
Document Number: 801
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 



Document Number: 9040
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 



Document Number: 3388
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 



Document Number: 3074
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 



Document Number: 3087
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 



Document Number: 9043
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, 



Document Number: 807
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 



Document Number: 3927
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 



Document Number: 7707
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 



Document Number: 3039
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 



Document Number: 1396
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 



Document Number: 5750
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 



Document Number: 851
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 



Document Number: 3791
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 



Document Number: 1256
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 



Document Number: 5124
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 



Document Number: 2746
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, 



Document Number: 5738
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 



Document Number: 9146
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 



Document Number: 2322
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 



Document Number: 4966
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 



Document Number: 6633
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 



Document Number: 9722
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 



Document Number: 1395
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 



Document Number: 2157
(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 



Document Number: 3174
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 



Document Number: 5975
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 



Document Number: 9383
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 



Document Number: 1239
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 



Document Number: 4168
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 



Document Number: 3583
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 



Document Number: 9121
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 



Document Number: 8557
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 



Document Number: 2000
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 



Document Number: 2506
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 



Document Number: 7333
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 



Document Number: 512
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 



Document Number: 4750
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, 



Document Number: 3306
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 



Document Number: 3827
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 



Document Number: 4842
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 



Document Number: 5977
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 



Document Number: 7993
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 



Document Number: 3998
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 



Document Number: 9695
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 



Document Number: 6361
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 



Document Number: 6292
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 



Document Number: 6220
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 



Document Number: 9280
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 



Document Number: 4314
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 



Document Number: 2353
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 



Document Number: 6849
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 



Document Number: 6679
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 



Document Number: 4769
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 



Document Number: 3236
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 



Document Number: 4686
(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 



Document Number: 2243
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 



Document Number: 4991
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 



Document Number: 3192
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 



Document Number: 6443
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 



Document Number: 5593
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 



Document Number: 8766
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 



Document Number: 1165
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 



Document Number: 4346
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 



Document Number: 2069
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 



Document Number: 6126
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 



Document Number: 1687
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 



Document Number: 8192
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 



Document Number: 6374
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 



Document Number: 5144
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 



Document Number: 3730
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 



Document Number: 3632
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 



Document Number: 5116
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 



Document Number: 8683
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 



Document Number: 5634
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 



Document Number: 2567
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 



Document Number: 4134
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% 



Document Number: 9385
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 



Document Number: 63
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, 



Document Number: 7240
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 



Document Number: 2565
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 



Document Number: 4536
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 



Document Number: 61
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 



Document Number: 3674
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 



Document Number: 8871
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 



Document Number: 5615
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 



Document Number: 5864
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 



Document Number: 7813
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 



Document Number: 182
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 



Document Number: 6812
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, 



Document Number: 5329
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 



Document Number: 9970
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 



Document Number: 6163
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 



Document Number: 7994
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 



Document Number: 3350
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 



Document Number: 3081
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 



Document Number: 8828
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 



Document Number: 4680
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 



Document Number: 9070
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 



Document Number: 1023
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 



Document Number: 4181
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 



Document Number: 5778
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 



Document Number: 6256
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 



Document Number: 422
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 



Document Number: 8800
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 



Document Number: 7319
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 



Document Number: 8653
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 



Document Number: 5246
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 



Document Number: 892
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 



Document Number: 8619
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 



Document Number: 2024
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 



Document Number: 9474
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 



Document Number: 3970
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 



Document Number: 5031
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 



Document Number: 9793
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 



Document Number: 2088
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 



Document Number: 8180
(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 



Document Number: 3792
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 



Document Number: 9493
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 



Document Number: 3503
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 



Document Number: 4155
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 



Document Number: 8723
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, 



Document Number: 5073
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 



Document Number: 1028
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 



Document Number: 2039
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 



Document Number: 9541
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 



Document Number: 2706
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 



Document Number: 2417
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 



Document Number: 5680
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 



Document Number: 262
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 



Document Number: 1950
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 



Document Number: 7074
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 



Document Number: 4370
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..." - 



Document Number: 5058
/ 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, 



Document Number: 2373
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 



Document Number: 3929
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 



Document Number: 2402
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 



Document Number: 5428
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. 



Document Number: 7722
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 



Document Number: 2864
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 



Document Number: 7141
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 



Document Number: 7019
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. 



Document Number: 690
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. 



Document Number: 7559
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 



Document Number: 3403
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 



Document Number: 6429
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 



Document Number: 8204
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 



Document Number: 4416
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 



Document Number: 9253
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. 



Document Number: 2883
(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 



Document Number: 7532
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 



Document Number: 9845
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 



Document Number: 1781
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 



Document Number: 445
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 



Document Number: 3944
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 



Document Number: 7719
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 



Document Number: 3216
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 



Document Number: 6101
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 



Document Number: 9239
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 



Document Number: 1253
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 



Document Number: 1955
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, 



Document Number: 2505
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 



Document Number: 1582
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 



Document Number: 9799
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 



Document Number: 6441
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 



Document Number: 574
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 



Document Number: 8254
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 



Document Number: 2768
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 



Document Number: 394
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 



Document Number: 9409
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 



Document Number: 6546
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 



Document Number: 5989
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 



Document Number: 4030
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 



Document Number: 3979
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. 



Document Number: 532
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 



Document Number: 122
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 



Document Number: 6046
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 



Document Number: 8837
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 



Document Number: 9515
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 



Document Number: 5366
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 



Document Number: 8561
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 



Document Number: 127
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 



Document Number: 6170
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 



Document Number: 4725
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 



Document Number: 8292
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 



Document Number: 8822
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 



Document Number: 9838
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 



Document Number: 6504
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 



Document Number: 338
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 



Document Number: 9042
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 



Document Number: 3069
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 



Document Number: 1573
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 



Document Number: 9049
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 



Document Number: 1856
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 



Document Number: 7119
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, 



Document Number: 3215
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 



Document Number: 747
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] 



Document Number: 1697
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 



Document Number: 8750
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 



Document Number: 2984
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 



Document Number: 810
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 



Document Number: 5531
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. 



Document Number: 5570
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 



Document Number: 2774
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 



Document Number: 7503
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 



Document Number: 605
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, 



Document Number: 481
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 



Document Number: 7190
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 



Document Number: 675
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 



Document Number: 8708
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 



Document Number: 4929
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 



Document Number: 7090
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 



Document Number: 1106
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 



Document Number: 9238
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 



Document Number: 9078
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 



Document Number: 7110
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 



Document Number: 8244
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 



Document Number: 9820
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 



Document Number: 3150
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, 



Document Number: 3241
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 



Document Number: 7318
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 



Document Number: 9636
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 



Document Number: 5285
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 



Document Number: 375
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 



Document Number: 6665
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 



Document Number: 2796
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 



Document Number: 8642
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 



Document Number: 4437
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 



Document Number: 9214
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 



Document Number: 5318
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 



Document Number: 4194
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 



Document Number: 2137
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 



Document Number: 3727
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 



Document Number: 4257
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 



Document Number: 7042
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'" 



Document Number: 2716
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 



Document Number: 1916
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 



Document Number: 8223
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 



Document Number: 5841
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 



Document Number: 6800
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 



Document Number: 3973
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 



Document Number: 4568
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 



Document Number: 7773
(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 



Document Number: 2436
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 



Document Number: 7636
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 



Document Number: 4227
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 



Document Number: 8945
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 



Document Number: 4973
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 



Document Number: 1286
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 



Document Number: 3671
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 



Document Number: 5582
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 



Document Number: 5985
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 



Document Number: 3420
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 



Document Number: 5925
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 



Document Number: 3988
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 



Document Number: 1545
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' 



Document Number: 1047
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 



Document Number: 741
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 



Document Number: 7103
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, 



Document Number: 7370
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, 



Document Number: 5443
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 



Document Number: 3573
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 



Document Number: 5837
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 



Document Number: 1595
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 



Document Number: 7092
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 



Document Number: 6329
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 



Document Number: 9337
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. 



Document Number: 5359
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...) 



Document Number: 9150
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 



Document Number: 1170
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 



Document Number: 3333
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 



Document Number: 5125
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 



Document Number: 6695
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 



Document Number: 5150
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 



Document Number: 7885
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 



Document Number: 3356
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 



Document Number: 3774
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 



Document Number: 7365
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 



Document Number: 762
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 



Document Number: 7432
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 



Document Number: 7069
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 



Document Number: 7977
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 



Document Number: 6505
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 



Document Number: 2383
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 



Document Number: 5730
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 



Document Number: 8389
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 



Document Number: 7184
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 



Document Number: 9164
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, 



Document Number: 9700
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 



Document Number: 7027
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 



Document Number: 9219
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 



Document Number: 980
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 



Document Number: 2406
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 



Document Number: 4549
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 



Document Number: 9208
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 



Document Number: 4861
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. 



Document Number: 8145
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 



Document Number: 9815
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 



Document Number: 1712
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 



Document Number: 4142
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 



Document Number: 1460
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 



Document Number: 7974
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 



Document Number: 6040
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 



Document Number: 5795
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 



Document Number: 7734
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 



Document Number: 1713
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 



Document Number: 6791
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 



Document Number: 8679
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 



Document Number: 2265
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 



Document Number: 7222
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 



Document Number: 9075
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 



Document Number: 2574
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 



Document Number: 4107
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, 



Document Number: 9583
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 



Document Number: 6482
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 



Document Number: 9210
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, 



Document Number: 5087
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 



Document Number: 1623
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 



Document Number: 3708
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 



Document Number: 6873
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 



Document Number: 6464
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 



Document Number: 9107
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 



Document Number: 8757
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 



Document Number: 7916
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 



Document Number: 1149
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 



Document Number: 5022
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., 



Document Number: 6992
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 



Document Number: 483
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 



Document Number: 8765
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 



Document Number: 4015
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 



Document Number: 8946
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. 



Document Number: 8861
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 



Document Number: 7924
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 



Document Number: 7148
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 



Document Number: 3444
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 



Document Number: 1734
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 



Document Number: 1606
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 



Document Number: 3054
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 



Document Number: 7542
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 



Document Number: 8759
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 



Document Number: 6561
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 



Document Number: 9003
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 



Document Number: 6065
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 



Document Number: 2166
. 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 



Document Number: 9882
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 



Document Number: 8855
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 



Document Number: 6342
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 



Document Number: 6852
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 



Document Number: 2049
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 



Document Number: 111
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 



Document Number: 8782
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 



Document Number: 3582
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 



Document Number: 8555
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 



Document Number: 8985
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 



Document Number: 58
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 



Document Number: 7668
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 



Document Number: 4387
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 



Document Number: 7545
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 



Document Number: 8212
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 



Document Number: 8823
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 



Document Number: 4491
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 



Document Number: 7984
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 



Document Number: 1728
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 



Document Number: 1929
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 



Document Number: 372
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, 



Document Number: 5774
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 



Document Number: 5692
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 



Document Number: 6998
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 



Document Number: 3669
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 



Document Number: 6843
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 



Document Number: 9279
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 



Document Number: 9387
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 



Document Number: 4779
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 



Document Number: 5248
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 



Document Number: 7387
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 



Document Number: 8185
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 



Document Number: 4414
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 



Document Number: 3278
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. 



Document Number: 3152
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 



Document Number: 6787
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 



Document Number: 4308
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 



Document Number: 8472
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 



Document Number: 3623
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 



Document Number: 9224
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. 



Document Number: 8655
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 



Document Number: 6233
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 



Document Number: 2075
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 



Document Number: 5457
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 



Document Number: 3410
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 



Document Number: 213
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. 



Document Number: 9800
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 



Document Number: 7033
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 



Document Number: 4445
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 



Document Number: 928
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 



Document Number: 8902
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 



Document Number: 2057
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 



Document Number: 4328
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 



Document Number: 1180
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 



Document Number: 4566
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 



Document Number: 8698
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 



Document Number: 4223
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 



Document Number: 8603
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 



Document Number: 5694
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 



Document Number: 40
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 


