) that the same safeguards commonly employed by breeders using conventional techniques will suffice for genetically engineered foods. As I have explained in paragraphs 6 and 7, the first assumption is unsound and at odds with biological reality. Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 explain the unsoundness of the second assumption.
15. As far as I can ascertain, the current policy of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is primarily based on these two assumptions. Therefore, although it claims to be "science-based," this claim has no solid basis in fact. The only way to base the claims about the safety of genetically engineered food in science is to establish each one to be safe through standard scientific procedures, not through assumptions that reflect more wishful thinking than hard fact.
16. In accordance with 28 U.S.C.  1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on: May 28, 1999.
[signed]__________________
Dr. Richard Lacey
 
 




Document Number: 1180
Talk given at the Workshop on Agriculture and the Developing World of the US National Academies' Standing Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology, Health, and the Environment, Washington DC, 16 April 2001.
Taking Science Seriously in the GM Debate
By Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
If there is one thing that distinguishes the Third World from the industrialised countries, it is that they take science a lot more seriously than we do in the GM debate.
I was researcher and university lecturer of genetics throughout the mid-1970s to the early1980s when new discoveries on the fluid genome made headlines every week. Researchers back then were building a new paradigm, dispelling once and for all the notion that a gene is constant and independent of context. The thought that a gene could be patented as an invention probably never crossed their mind. And if it did, they would have dismissed it as a joke. Craig Venter of Celera may have only just discovered that genetic determinism cannot deliver the goods after he's sequenced the human genome. But many of us knew that genetic determinism had died with the revelations of the fluid genome, if not before [1]. And now, almost two decades later, science is in crisis in more ways than one.
The paradigm change that should have occurred, did not. On the contrary, the scientific establishment remained strongly wedded to genetic determinism, which has misguided genetic engineering, making even the most unethical applications appear compelling, such as 'therapeutic' human cloning, for one [2]. Bioethics became a contradiction in terms as rampant commercialisation of science took hold.
Since the 1980s, preoccupation with patenting and start-up companies has compromised the quality of molecular genetics research, stifling basic science and innovation, and failing to serve the public good. Worse still, many scientists are consciously or unconsciously ignoring scientific evidence of the hazards. I got involved in the genetic engineering debate in 1994, to try to inform our policymakers and the public, and to start debate and discussion from within the scientific community.
For the past seven years, I have had to follow developments in genetic engineering science much more carefully and extensively than many of the practitioners, only to find that all my fears concerning the problems and dangers of genetic engineering are being confirmed. I shall highlight some of these before going to discuss what needs to be done.
Genetic engineering superviruses
The top news in the Jan. 13 issue of the New Scientist [3] was on a deadly virus created accidentally by researchers in Canberra Australia, who were trying to genetic engineer a contraceptive vaccine for mice [4]. They spliced a gene for the protein interleukin-4 (IL-4) into a relatively harmless mousepox virus in the hope that IL-4 would boost the immune system. When they injected the recombinant virus into mice belonging to a strain genetically resistant to mouse-pox virus, all the mice died. IL-4 suppressed both natural killer cells and cytotoxic lymphocytes responses to viral infection. The recombinant virus also killed 50% of the genetically resistant mice that were immunized against mouse-pox virus.
That is not all. The IL-4 gene, spliced into the vaccinia virus, was found to delay clearance of the virus from experimental animals, and to undermine the animals' anti-viral defence [5,6]. Vaccinia and mouse-pox both belong to the family that contains the human smallpox virus, raising the spectre of biological warfare. But the far greater danger lies in the unintentional creation of deadly pathogens in the course of apparently innocent genetic engineering experiments. Some scientists are already creating viruses deliberately in their laboratories, just to show it could be done, or in the course of cloning existing viruses [7]. And dangerous recombinant viruses and bacteria may also be inadvertently created in making vaccines against AIDS, as Yugoslav virologist Veljkovic has been warning since 1990 [8].
The New Scientist editorial [9] accompanying the report remarked that five years ago, when biomedical researchers were asked if genetic engineering could create "a virus or bacteria more virulent than nature's worst", they replied it would be "difficult if not impossible".
Some of us have been warning of 'accidents' such as this for at least the past six years. The basic tools of genetic engineering are bacteria, viruses and other genetic parasites that cause diseases and spread drug and antibiotic resistance. All that fall into the hands of genetic engineers are exploited. Genes from dangerous agents, including antibiotic resistance genes, are profusely mixed and matched, or recombined. As every geneticist should know, recombination of genetic material is one of the main routes to creating new strains of bacteria and viruses, some of which may be pathogens. (The other route is mutation.) Moreover, the predominant orientation of genetic engineering in the past two decades has been to design artificial GM constructs and vectors that cross species barriers and invade genomes, both of which will enhance horizontal gene transfer and further increase the chance for recombination.
We published a detailed review on the possible links between genetic engineering and the recent resurgence of drug and antibiotic resistant infectious diseases in 1998 [10]. We were by no means the first. Those who pioneered genetic engineering declared a moratorium in Asilomar in the mid- 1970s precisely because they were concerned about this dire possibility. Unfortunately, overwhelming pressures for commercial exploitation cut the moratorium short. The scientists set up guidelines, based largely on assumptions that have all fallen by the wayside as the result of new scientific findings. The two most important findings are the persistence of nucleic acids in all environments including the gut of animals, and the ease with which nucleic acids can get into all cells, especially those of human beings, as shown in so-called gene therapy research [11].
Instead of tightening the guidelines, our regulators have relaxed them. Transgenic wastes are being recycled as food, feed, fertilizer and landfills under the current EC Directive on Contained Use [12], and I would not be surprised if this applies also in the US. There is a lesson to be learned from the 650 or more adverse reactions associated with gene therapy trials, including several deaths. The same kinds of constructs are made, whether it is to genetic engineer human beings or plants and animals, and the same crude first generation technology is used.
The instability of transgenic lines
The instability of transgenic lines has been well known since 1994, particularly in connection with gene silencing. This not only affects agronomic performance, but also safety. We have drawn attention to the structural instability of GM constructs in general, which may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination, especially because the cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter, present in practically all GM crops already commercialized or undergoing field trials, actually has a recombination hotspot. We raised our concerns in a series of scientific papers [13 -16].
In the course of debating with plant molecular geneticists in UK's top research institute, the John Innes Centre (JIC), we discovered that the CaMV 35S promoter is active, not only in all plants, bacteria, algae and yeast, but also in animal and human cells [17,18]. None of our critics was aware that the promoter is active in human cells, including a molecular geneticist on the UK Agriculture & Environmental Biotechnology Commission set up to oversee our farmscale field trials [19].
This year, researchers in JIC admitted in their annual report that GM crops are unstable and prone to recombination. But when we pointed this out [20], they issued a strong denial, and accused us of ignoring one of their papers where they claim to have demonstrated that transgenic rice lines are stable. I have since reviewed that paper in detail [21] and concluded, "A generous interpretation of the data presented would suggest that 7 out of 40 (18%) transgenic rice lines may be stable to the R3 generation." In other words, at least 82% of the lines are unstable. That paper is not at all exceptional in making claims in the abstract, and often in the title, which are not supported by the evidence presented [22]. No reply has come from the JIC since. My colleague, Prof. Joe Cummins has summarised more up-to-date literature showing that all GM crops may be unstable [23].
Roundup Ready soya has consistently performed less well than non GM soya over the years, and this year's seeds are experiencing problems in germination, according to a report from the University of Missouri [24].
Terminator crops at large
Last December, I was asked to act as expert witness in defence of citizens who have taken civil action against GM crops which they strongly believe to be a threat to health and biodiversity. Among the crops were GM oilseed rape varieties used to produce F1 hybrids belonging to AgrEvo UK (now Aventis). At the time, I was also preparing a joint submission, with two other scientists, to the consultation document, "Guidance on Best Practice in the Design of GM Crops" put out by the UK Government's Advisory Committee for Release to the Environment (ACRE). One of the main enabling technologies' for 'best practice' suggested in the document is precisely Agrevo's seed/pollen sterility system, for it prevents GM gene flow.
It soon dawned on us that the GM oilseed rape lines undergoing field trials in the UK are engineered with 'terminator technology' - so named by critics because it renders harvested seeds sterile - for no other reason than to enforce corporate patents on GM seeds. Not only that, according to AgrEvo's application, similar crops produced by the company Plant Genetic Systems (PGS), a subsidiary of AgrEvo, have been undergoing field-trials in Europe since the beginning of 1990.
In the US, similar male sterile lines engineered with the 'terminator-gene', barnase have been tested at least as early as 1992. There have been 115 field trials, the vast majority done without risk assessment, as the first environmental assessment came up with 'FONSI' - Finding of No Significant Impact. Crops modified for male sterility include rapeseed, corn, tobacco, cotton. Brassica oleracea, potato, poplar, chicory, petunia and lettuce. The USDA commercial release data include 4 crops with barnase: a corn and a canola by AgrEvo, a chicory by Bejo, and another corn by Plant Genetic Systems.
Separately, the other genetic component in terminator crops, site-specific recombinase, has also been engineered into corn and papaya, and there have been 14 field trials between 1994 and 1998, with no environmental impact assessment at all.
There are more than 150 US patents listing barnase or site-specific recombination or both, the oldest, on site-specific recombinase, going back to 1987.
The first terminator patents that came to public attention were those jointly owned by US Department of Agriculture and Delta and Pine Land Company, which Monsanto had intended to acquire. The novelty in those patents is the proposal to combine the terminator-gene system with the site-specific recombinase system, giving the company complete control over the hybrids as well as proprietary chemicals that control gene expression.
As a result of universal condemnation and rejection, Monsanto had announced it will not commercialise terminator crops, to everyone's relief. Research and development, however, have continued unabated. Everyone has assumed such crops only exist in theory, when they have been out there for more than 10 years.
It is no coincidence that simultaneous consultation went on in the United States on the USDA-Delta and Pine terminator patents. The USDA has since committed itself to commercial development of the technology, and, like the UK ACRE, also argued in its favour because it could prevent GM gene flow. But it cannot [24], because male sterile lines will be pollinated by non GM crops, and there is no way to prevent horizontal gene transfer.
On the contrary, the increased complication of the constructs may enhance horizontal gene transfer and recombination. The genes and gene products themselves are also known to be harmful. The terminator-gene barnase kills cells by breaking down RNA, an intermediate in the expression of all genes. The recombinase, in theory, breaks and rejoins DNA at specific sites, but is far from accurate and can scramble genomes. A male transgenic mouse engineered with only one copy of Cre recombinase was 100% sterile, because the recombinase enzyme managed to scramble the genomes of both daughter spermatids when they are still connected by a cytoplasmic bridge [25]. The mouse genome does not even have the lox sites recognized by the Cre recombinase.
Terminator insects give wings to genome invaders
The US Department of Agriculture has approved field release of GM pink bollworms this summer, made with a mobile genetic element, piggyBac, already known to jump many species. The element was first discovered in cell cultures of the cabbage looper, where it caused high mutations of the baculovirus infecting the cells, by jumping into the viral genome. In experiments in silkworms, researchers already found evidence that the inserts were unstable, and had a tendency to move again from one generation to the next [26].
"These artificial transposons are already aggressive genome invaders, and putting them into insects is to give them wings, as well as sharp mouthparts for efficient delivery to all plants and animals... The predictable result is rampant horizontal gene transfer and recombination across species barriers. The unpredictable unknown is what kinds of new deadly viruses might be generated, and how many new cases of insertion mutagenesis and carcinogenesis they may bring." [27].
"Food biotech is dead"
I have presented only a small fraction of the scientific findings indicating problems and dangers specific to genetic engineering, which both the practitioners and regulators are ignoring or dismissing. These and other concerns have persuaded more than 410 scientists from 55 countries around the world to sign an Open Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on environmental releases of GMOs because they are unsafe, and a ban on patenting life-forms and living processes because those patents are unethical. They also demand support for non-corporate, sustainable, organic agricultural methods that can truly bring food security and health for all.
Since we launched the Open Letter two years ago, the terms of the GM debate have shifted. It is no longer a moratorium that is needed. GMOs, as currently made, are unsafe and unsustainable, as well as immoral. We must abandon GM crops and all other attempts to genetic engineer plants, animals and human beings with a technology that is widely acknowledged to be unreliable, uncontrollable and unpredictable.
Even the corporations are coming around to the view that "Food biotech is dead" [28]. One by one, Aventis, Monsanto and Syngenta have announced they will concentrate on genomics and marker assisted conventional breeding. Though meanwhile, they are still forcing the world, especially the Third World to accept GM crops.
But the whole world is in revolt. The governments of Thailand and Sri Lanka, among others, have banned GM crops and GM imports. In Indonesia, armed guards had to be sent to protect Monsanto's shipment of cotton seeds, which have already been shown not to perform as well as the indigenous non GM variety [29]. In the Philippines, mass demonstrations are taking place against GMOs and the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) by MASIPAG (Farmer Scientist Partnership for Development) and other ngos. They condemn IRRI for restructuring sound traditional practices over the past 40 years to make farmers dependent on chemical inputs produced by corporations, the same corporations that are now forcing GMOs on farmers with the help of IRRI [30]. People are demanding farmer's rights over the genetic resources in the collection and genebanks of IRRI and they renounce any form of IPR. Those sentiments are widely shared, not just all over the Third World, but in Europe and the United States.
The organic revolution
Europe is fed up with the intensive corporate agriculture that has brought BSE and the food and mouth epidemic now threatening to get out of control, and is going organic in earnest. The annual growth rate in organic agriculture in Europe from 1989 to 1999 averaged 25%, which, extrapolated forward, would lead to 10% of Western European agriculture being organic by 2005, and 30% by 2010 [31]. The same is happening in the rest of the world. As scientists, we must take all evidence seriously.
Organic and sustainable agricultural practices and technologies are succeeding, documented in study after study, despite the appalling lack of research funding compared to the hundreds millions that have gone into biotech. At least 3% of the arable land, some 28.9m hectares in Africa, Asia and Latin America are already farmed sustainably, with impressive gains in crop yield as well as social, economic and health benefits [32]. Organic farming is also working well in the United States and Europe, with yields matching and even surpassing agrochemical agriculture. Organic farms are good for wild-life, supporting many more species of plants, songbirds butterflies spiders, earthworms [33]. We need organic farming for the world to feed itself and for the planet to regenerate and thrive.
Sustainable agriculture is also important for alleviating, if not reversing global warming. A new report shows that sustainable agriculture can contribute significantly, not only to reducing consumption of fossil fuel, but increasing sequestration of carbon in the soil [34].
Sustainable agriculture is predicated on a holistic, ecological perspective anathema to reductionist mechanistic science. Mechanistic science has been thoroughly discredited in the course of the 20th century. Mechanical physics went first of all with relativity and quantum physics. Biology was the last to go with the new genetics.
The new genetics is radically ecological, organic and holistic. That is why genetic engineering, at least in its current form, can never succeed. It is based on misconceptions that organisms are machines, and on a denial of the complexity and flexibility of the organic whole.
The challenge for western scientists is to develop a holistic science to help revitalise all kinds of non corporate sustainable agriculture and holistic medicine that can truly bring food security and health to the world.
Visit ISIS website  http://www.i-sis.org.uk for complete list of references.
The Institute of Science in Society
Londonia House, 24 Old Gloucester Street
London, WC1N 3A1 UK
Tel: 44 -020-7242 9831
Related links:
Recent Evidence Confirms Risks of Horizontal Gene Transfer - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
The Best Kept Secrets of GM Crops - Dr. Mae-Wan Ho's witness statement, February 2002.
 
 




Document Number: 4566
The Risks of GM Food
Prof. David Schubert
July 2002
As a cell biologist I am very much discouraged by the content of the ongoing debate about introducing genetically modified (GM) plants into the marketplace. While the voiced concerns usually center around irrational emotional arguments on the one hand, and the erroneous concept that genetic engineering is just like plant breeding on the other, I believe that the three issues which should be of most concern on the basis of established science receive little or no discussion.
These are:
ntists from 55 countries around the world to sign an Open Letter to all Governments demanding a moratorium on environment
2. the recent observations that the introduction of any gene, be it from a different or the same species, always significantly changes overall gene expression and therefore the phenotype of the recipient cell; and
3. the possibility that enzymatic pathways introduced to synthesize small molecules such as vitamins can interact with endogenous pathways to produce novel molecules.
The potential consequence of all of these perturbations could be the production of biomolecules that are either toxic or carcinogenic, and there is no a priori way of predicting the outcome.
I will give a few examples and then argue why GM food is not a safe alternative.
In addition to their primary sequence of amino acids, the structure and biological activity of proteins can be modified by the addition of molecules such as phosphate, sulfate, sugars or lipids. The nature of these secondary modifications is totally dependent upon the cell type in which they are expressed. For example, if a protein involved in the cause of Alzheimer's disease, the beta amyloid precursor protein, is expressed in liver cells it contains covalently-attached chondroitin sulfate carbohydrate, while the identical gene expressed in brain nerve cells contains a much simpler sugar. This is because each cell type expresses a unique repertoire of enzymes capable of modifying proteins after they are synthesized. Once modified, the biological activity of the molecule may be changed. In the case of the beta-amyloid precursor protein, the adhesive properties of the cells are changed, but there is, at our current state of knowledge, no way of knowing the biological effects of these modifications.
The second concern is the potential for inducing the synthesis of poisonous or toxic compounds following the introduction of a foreign gene. These observations are clearly at odds with the individuals who imply that everything is fine because they are simply introducing one gene. In fact, the introduction of a single gene invariably alters the gene expression pattern of the whole cell and each cell of the individual or plant responds differently. One recently published example is the transfection of a receptor gene into human cells. In this case, the gene was a closely related isoform of an endogenously expressed gene. The pattern of gene expression was monitored using gene chip technology, and the mRNA levels of 5% of the genes was significantly upregulated or downregulated. Similarly, the simple introduction of a bacterial enzyme used for growth selection of transfected cells changes the expression of 3% of the genes. While these types of unpredicted changes in gene expression are very real, they have not received much attention outside the community of the DNA chip users.
Furthermore, they are not unexpected. The maintenance of a specific cell phenotype is a very precise balancing act of gene regulation, and any perturbation is going to change the overall patterns of gene expression. The problem, like that of secondary modifications, is that there is currently no way to predict the resultant changes in protein synthesis.
Third, the introduction of genes for a new enzymatic pathway into plants could lead to the synthesis of totally novel or unexpected products via the interaction with endogenous pathways. Some of the products could be toxic. For example, retinoic acid (vitamin A) and derivatives of retinoic acid are used in many signaling events that control mammalian development. Since these compounds are soluble and work at ultralow concentrations, a GM plant making vitamin A may also produce retinoic acid derivatives which act as agonists or antagonists in these pathways, resulting in abnormal embryonic development.
Given the fact that genetically modified plants are going to make proteins in different amounts and perhaps totally new proteins than their parental species, what are the potential outcomes? A worst case scenario could be that an introduced bacterial toxin is modified to make it toxic to humans. Direct toxicity may be rapidly detected once the product enters the marketplace, but carcinogenic activity or toxicity caused by interaction with other foods would take decades to detect, if ever. The same outcomes would be predicted for the production of toxins or carcinogens via indirect changes in gene expression.
Finally, if the above problems are real, what can be done to address these concerns? The issue of secondary modification could be addressed by continual monitoring of the introduced gene product by mass spectroscopy. The problem is that some secondary modifications, like phosphorylation or sulfation can be lost during purification. However, the best, and to me the only reasonable solution, is to require all genetically engineered plant products for human consumption be tested for toxicity and carcinogenicity before they are marketed. These safety criteria are required for many chemicals and all drugs, and the magnitude of harm caused by a widely consumed toxic food would be much greater than that of any single drug.
Professor David Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Lab
The Salk Institute for Biological Studies
P.O. Box 85800
San Diego, CA 92186-5800
USA
Phone: (001) (858) 453-4100
Related links:
A different perspective on GM food - Letter in Nature Biotechnology, October 2002
Food Fight - San Diego Union-Tribune, February 4, 2003
 
 




Document Number: 8698
GM Crops May Face Genetic Meltdown
ISIS Report
June 12, 2001
All GM crops may be unstable, and worse, they may face total genetic meltdown due to escalating error catastrophes. Prof. Joe Cummins reviews recent research findings suggesting how this might occur.
'Error catastrophe' 'or extinction mutagenesis' is a theory about mutations and survival of populations. The idea is that mutation contributes to variability and variability drives the success of a population in the face of a changing environment. However, most mutations are deleterious. Error catastrophe occurs when high mutation rates give rise to so many deleterious mutations that they make the population go extinct. For example, foot and mouth disease virus treated with mutagens (base analogues fluorouracil and azacytidine) eventually become extinct [1]. Polio virus treated with the mutagenic drug ribavirin similarly went extinct [2]. Error catastrophe theory has led to a strategy of mutagenesis to control disease viruses.
Somaclonal variation a form of gene and chromosome instability that results from the tissue and embryo culture technique used in making GM plants [3]. Somaclonal variation occurs in tissue and embryo culture even without genetic modification, but genetic modification often makes it worse. Somaclonal variation is associated with replication of genetic elements called retrotransposons that replicate in the plant cell nucleus and are inserted into structural genes, causing mutation and chromosome rearrangement [4]. The genetic changes activated in GM may be numerous and subtle, and may produce gradual loss in productivity of GM varieties or unexpected toxic plant products. Transposons have been shown to have powerful impacts on genetic stability. For example, the P transposon of the fruit fly, Drosophila, when activated under appropriate conditions, causes 'hybrid dysgenesis', a slow destruction of the genome receiving the transposon due to chromosome and gene mutation [5]. Gressel [6] has suggested that hyperactive transposons could be introduced into weed populations in order to eradicate them.
There has not been adequate study of ongoing transposition in GM crops, all of which have been produced by embryo culture. Somaclonal variation has been patented in some crops as a means of producing genetic variability for selection, and it was assumed that the crops were genetically stable once established. But that assumption was not tested in most instances. Certainly, there has been inadequate study of the factors reactivating dormant transposons following plant embryo culture. The threat of extinction mutagenesis has never been discussed in governmental reviews that led to the deregulation of experimental GM crops, nor has there been effort to examine the factors leading to subtle yield-depression in GM crops. It may be only a question of time until GM crops dramatically decrease yield and become extinct. Finally, little or no thought seems to have been given to the havoc that could be wreaked upon the human genome by GM crop retrotransposon running amok within humans and farm animals.
 
This is a very well thought-out statement by someone who believes in the future of transgenic agriculture but thinks, as his conclusion states, that, "As scientists it is our responsibility to recognize that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the process to use it safely."






Document Number: 4223
The Promise of Plant Biotechnology -
The Threat of Genetically Modified Organisms
July 2000
Patrick Brown
Professor
College of Agriculture & Environmental Science
University of California
Davis, CA 95616
Crop cultivars developed using recombinant-DNA technologies (rDNA crops) have been rapidly adopted by agricultural producers in the United States; and until recently, foods derived from these crops have been tacitly accepted by US consumers. In contrast, many European consumers have shown a marked resistance to these technologies which, in turn, has resulted in the passage of trade restrictions and of laws that limit the import, growth or use of rDNA crops throughout much of Europe. The public uproar in Europe, and the protests surrounding the World Trade Organization meeting in Seattle, have now raised the awareness of many in the USA and given birth to a vocal and growing group of concerned consumers.
The intensity of the current debate has surprised many in the scientific community and has escalated into a highly polarized and increasingly antagonistic debate. Scientists, and the professional organizations that represent them, have been publicly supportive of this technology and often dismissive of public concerns. Most scientific comment suggests that 'education' is the key to gaining the needed acceptance, while almost no comment has recognized or addressed the fears of the public. Those who oppose rDNA technology interpret the apparent willingness of the US scientific community to embrace this new technology, while failing to adequately address the potential risks, as a betrayal of public trust.
Public uncertainty has resulted in the loss of markets, and will increasingly do so, for the current generation of rDNA crops and foods. Though this is clearly of substantial economic concern, by far the most significant consequence of public concern is the threat that this conflict poses for the entire field of plant biotechnology which holds far greater promise of human benefit than that offered by any existing rDNA crop. The loss of this technology through careless and premature implementation would be truly devastating to the goal of developing more abundant and nutritious foods in an environmentally sensitive fashion.
This issue requires immediate and thoughtful attention from plant scientists. We must recognize that our knowledge of the processes that regulate gene incorporation and expression are in their infancy and that our capacity to manipulate the plant genome is crude. Given this current lack of understanding it is certainly possible that the current regulatory safeguards are inadequate and may not be offering sufficient protection against inadvertent creation of health and ecological problems.
Since the public education and research system is based upon a foundation of public trust, it is essential that we recognize and admit the unknowns associated with molecular biology and act with caution and integrity.
The following text describes some of the uncertainties associated with rDNA technology and illustrates how the scientific community's defense of the current generation of rDNA crops represents a substantial threat to the future of this promising new technology.
GMOs because they are unsafe, and a ban on patenting life-forms and living processes because those patents are unethical.
In 1989 the National Research Council, following extensive scientific review, publicly concluded that crops derived from rDNA techniques do not differ substantially from those derived using traditional techniques. This conclusion forms the basis for current FDA policy that regulates the production and use of rDNA crops and foods. This conclusion is based upon the principle of "substantial equivalence" which states that the introduction of a gene of known and safe function into a crop of known characteristics is technologically neutral, hence the resulting crop can be presumed to be safe and is not subject to mandatory testing prior to release or use in foods. As this principle is central to the scientific and regulatory acceptance of this technology it deserves careful examination.
Is There Equivalence between rDNA and 'Traditional' Sexual Gene Transfer?
To adequately compare these technologies it is essential that each is well characterized and understood. The molecular processes that control gene incorporation and expression following a normal sexual crossing event, however, are only poorly understood and the extent of our ignorance is further revealed weekly as new processes involved in the regulation of gene expression in plants are determined. The inadequacy of our understanding is well illustrated by the host of genetic phenomena (such as co-suppression, intron-mediated enhancement, transcriptional regulation, protein-gene interactions etc) for which we have essentially no mechanistic understanding. Our knowledge of these processes is clearly in its infancy and few would claim that we understand more than a small percentage of the processes regulating sexual reproduction in plants.
Further, most of what is known of gene transfer using traditional and rDNA techniques illustrates the profound manner in which they differ. Traditional crossing involves the movement of clusters of functionally linked genes, primarily between homologous chromosomes, and including the relevant promoters, regulatory sequences and associated genes involved in the coordinated expression of the character of interest in the plant. The molecular regulation of this process and the biochemical and evolutionary significance of these controls is poorly understood.
In contrast to traditional techniques, current rDNA technologies (those used in all currently approved rDNA crops) involve the random insertion of genes in the absence of normal promoter sequences and associated regulatory genes. As there are very few examples of plant traits in which we have identified the associated regulatory genes, the introduction of a fully 'functional' gene using rDNA techniques is currently not possible. R-DNA techniques also involve the simultaneous insertion of viral promoters and selectable markers and facilitates the introduction of genes from incompatible species. These genetic transformations cannot occur using traditional approaches - which further illustrates the profound manner in which these processes differ.
Genetic material can be moved within and between species by the poorly understood processes of gene transposition. Though the occurrence of this phenomenon in traditionally bred plants is superficially equivalent to rDNA techniques (which involve the random insertion of "artificial transposons"), the mechanisms governing this process and the significance of transposition in traditional gene transfer are unknown. Given our profound lack of understanding of these processes it is impossible to compare sensibly the two processes. Indeed, it can be argued that gene transfer via rDNA techniques resembles the process of viral infection far more closely than it resembles traditional breeding.
In summary, it is clear that gene transfer using rDNA techniques is substantially different from the processes that govern gene transfer in traditional breeding. The extent to which these processes differ will become increasingly clear as as we gain a better understanding of the processes governing gene movement, expression and regulation.
The presumption of "Substantial Equivalence" - the basis for current regulatory principles - is profoundly flawed and scientifically insupportable.
Do rDNA Techniques offer Greater Precision?
One of the much-touted benefits of r-DNA techniques is the capablity to introduce only a discrete and well defined number of genes into the new cultivar whereas a traditional crossing event introduces thousands of genes. This ability to control the types and numbers of genes introduced speeds the introduction of a gene of interest by eliminating the need for extensive backcrossing to the elite parent. Many have suggested that this approach is fundamentally more "precise" than traditional breeding techniques and have argued that the technique is consequently "safer".
The ability to introduce a precisely defined compliment of genes using rDNA techniques, however, is not equivalent to the introduction of a precisely defined and biologically integrated character. Whereas the incorporation of a new character using traditional techniques occurs in a fully functional and appropriately regulated manner, rDNA gene introduction is more or less random, and does not involve introduction of the regulatory sequences normally associated with that gene. Traditional techniques, therefore, result in greater "biological precision" than random gene insertion using rDNA techniques.
The FDA policy statement further suggests that it is highly unlikely that rDNA techniques will result in the inadvertent production of allergens or toxic compounds and that once incorporated into the genome, the introduced gene functions like all other genes in the genome. These statements are offered in support of the premise that rDNA experiments are more predictable than traditional breeding approaches. This presumption is, however, clearly contradicted by a large volume of scientific literature and experimental experience that illustrates the propensity of rDNA techniques to produce unexpected and often lethal perturbations. Indeed metabolic and phenological perturbations are very frequently observed following transformation events and a high percentage of transformants show profound growth aberrations. Indeed the propensity of random gene introduction to cause metabolic disruption is well documented and actively used to probe gene function.
While extreme aberrations can be easily selected out, it is also highly likely that undetected biochemical perturbations remain following essentially all transformation events. Since it is not standard practice to screen transformants there is clearly a potential for biochemically abnormal trangenic plants to persist. This is further exacerbated through the use of tissue culture and embryo rescue etc. which can be used to "rescue" metabolically altered transgenic plants that might otherwise have been eliminated during early plant growth. Whether or not these same perturbations occur following traditional breeding is unknown. Lack of knowledge, however, is not proof of safety.
The metabolic perturbations caused by rDNA gene introduction may result in production of toxic compounds. Many plant species have the capacity to produce toxic compounds which under natural conditions serve to protect against animal and insect predation as well as contributing to disease resistance mechanisms. In certain species, such as those in the Solanum family, there are many well characterized and highly unpalatable or toxic compounds. It is very likely that the majority of the genes involved in the formation of these toxic and unpalatable compounds are still present (though not expressed) in modern tomato and potato. Given the random nature of rDNA gene insertion, and the use of a promiscuous viral promoter sequence, the potential clearly exists that tomato could be induced to produce a toxin as a result of a rDNA gene transfer. Whether this would occur with the same frequency following traditional sexual breeding is unknown. The presumption that it cannot occur is clearly invalid.
Clearly the assumption that a transformed crop is exactly the sum of the original crop and the introduced gene is not acceptable. rDNA techniques are profoundly different from traditional breeding methods and are well known to cause unexpected metabolic perturbations. The principle of substantial equivalence is not scientifically justifiable; hence we can make no a priori assumption of the safety of any rDNA manipulation.
Do rDNA Techniques Provide an Acceptable Level of Risk?
The preceeding discussion clearly demonstrates that the risks associated with rDNA technology cannot be determined given current understanding of gene expression. Nevertheless it has been argued that risk is a normal part of technological advancement and that acceptance of this risk is warranted in the instance of rDNA crops.
While it is true that we accept risks as a normal part of life, most of the risks we accept are defined by experience and are understood before they are taken. Some risks are also taken because the rewards are perceived to outweigh the risks. Traditional breeding has on the whole been an acceptable risk with 10,000 years of experience, and a trust in the motives of those producing the new cultivars.
Many, however, are not yet prepared to accept the risks of rDNA technologies. This is in part due to a lack of understanding of the risks, the minimal benefit of the current crop of GMOs, and a mistrust of the motives of those selling the technology. Given the current state of our knowledge of this technology and the nature of the GMOs currently available, this lack of public trust is entirely reasonable. Public acceptance will require convincing demonstration of safety and the development of crops with a more direct benefit to the consumers.
The concerns expressed by many are further validated by the current generation of GMOs that have been incorporated into the food system without adequate public consultation and scientific scrutiny. The current generation of GMO crops do not provide any tangible public benefit, have not contributed to reduced food costs, and have no confirmed ecological benefit. This is well illustrated by the two most prevalent types of GMOs in use in the US.
Insect-resistant crops containing the gene encoding the Bacillus thuringiensis toxin have been planted widely in the US. This transgenic technique promises to reduce the use of pesticides and reduce growers' costs. While reduction in pesticide use is an admirable goal there are significant grounds to question the appropriateness of the current generation of Bt-producing crops and to question the haste with which these crops were released for widespread use.
The current generation of Bt crops utilize a single Bt gene rather than the complex of Bt genes that are available. There is widespread agreement amongst scientists that this use of a single Bt gene will increase the speed with which pest resistance will develop. To help alleviate the development of insect resistance the USDA and Monsanto now advise growers to plant refuge areas to ensure non-resistant insects persist under the premise that this will reduce the rate of resistance development. While this is theoretically sound there is insufficient ecological data to determine optimal size of these refuges or to estimate how effective they will be.
The current generation of Bt crops also utilize antibiotic resistance as the selectable marker and rely upon viral promoters to ensure high degrees of expression. This clearly introduces a risk associated with a promoter designed to be free of regulatory controls, it excites those who see viral and antibiotic-resistance genes as threatening, and it ensures that the Bt protein is distributed uniformly throughout the plant. The uniform presence of the Bt protein enhances the likelihood of resistance development and ensures that the protein is present throughout plant development and is present in the pollen. The death of Monarch larvae was a direct consequence of the presence of active Bt toxin in the pollen. While some have questioned the scientific relevance of this study it did illustrate the inherent flaws in this cultivar.
Methods exist (or will soon exist) that make the use of viral promoters and antibiotic resistance markers unnecessary. There is no justification for the expression of Bt in the pollen, and the release of cultivars with a single Bt gene is certain to hasten resistance development. In the absence of data to support the refugia concept there is very little to prevent the development of widespread insect tolerance of Bt.
Clearly the release of the first generation of Bt-containing crops was premature and based upon flawed scientific principles. Regulatory and scientific support for this cultivar is clearly questionable.
The other dominant type of GMO in use today is the Roundup-Ready varieties of cotton, soyabean and corn. Not only do these cultivars contain many of the same questionable genes as those in Bt crops, but also they have the additional propensity to contribute to the development of herbicide-resistant weed species for which the consequences are poorly understood. Roundup-Ready crops are also of questionable ecological value and build a long-term dependence on the use of the herbicide Glyphosate. Not insignificantly, the overtly 'corporate' nature of these crops and the dependence they build on high cost and ecologically questionable technologies has resulted in widespread suspicion of the motives of those promoting these cultivars.
It is abundantly clear that the current generation of GMO's were developed using an untested and unsophisticated technology and were released prematurely to ensure early returns on corporate investment. Clearly this does not represent a sound jusification for the release and widespread use of these crops.
Perhaps one of the most profoundly flawed justifications of GMOs is illustrated in the often cited refrain "GMO foods have been widely available in the marketplace for the past 5 years and not one incident of harm to public health has been documented". Since every introduced gene is inserted into a different genetic location, and every gene differs in functions and interactions within the genome, and as every species can be expected to 'react' differently to the gene introduction process, it is clear that the safety of one GMO is in no way predictive of the safety of another. In many respects the claim of safety by association is no more valid than the claim that the safety of aspirin predicts the safety of all future drugs.
Conclusion
The real threat to the future of plant biotechnology is the irresponsible and premature releases of the first generation of GMOs that are full of unsound scientific assumptions, rife with careless science, and arrogantly dismissive of valid concerns. The current generation of GMOs provide little real benefit except corporate profit and marginally improved grower returns, while at the same time introducing a host of poorly studied human and ecological risks. Not surprisingly, many have questioned the value of these crops and the integrity of those who support their use.
Given these issues and the overall lack of knowledge of rDNA technology it can only be concluded that the current FDA regulations guiding the release and testing of GMOs is inadequate. It can further be concluded that the technology is inadequately developed to ensure its safety. In the absence of a sound scientific basis to predict the full consequences of rDNA crop development, we must either subject all new crops to a rigorous testing program that considers all potential health, social and environmental concerns or halt further release of rDNA crops until a firm scientific understanding of the biological principles is attained.
As scientists it is our responsibility to recognize that we do not yet have sufficient knowledge of the process to use it safely. We must work towards adressing all of the concerns explicit in the current generation of crops, and must support a rigorous testing program to ensure the safety of all GMO food stuffs in the interim. To date many in the scientific community have been unwilling to rationally consider the concerns surrounding the current GMOs and have wrongly considered that a defense of GMOs is a prerequisite to protect the science of plant biotechnology. Nothing could be further from the truth or more threatening to the future of this technology.
 




Document Number: 8603
Declaration of Philip J. Regal, Ph.D.
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
Alliance for Bio-Integrity, et al. Plaintiffs
v. Donna Shalala, et al. Defendants.
Civil Action No. 98-1300 (CKK)
I, Philip J. Regal, state:
l. I am a biologist in the College of Biological Sciences and am Professor of Ecology, Behavior and Evolution at the University of Minnesota (St. Paul), where I have been on the faculty since 1970.
2. I have made several important contributions to the study of plant biology, particularly in the area of how genetics relates to adaptability and organization of organisms. I have nine publications on this particular topic among my contributions to the peer reviewed scientific literature. (A list of my publications and key presentations is attached.)
3. Since 1983, I have closely studied various safety issues concerning the use of recombinant DNA technology (RDNA technology; genetic engineering) to develop new plant varieties. My involvement has been both intensive and extensive. I have attended and sometimes organized scientific biosafety workshops for government agencies and scientific societies, presented at conferences, and published articles on agricultural genetic engineering in the scientific literature. I have consulted for and worked closely with government regulatory agencies, Congressional staff, scientific organizations, private corporations, and public interest groups.
4. It is my professional opinion that utilizing RDNA technology in production of food-producing organisms can be very powerful biologically and very different biologically from conventional forms of breeding. It entails a set of risks to human health that are not ordinarily associated with the latter. Such use of RDNA technology has the well-recognized potential to interfere with the normal activities of the engineered organism, for example so as to generate unexpected and unknown toxins, carcinogens, allergens and other anti-nutritive substances.
5. My own analyses, as well as a substantial body of published research, clearly establish that these types of unintended side effects are risks that cannot be lightly discounted. Moreover, although I have kept abreast of developments in biotechnology and have regularly read the relevant scientific literature, I am not aware of any reliable study published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature which demonstrates that these risks are categorically either (1) negligible or (2) no greater than in the case of conventionally produced organisms. Nor am I aware of even one such peer-reviewed, professionally published study which has detailed scientific criteria for testing and evaluation and gone on to demonstrate that even one particular genetically engineered food is reasonably certain to produce no harm when eaten by a human being.
6. Rather, it is my considered judgment that the evidence to date, in its entirety, indicates there are scientifically justified concerns about the safety of genetically engineered foods and that some of them could be quite dangerous. Further, in the absence of reliable toxicological tests, it is not possible to determine which of these new foods are dangerous and which are not.
7. It is also my observation that there is not general recognition of the safety of genetically engineered foods among those members of the scientific community qualified to make such a judgment. In fact, it has been my personal experience over numerous years that many of those experts who publicly subscribe to the position that these foods are as safe as their natural counterparts privately admit they have serious doubts. For instance, when I attended a conference on biotechnology in Annapolis, Maryland in 1988, at which many officials from federal regulatory agencies (including the FDA) were present, I was shocked to learn the extent of uncertainty. In informal discussions at meals and on walks, government scientist after scientist acknowledged there was no way to assure the safety of genetically engineered foods. Several expressed the idea that, in order to take this important step of progress, society was going to have to bear an unavoidable measure of risk.
8. Consequently, I am deeply troubled by the FDA's decision to permit the widespread marketing of untested genetically food products based on a stated presumption they are, in the general case, equivalent to, and thus are as safe as, their natural counterparts. As I have pointed out, there is no sound scientific basis for such a presumption and the weight of the evidence is against it. It is my considered opinion that such a presumption can only be made by systematically ignoring a large body of solid and relevant evidence.
9. To support its policy, the FDA appears to claim that if a gene from one species is forcibly and with only variable precision implanted into the DNA of a distant and dissimilar species, we can reliably assess the safety of the new organisms merely by analyzing the known characteristics of the two species and of the specific substance(s) that it was intended the foreign gene would produce. One prop of this argument is the notion that (1) if the substance produced by the foreign gene is substantially similar to a substance that is generally recognized as safe and (2) if the organisms of the target species are already generally recognized as safe to eat, then the genetically engineered organisms will also be safe -- assuming we observe no obvious change in key constituents or superficial qualities of taste or texture.
10. This notion is grossly at odds with biological reality. It is well known that science cannot reliably predict how a given substance will act within a genetic and cellular environment that is quite foreign to it. Not only could the chemical attributes or behavior of the foreign substance markedly change, but its very presence could alter important behaviors of the host cells. Moreover, the process of implanting the foreign gene that produces that substance could in itself disrupt cellular metabolism in numerous ways. Genetic vectors, markers, and regulatory bits of code are also commonly added along with the foreign gene, to further complicate uncertainties. To ignore the fact that the living systems involved have complex biochemical and developmental dynamics and that unusual high-technology genetic interventions have the real potential for unpredicted deleterious side effects is, at best, biologically naive.
11. However, while it might be no more than naive for a layperson to make such simplistic assumptions, it is otherwise in the case of a government regulatory agency that has been repeatedly informed of the facts. When such an agency persists in ignoring these facts, even though the safety of the food supply is at stake, its behavior is not merely scientifically unsound but morally irresponsible.
12. It is because I view the FDA's policy and practices regarding genetically engineered food to be irresponsible -- and because I regard the consequent risk posed for public health to be substantial -- that I have taken the step of joining the above-named lawsuit as a plaintiff. By standing as a plaintiff rather than merely participating as an expert witness, I hope to make clear to the public and the Court not only the extent to which I disagree with the agency's assumptions as a purely intellectual matter, but the degree to which I deplore its behavior on ethical grounds. Ultimately, I was compelled by my conscience to become a plaintiff, and I am proud to stand with so many other scientific experts who have similarly acted on the basis of ethical as well as strictly scientific principles.
nd support for non-corporate, sustainable, organic agricultural methods that can truly bring food security and health for all
Executed on: May 28, 1999




Document Number: 6613 
Donate to our campaign against GM 
The Soil Association has launched an appeal for support in its efforts to fight the relentless promotion of GM from the bio-tech industry and Government.Please donate to our 'GM NO!' campaign and help us build a sustainable, organic food future for us all.
Powerful forces are trying to persuade the public that there is no alternative to GM crops if we are to feed the world's population in the future. The Soil Association needs support to counter the false arguments that GM is the future of our food, and tomake the case for sustainable farming in the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in 2013.
make a donation to support the campaign
Ask your MP to end sham GM 'public engagement process'
GM field trials a complete waste of tax-payers money
MEPs reject amendment on GM food labelling
Telling porkies: The big fat lie about doubling food production
 






Document Number: 2013 
Evidence stacking up against GM
Isobel Tomlinson, Soil Association Policy and Campaigns Officer, arms us with the latest arguments against GM technology:
As the GM industry continues to peddle the myth that GM crops are needed to &euro;&tilde;feed the world,&euro;&trade; scientific evidence is stacking up showing the importance of agroecological farming systems, such as organic, in tackling hunger in the poorest countries.

The current model of GM production and sale is just not appropriate for poor farmers in countries where people continue to suffer from hunger - which are not in Europe or North America, but in continents like Africa and Asia. Research from the UN has shown that the adoption of organic and near-organic farming practices in Africa have doubled yields, improved access to food for both farmers and local communities, and raised incomes through the use of low-cost, locally available technologies and inputs.

The IAASTD report, the largest scientific farming study every conducted which included 400 scientists and has been approved by over 60 countries, saw no clear role for GM crops in feeding the world and backed organic agriculture and similar 'agro-ecological' approaches as part of a radical change in the way the world produces food.

The recent Foresight report on the future of food and farming, published by the UK Government Office for Science, estimated that the application of existing knowledge and technology could increase yields two-to&euro;&ldquo;three fold in many parts of Africa. It too supported research in agroecology, as a way of getting substantial increases in productivity and sustainability.

Evidence is mounting too of the problems that growing GM crops are causing for farmers. Weed resistance to glyphosate has become a major problem in GM herbicide tolerant crops in North and South America, whilst the cost of GM seeds is cutting into farmers incomes in the USA.

Consumers in the Western world continue to reject GM food. The 'GM-Free' label is the fastest growing grocery label in the USA and the world&euro;&trade;s second largest supermarket, Carrefour, recently made the move to label foods derived from animals fed a non-GM diet after research revealed that 96% of consumers backed honest labelling and 63% would stop eating products from animals reared on GM feed.
 









Document Number: 5694 
Food from descendants of cloned animals: Have your say
The Soil Association has written to the Food Standards Agency outlining our concerns about their new view that there are no food safety grounds for regulating the meat and milk from the offspring from cloned cattle and pigs. The Soil Association believes that the impact of foodstuffs from cloned animals on human health can not at this point be adequately assessed on the basis of existing scientific data. The Soil Association is also opposed to the cloning process because it is so damaging to animal welfare.
, the Food Standards Agency asked for views on a potential change in its interpretation of the Novel Foods Regulation. 

You can read the Soil Association response below, and if you would also like to respond yourself, you have until Thursday 10th February to do so. You can send your response to Dr Sandy Lawrie Head of Novel Foods Unit at novelfoods@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

More information about the cloning issue can be found 

FOOD FROM DESCENDANTS OF CLONED ANIMALS: SOIL ASSOCIATION RESPONSE

We write in response to your letter (13th January 2011) regarding the potential change of the FSAs advice on the interpretation of the novel foods regulation (Regulation (EC) 258/97) in respect of food from the descendants of cloned cattle and pigs.

The Soil Association is extremely concerned that the FSA is considering changing its advice to the position that there are no food safety grounds for regulating foods from the descendants of cloned cattle and pigs. The Soil Association believes that the impact of cloned foodstuffs on human health can not at this point be adequately assessed on the basis of existing scientific data. In particular there have been no long-term studies into possible impacts. Indeed, the EFSA Scientific Committee in its scientific opinion on cloning acknowledges that:

Uncertainties in the risk assessment arise due to the limited number of studies available, the small sample sizes investigated and, in general, the absence of a uniform approach that would allow all the issues relevant to this opinion to be more satisfactorily addressed.

A detailed reading of their advice shows that it is littered with issues where the scientific research on human health impacts is considered inadequate or limited: With regard to the compositional comparison of meat and milk derived from clones and progeny of clones, the EFSA clearly states that it should be acknowledged that the data base is limited. The inadequacy of the research in relation to the toxicity and allergenicity testing of meat and milk products from cloned animals is particularly worrying. The Scientific Committee warn that 

Conventional toxicity tests are designed for individual chemicals and have major limitations for the testing of whole food. Foodstuffs are bulky, lead to satiation and can only be included in laboratory animal diets at lower multiples of expected human intakes. In addition, a key factor to consider in conducting animal studies on whole foods is the nutritional value and balance of the diets used, to avoid the induction of adverse effects, that are not related directly to the material itself (ACNFP, 1998). The testing of large amounts of milk and meat may be a particular problem in laboratory rodents with respect to departure from their normal diet, which is primarily plant-based.

Thus, it concludes that in relation to toxicity and allergenic testing These results are only indicative as the rat and mouse models are not specific for human allergenicity predictive testing.

The Committee warns of other potential problems with clones With regard to veterinary drug residue levels it states: As animal clones generally need more intensive care the use of veterinary medicinal products for treatment may be greater than that in their natural comparators.

With regard to public health risks it concludes as information is limited on the immunological competence of clones, it is unclear, in cases where the pathogen is zoonotic in nature, whether or not the prevalence of such infection or infestation (and related public health risk) is the same as that of the conventionally produced animal.

In its letter the FSA requests views on the wider impacts of the Agencys change in its advice. A very significant impact concerns animal welfare. The Soil Association is opposed to the cloning process because it is damaging to animal welfare at all stages of the cloning process. Cloned animals and their surrogate mothers suffer a variety of health problems and abnormalities. These are noted by the EFSA Scientific Committee in addition to their clear acknowledgement of the inadequate state of the scientific research in this area:

A significant proportion of clones, mainly within the juvenile period for bovines and perinatal period for pigs, has been found to be adversely affected, often severely and with fatal outcome.

 clones and their progeny have not yet been studied throughout the whole of their natural life span.

The current welfare assessment is extrapolated from mainly animal health data. The welfare of both the surrogate dam and a significant proportion of clones has been found to be affected by the adverse health outcomes observed.

The FSA also invites comments on the potential economic impact of the change. The uncertainties surrounding many of the impacts of cloning are potential economic risks to the agricultural sector. As previously mentioned there are risks over animal disease. The reduction of genetic diversity could also have an impact in this regard; as the EFSA states An increased homogeneity of a genotype within a population may increase the susceptibility of an animal population to infection and other risk factors.

The presence of unlabelled cloned meat and milk in the food chain could have a negative impact on consumer trust in the foodchain. The unlabelled use of cloned farm animals fundamentally undermines the freedom of choice of farmers and consumers to avoid these animals and products, because of a lack of transparency in their regulation and traceability. 

The FSA state that this ruling would be in line with the current view of the European Commission and others. However, the FSA fails to acknowledge that in July 2010 the European Parliament voted for a moratorium on cloning and imports while the legislative framework for a ban is agreed.

At a time when Government is expressing a desire to move towards honest labeling of food, so consumers understand what they are purchasing and know its provenance, cloned animals should not be allowed to enter the food chain. Consumers have the right to know what they are buying and the production processes and values behind their food and drink. The FSA used to say it would defend this consumers right to know. This proposal suggests your priorities have changed. 
 









Document Number: 5827 
GM chickens 'potentially pose a greater threat to human health' and 'an attempted cover up for flawed farming'
The Soil Association is strongly opposed to the development of GM  chickens which are claimed to be genetically engineered to stop them  spreading avian influenza. This proposed development does not tackle the  underlying cause of serious disease outbreaks linked to industrial  chicken production, and it carries the risk of making things worse.
The root cause of the problem is the millions of chickens kept in sheds worldwide, that are often kept alive long enough to reach slaughter age through the use of antibiotics, providing an ideal breeding ground for new, more resistant strains of disease.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said:
&euro;&oelig;Keeping animals cramped together in inhumane factories encourages the spread of diseases such as bird flu and swine flu. This GM fantasy simply tries to cover up for flawed farming practice. Experience with GM crops shows how quickly resistant super weeds and new insect pests have developed, despite promises from the GM industry that this could not happen.

"Viruses are some of the most rapidly evolving organisms on Earth, and they could rapidly evolve resistance to the GM chickens.In a race to develop new strains, viruses would get there faster than new breeds of GM chickens could be produced. Viruses could even evolve to become more virulent in response to the GM challenge, posing a greater threat to human health."
 









Document Number: 9330 
GM crops and food - the position and role of the Soil Association
In light of the recent push by the GM industry and its close allies to promote GM crops as the answer to what is being reported as a global food crisis, Peter Melchett provides the Soil Associations original reasons for opposing GM crops and food, and considers whether these have been reinforced or weakened by actual experience and scientific research over the last two decades. Peter Melchett is policy director of the Soil Association. He runs an 360ha organic farm in Norfolk, with pigs, beef cattle and arable seed crops.
GM crops and food - the position and role of the Soil Association

This article featured in the Autumn 2010 issue of Mother Earth, the Soil Association journal. Mother Earth provides in-depth comment and analysis on the intellectual, political and practical issues emerging from the organic movement, as well as celebrating the philosophy, history and successes of the organic pioneers.
 









Document Number: 1443 
Honesty on technology is needed
We need to be honest about the failures of certain technologies - such as GM - to provide food for a growing world population, says Molly Consibee, the Soil Association's director of campaigns and communications.
Commenting on the recently published Foresight report 
, Molly Conisbee, Campaigns and Communications Director at the Soil Association says:

"We need to be honest about the failures of certain technologies  such as GM  to provide food for a growing world population. Despite billions being pumped in to GM, it has failed to deliver against its promises. The majority of the world is fed by small, local, often organic farmers. These systems are better for the environment, better for animal and human welfare, and offer more resilience to issues such as the rise in oil and fertiliser price rise shocks.

Contrary to the pro-GM advance publicity, the Foresight report contains much that supports agro-ecological methods, such as organic. In particular, it highlights the need for research in agronomy, agro-ecology, soil science and other areas that have been neglected in recent years".
EU food safety chief forced to quit GM lobby role
MEPs reject amendment on GM food labelling
New threat to global food security as phosphate supplies become increasingly scarce
Pressure on UK supermarkets to label meat and milk from animals fed on GM
 









Document Number: 40 
Pressure on UK supermarkets to label meat and milk from animals fed on GM
Following a move by the world&euro;&trade;s second largest supermarket, Carrefour, to label foods derived from animals fed a non-GM diet the Soil Association has written to Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury's, Morrisons, Marks and Spencer and Waitrose to put pressure on them to do the same so UK consumers can make the choice if they want to avoid GM.
Although many of these chains have banned GM ingredients from their own-label products this ban on GM does not extend to the feed given to their livestock. Nearly all the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork in UK supermarkets are being produced from animals fed on GM crops, which means most consumers are unwittingly eating food produced from GM crops everyday.
The French supermarket chain will use a green logo which reads &euro;&tilde;Nourri sans OGM&euro;&trade; or &euro;&tilde;Reared without GM&euro;&trade; which relates to about 300 products including eggs, poultry, pork, and farmed fish and will be extended to milk and dairy products.
Carrefour made a decision to use the logo after research revealed that 96% of consumers backed honest labeling and 63% would stop eating products from animals reared on GM feed.
Peter Melchett, Soil Association policy director, said:
&euro;&oelig;This has long been a gaping hole in the non-GM policies of all UK multiple retailers. What is worse, there has been a complete lack of openness and honesty with customers. There is clear evidence that this misleads consumers into thinking that no GM crops are involved in the food chain in the UK.
&euro;&oelig;It is no longer credible for UK supermarkets and food companies to claim that non-GM animal feed is not available, if the world's second largest multiple retailer is demonstrating that it is.&euro;? 
'Silent invasion - the hidden use of GM crops in livestock feed', 2007 [PDF, 1.4 MB]

A Soil Association investigation into the use of GM animal feed which finds that large quantities are being used in the UK to produce our food. This means that most of the non-organic milk, dairy products and pork sold in the UK is from GM-fed animals.
[2] Example of letter to multiple retailers:
In case you hadn't seen this, I thought you might be interested in a very significant new initiative on GM animal feed by Carrefour (attached below). As you will see, Carrefour are going to be labelling a wide range of animal products, dairy and meat, as coming from animals which have not been fed on GM animal feed. They are doing this because they say their research found that "63% of customers would stop consuming food products if they knew the products came from animals fed with GMOs". I wondered if you have any similar data for Tesco's customers?
This has long been a gaping hole in the non-GM policies of all UK multiple retailers. What is worse, there has been a complete lack of openness and honesty with customers, through the failure of multiple retailers and the brands they sell to label non-organic meat and dairy products as coming from livestock fed on GM animal feed, as most, with the honourable exception of UK poultry, do. There is clear evidence that this misleads consumers into thinking that no GM crops are involved in the food chain in the UK. A recent series of test calls and emails to a number of multiple retailer customer care lines (including yours), which we have carried out anonymously, have again confirmed that consumers are getting extremely confused, and largely inaccurate responses when they ask multiple retailers whether they're selling milk and other dairy products that come from animals fed on GM feed.
The scientific evidence shows that in general the feed animals are given on farm affects the quality of the food products derived from those animals. Scientists have found fragments of GM DNA from GM animal feed in products like milk. The technology which enables the ready detection of products deriving from animals fed on GM feed is advancing all the time. As you know, over the years, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the Soil Association have all campaigned to encourage multiple retailers to insist that the livestock products they sell come from animals that are not fed on GM animal feed. For at least the last ten years, some companies in the animal feed chain, but by no means all, have insisted that non-GM feed would not be available within the next year or two. While this message has been widely believed in the food industry, it has been consistently wrong, and it still is. Carrefour's new initiative demonstrates this. It is no longer credible for UK supermarkets and food companies to claim that non-GM animal feed is not available, if the world's second largest multiple retailer is demonstrating that it is.
I'm writing to ask Tesco to follow Carrefour's example, and either insist on all the animal products you sell coming from animals that are not fed on GM animal feed, or at least be open with your customers, and label all of the meat and dairy products that you sell that do come from animals fed on GM feed as such.
I look forward to hearing from you, and would be happy to meet to discuss this.
Honesty on technology is needed
 









Document Number: 1811 
Secondary school students get Stuffed
You dont get semi-skimmed and full fat cows. This quote is from a  secondary school student describing what he had learnt on a school farm  visit.

The Food for Life Partnership is working with schools - inspiring and   supporting them to grow vegetables, cook, visit farms and eat real,   wholesome food - to give young people the opportunity to take   responsibility for their own health and impact on the environment. To   support this the Partnership is today launching 
,   a new interactive web-based learning resource that focuses on   sustainable food issues for Key Stage Four students. Stuffed sets out   debates around the future of food, how our food is produced and what   impact this is having on our environment, society and animal welfare.

The website has been structured to tackle three key debates:
Is the price of food too cheap?
Will climate change mean we need to change what we eat?
Can we feed ourselves in a world without oil?

In a handful of talking heads films, experts including Monty Don and Eric Schlosser, explain how climate change will affect our food supplies, what impact peak oil will have on how we currently feed ourselves and if we really pay the full price for food at the supermarket checkouts.

Each debate has lesson plans and resources - relevant articles, weblinks and information - that will confirm or challenge students' understanding of the impact of our current food production and consumption. 

Faye Walters, Food for Life Partnership Farm Links Manager says:

"The aim of the Stuffed website is to provide an exciting opportunity to access information and articles around these major food issues; have the information to think critically about how sustainable or not they are and as a result become informed consumers of the future.

The website supports and extends the learning and practical skills development that the Food for Life Partnership provides through growing, cooking and visiting working farms."

Joy Clapham, Deputy Headteacher at Humphrey Perkins High School has been reviewing the site. She says:

"Having been round the site, I like it! Its great to have all the links ready done, including graphs, real interviews and media clips. It connects thinking and helps to foster our integration of learning in a skills based framework."
 









Document Number: 2255 
Soil Association comment on claims that milk from cloned animals is entering the food chain
Commenting on the claims made by a UK farmer that milk from cloned animals is entering the food chain, Emma Hockridge, Head of Policy at the Soil Association [1] said:
There are a number of problems associated with cloning farm animals - perhaps the most immediate being the serious animal welfare issues associated with the cloning process. Cloning involves applying invasive and cruel techniques on the surrogate mothers that are used for producing the clones and, as the process is currently very inefficient, many deformed animals are created and die for each surviving healthy clone. 

There are a number of other concerns: about the safety of meat and dairy products from cloned animals; that the use of clones will reduce genetic diversity within agriculture; that the use of clones will promote the development and spread of animal diseases; as well as concerns about the ethics of cloning. 

The use of cloned farm animals fundamentally undermines the freedom of choice of farmers and consumers to avoid these animals and products, because of a lack of transparency in their regulation and traceability. At a time when Government is expressing a desire to move towards honest labelling of food, so consumers understand what they are purchasing and know its provenance, cloned animals entering the food chain must be tackled with the utmost urgency. 

Just three weeks ago, the European parliament voted for an immediate moratorium on clones in the food chain until legislation expressly prohibiting foods from cloned animals and their descendants can be put in place [2].

For media enquiries please contact the Soil Association Press Office:

Georgia Catt, 0117 314 5170 / 07717 802 183 / gcatt@soilassociation.org

[1] The Soil Association is the UK's leading environmental charity campaigning for sustainable, organic farming and championing human health.

[2] http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/infopress_page/067-77912-186-07-28-911-20100706IPR77911-05-07-2010-2010-false/default_en.htm
 









Document Number: 6687 
Victory as Government cancels Food Standards Agencys pro GM debate 
The FSA planned to spend half a million pounds on a public engagement exercise about GM food which NGOs have widely condemned as biased. Two eminent Scientists, Professor Brian Wynne and Dr Helen Wallace had already resigned from the project steering group, saying the process was a sham - rigged towards attempting to encourage the public to support GM food and in favour of GM industry [1].
Peter Melchett, Soil Association Policy Director said:

The last Government tried persistently to pedal GM food to a sceptical public. It was outrageous that the FSA allowed themselves to be used to try and push GM food on the British people, and in doing so they once again departed from what is meant to be their role of defending the interests of consumers. The Governments decision proves they are willing to let people decide what they eat, rather than trying to foist GM upon them. 

There are two more things the Government should do. First, stop wasting public money on GM research  20 million of tax payers money has gone into GM crop research since 1997 [2] but not a single GM crop is being grown in this country. Second, the Government should tell the Food Standards Agency to take steps to remove the blanket of secrecy over the last hiding place of GM from our food system, by insisting that milk and other dairy products, and meat, that come from animals fed on GM food, are clearly labeled.
Read the Soil Association press release on Brian Wynne's resignation from the FSA's steering group on GM
Read details of Environmental Research undertaken by the Government dept of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
 







