tagged w/ Biotech
-
If you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets that you take his word at face value, you would be in good company, but you might be terribly wrong. Organizations well versed in the agricultural issues facing developing nations are saying his annual letter, released last week, is completely mistaken when it asserts that a lack of support for GMO crop development is responsible, in part, for allowing world hunger to endure. We interviewed Heather Pilatic, Ph.D., co-director of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), to show us the other, important side of the story.
TakePart: In the introduction to his letter, Bill Gates cites the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, saying scientists created new seed varieties for rice, wheat, and maize, and that this resulted in increased crop yield and a decrease in extreme poverty around the world. Do you agree that this is a model to use moving forward?
Heather Pilatic: The Green Revolution is a story that some people like to tell, but it has little basis in historical fact. Take the Green Revolution’s origins in 1940s Mexico, for instance. It was not really about feeding the world; Mexico was a food exporter at the time. Rather, the aims included stabilizing restive rural populations in our neighbor to the south, and making friends with a government that at the time was selling supplies to the World War II Axis powers and confiscating oil fields held by Standard Oil (a funding source for the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the key architects of the Green Revolution).
We can also learn from India, the Green Revolution’s next stop after Mexico. India embraced the Green Revolution model of chemical-intensive agriculture. Now it is the world’s second biggest rice grower with surplus grain in government warehouses. Yet India has more starving people than sub-Saharan Africa—at more than 200 million, that’s nearly a quarter of its population. History shows that a narrow focus on increasing crop yield through chemical-seed packages reduces neither hunger nor poverty.
So no, we do not agree that the Green Revolution offers a promising model for addressing poverty.
TakePart: Bill Gates is urging that more money be donated to agricultural innovation, including crop GMOs, because "one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation." Of course, this argument worries all of us. Will you explain PANNA's perspective?
Heather Pilatic: We could not agree with Gates more on the first point. Investment in agriculture in the developing world is enormously efficient and more impactful on the ground than investment in just about any other sector. It is also true that more people than ever before are going hungry, needlessly. We have enough food to go around now. We disagree with Gates on two points—one scientific and one political.
First, the science. Most of the rest of the world's experts agree that GMOs are not what the world's poor need to feed themselves. The science simply doesn't bear this claim out. Our staff scientist was a lead author in the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture ever undertaken, the UN & World Bank's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (the IAASTD). After four years and with the input of over 400 experts, and reams of evidence, the IAASTD concluded that the developing world's best bet for feeding itself in the 21st century was explicitly not the kind of chemically intensive farming that accompanies GMO seeds. Rather, these experts found that smaller scale, farmer-driven, knowledge-intensive, ecological agriculture is one of the most promising ways forward for the developing world in particular. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has reported that ecological farming can double food production within 10 years. This is the kind of agriculture we should be investing in.
Second, the political—and this cuts two ways. We must finally recognize that hunger is a problem of poverty and access to resources, especially land, not agricultural yield. The solution to world hunger is a political one: stop kicking farmers off their land and dumping product on the world market that puts them out of business; protect farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed; kick the bankers out of food-crop commodities speculation, they're playing roulette with our food system; write fair trade policies; listen to the world's poor, they know what they need...in short, democratize food and farming if you want to address hunger.
Finally, here in the U.S., kick the farm lobby out of Congress and the pesticide industry out of our federal regulatory agencies (EPA & USDA). Together, these two special interests have a chokehold on U.S. farm, aid and trade policy, and dominate our agricultural research agenda in ways that make it possible for a smart man like Bill Gates to believe and prosyletize on behalf of an approach to agriculture that A, the rest of the world knows is defunct; and B, has failed—after 14 years of commercialization and billions of dollars in public research funding—to deliver on a single one of its promises to the public.
More at the linkIf you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets... more
-
-
– Monsanto, the multinational agricultural biotech giant, is also the world’s largest producer of genetically engineered seeds. Notorious for its aggressive and heavy handed business tactics, and questionable ethics– Monsanto, the multinational agricultural biotech giant, is also the... more
-
-
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops.
(SALEM, Ore.) - A public hearing is being held in Corvallis, Oregon this Thursday, November 17th to determine if Genetically Modified sugar beets will be deregulated in Oregon.
Meanwhile, the public comment period maybe just a local distraction giving way to full federal deregulation without any representation of organic and conventional crop farmers.
Let us not forget that the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture held a formal hearing on Genetically Modified (GM) Alfalfa on Jan 20, 2011.
The hearing corresponded with an open 30-day comment period, designed to provide relevant testimony with regard to deregulation of Genetically Modified Alfalfa.
The democratic process neglected to include a single organic or conventional farming representative. Throughout the two hour hearing various legislators publicly humiliated the Secretary of Agriculture, Tom Vilsak for even suggesting any compromise through talks with the organic and conventional communities. They all but ordered him to stand down his conversations with anyone but pro-GM enthusiasts (1:43:16).
Representatives left no seed unturned in honor of their allegiance to biotech crops and complete penetration into all foreign and domestic markets. In fact, Minnesota's Representative Collin Peterson referred to organic producers and consumers as "our opponents"[1](12:29).
Vilsak, even with his ties to Monsanto, was attempting negotiation with "so called Option 3" containing a minimal stop gap as an alternative to absolute contamination of organic and conventional alfalfa. In essence, planting barriers would have been implemented to maintain protective measures for the integrity of all seed varieties. Legislators blatantly mocked him and even pulled rank, saying that the Secretary of Agriculture does not have the authority to do anything but fully deregulate the crop without further ado. (35:38, 1:25:50, 1:29:15, 2:18:47)
It can be noted that Vilsak testified no less than three times that we were in the midst of the 30 day comment period, and in his opinion, the talks among all sides were providing necessary elements worthy of analysis for all agricultural markets concerned. (29:00, 1:44:00, 1:51:54)
The theme of the hearing centered around the economic burden of GM farmers if full deregulation didn’t go forth immediately (1:44:00). It was insisted by every representative that their loyalties were to the biotech community and that full deregulation was unquestionable without consideration for any form of barrier to protect other crops from cross contamination.
In regard to preservation of non GM crops, Texas Representative Michael Conaway begs the question, "how much of this is a definitional issue"? He questions organic standards and even insists that he "suspects that Genetically Engineered seeds will become the new organic". He blatantly suggests that legislative steps be considered to modify the language and thus re-define organic standards so that Genetically Modified crops can freely contaminate without restriction. He insists that it is merely a marketing issue and not an issue of health and safety. Conaway asks if we are just "hung up on the phrase organic, meaning something we grew ourselves in the backyard with whatever?"(2:33:00).
Concern was expressed by a number of speakers that GM crops are being promoted throughout the world as being no different than conventional crops, and if word got out that we established restrictive planting barriers, then it might be assumed that the GM crops were somehow different. That could put a damper on GM producers and their marketing potential. (30:45, 1:58:17, 2:18:47)
It was apparent, by the end of one sided discussion, that full deregulation and contamination remains unquestionable from the perspective of our democratic leaders. In other words, it is most notably a flagrant case of Contamination without Representation.
If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against full federal deregulation of all GM crops. Public comments are being heard on Thursday from 4 PM – 9 PM at LaSells Stewart Center Construction and Engineering Hall 875 Southwest 26th St., Corvallis, Oregon.
Please see the full length video of the U.S House of Representatives, Committee on Agriculture forum on GM Alfalfa, Jan 20 2011.
http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1269If Oregon allows GM sugar beets to be deregulated, we may not stand a chance against... more
-
-
A document signed by more than 50 civil society organizations (CSOs) is asking the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development scheduled to take place in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil in June 2012, to ban the use of genetically modified foods.
2012 will mark 20 years since the last Rio Earth Summit, and the planet is worse for the wear, cites the document, stating that environmental, energy and financial issues are all at critical crisis levels. And the excessive financial burdens purchasing GMO seeds has on the world’s poor, in addition to the damaging health and environmental effects of biotechnology, makes the proposed ban a top priority for the world, cites the CSO-hub website, timetoactrio20.org.
Despite biotech companies’ promises of increased crop yields, drought and pest resistant seeds that can relieve the world’s hungry, genetically modified foods have yet to fulfill those promises. Pesticide resistant “superweeds” and insects are on the rise causing more use of the Monsanto pesticide, Roundup, which is now being found in ground and rain water. Farmers, including the planet’s poorest, are spending more money than ever before on buying Roundup Ready GMO terminator seeds instead of traditional and economical methods of saving seeds from each crop season.
The report cites studies showing there are one billion food insecure people around the world while more than double that are suffering from what Dr. T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, calls “diseases of affluence”—malnutrition caused from excessive consumption of highly processed foods (many of which contain genetically modified ingredients), meat and dairy products and lead to diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke and cancer.
Small-scale agroecological farming and other sustainable farming methods “developed in the framework of food sovereignty” currently feed about 70 percent of the world’s population, cites the CSOs’ document, stating that the UNCSD has an historical opportunity to eliminate world hunger, improve the environment and financial stability around the world by moving away from biotechnology. Market diversity and research support for small-scale farming could decrease the world’s seed prices by 30 percent—or about $9 billion annually, according to the document.
http://www.organicauthority.com/images/stories/misc/monsantodrips-ccflcr-SierraTierra.jpgA document signed by more than 50 civil society organizations (CSOs) is asking the... more
-
-
On Sept. 6, the European Union’s top court paved the way for farmers and beekeepers to recoup losses when their crops or honey become genetically contaminated from neighboring GM fields.
The European Court of Justice ruled that all food products containing GMOs – whether intentional or not – must undergo an approval process.
This marks a much stricter view than that being pushed by European Union Commissioner for health and consumer affairs, John Dalli, who wants no regulation of foods genetically contaminated “by accident,” a ludicrous idea given that coexistence ensures genetic contamination.
At the center of the dispute is Bavarian beekeeper Karl Heinz Bablok who joined with several others in suing the state when its research plots of Monsanto’s GM corn, MON 810, contaminated his honey.
In 2008, an administrative court banned Bablok from selling or giving away that honey. But in a bizarre turn, the Augsburg court also ruled that beekeepers have no claim to protection against the growing of GM crops. They immediately filed a new lawsuit. [1]
Discussing today’s ruling, attorneys for the beekeepers noted that they may now have “a claim for damages against a farmer if MON 810 pollen from his cultivation gets into their honey.” [2]
Attorneys Dr Achim Willand and Dr Georg Buchholz explained:
“If the beekeeper can no longer sell his honey, this is considered a major impairment causing a claim for damage. If the beekeeper moves his bees in order to prevent this impairment, it is also possible that the cultivator is liable for the additional work and expense of the beekeeper.”
They added that the “decision is important not only for beekeeping, but in general for the production of food and feed, as well as for trade.”
The new ruling will also apply to “imports containing traces of material from genetically modified crops that don’t have sufficient approval within the EU,” they said.
The European Court of Justice only “interprets EU law and does not settle the dispute itself,” notes Inf’OGM, a French group that maintains a neutral position on GMOs. Member states like Germany, France and Spain can apply the ruling however they deem fit in particular cases of genetic contamination. [3]
In describing the questions before the court, Inf’OGM explained that Monsanto failed to seek approval for genetically modified pollen. Instead, MON 810 approval only covers flour, gluten, semolina, starch, glucose and corn oil.
MON 810 approval is currently under reconsideration. It has been linked to organ damage in test animals [4] and its approval may be withdrawn. Until last year, it was the only GM crop approved for cultivation in the EU, although a total of 40 GMO food and feed products have been approved for sale. [5]
One of Commissioner Dalli’s first acts after taking office in 2010 was to lift the 13-year ban on BASF’s GM potato, Amflora. Sweden, Germany and the Czech Republic took the bait and immediately suffered from 47 contamination events. [6]
Today’s ruling also overturns the court’s Advocate General recommendation this February which found that genetic material inadvertently transferred from GM corn to other living organisms “is no longer viable and is thus infertile, is not a living organism and, therefore, cannot be regarded as a GMO.” [7]
In that same recommendation, however, the AG maintained that any products containing GMOs should be regulated.
More at the linkOn Sept. 6, the European Union’s top court paved the way for farmers and... more
-
-
Traffic congestion is a major factor affecting the air quality in urban areas. With the average driver spending up to one year of their lifetime searching for a parking space, it is no surprise that vehicles in Paris emit 2 million tons of Co2 annually. Roughly 30% of all traffic in Paris is the result of cars looking for a parking spot.
How do you deal with traffic congestion?
Be sure to check out current.com/urbanmobility for more news, community discussions and upcoming videos about Urban Mobility.
Traffic congestion is a major factor affecting the air quality in urban areas. With... more
-
-
High-Level Working Group Shielding Plan to Force GE Crops onto Wildlife Refuges
WASHINGTON - July 21 - In an effort to boost exports, the Obama White House has entered into a joint venture with the agricultural biotechnology industry to remove barriers to the spread of genetically engineered (GE) crops, even on national wildlife refuges, according to documents posted today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). Today, PEER sued the White House Trade Representative, Office of Management & Budget (OMB) and the State Department to force release of documents detailing their partnership with industry.
Recent successful lawsuits brought by PEER with the Center for Food Safety have underlined the incompatibility of GE crops with refuge habitats, which has strengthened objections from GE-averse nations. The Biotechnology Industry Association (BIO), whose most prominent member is Monsanto, the world’s biggest source of GE crops, approached the Obama White House for assistance. In late 2010, the White House formed an interagency “Agriculture Biotech Working Group” consisting of more than 35 officials from ten agencies to promote GE agriculture. This Working Group includes officials from the White House and its OMB, Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the Trade Rep. It also has officials from State, Justice, Agriculture, EPA and FDA.High-Level Working Group Shielding Plan to Force GE Crops onto Wildlife Refuges... more
-
-
turning the 'building bricks' of nature into a factory process where your war department funds are spent - by the way the two wars have a total cost of over 4 trillion dollars a study just concluded by a think tank. Lets see what's the national debt of the U.S., somewhere in the same range?turning the 'building bricks' of nature into a factory process where your... more
-
-
Now that Monsanto/Forage Genetics' new genetically modified alfalfa has been approved by the USDA, where will all that GMO alfalfa end up? Feed for factory farmed dairy cows. The number one dairy processor in the US is Dean Foods, so the best way to boycott GMO alfalfa is to boycott Dean Foods.
As the new documentary by Organic Spies explains, that means boycotting most of the biggest conventional milk brands, but it also means boycotting Dean Foods' WhiteWave brands.
Is it fair to boycott WhiteWave, known for its natural/organic Horizon and Silk products? If you look into the information Organic Spies has uncovered, the answer is resounding YES! It turns out that WhiteWave has a licensing agreement with Land O' Lakes. Land O' Lakes is the owner of GMO alfalfa co-creator Forage Genetics and a distributor of Monsanto's GMO corn, soy and RoundUp herbicide.
Another reason Organic Spies gives us to boycott all of Dean Foods brands, including Horizon and Silk, is that theres no separation between the lobbying and polical campaign contributions of the parent and its subsidiaries. Dean Foods has a single Political Action Committee that WhiteWave employees, including Kelly Shea, an Organic Trade Association board member, contribute to.
All of Dean Foods' conventional milk products are produced with genetically engineered feed, so they had an interest in seeing GMO alfalfa approved without restrictions, but they sent the same lobbyist who advocates for their conventional milk products to talk to the USDA about organic milk and the idea of "coexistence" between organic and GMOs. There's no way the lobbyist for Dean Foods' the largest conventioanl milk processor could have made a sincere argument that organic needs to be protected from contamination. It's little wonder, with industry lobbyists like this in the mix, that the USDA chose to approve GMO alfalfa, even though the inevitability of contamination means disaster for organic.Now that Monsanto/Forage Genetics' new genetically modified alfalfa has been... more
-
-
-
At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO labelling on the ballot in California in 2012. This will hopefully be the beginning of a nationwide effort to do what Europe did years ago due to citizen action. Labelling GMOs in our food will give us a choice in what we purchase and what we consume. Of course, Monsanto and the biotech lobby have their money, big guns and political connections, but we the consumer have the power of the purse and the voices to drown them out and it is time we used them.
More at the link.At this site you will find action items and ways you can get involved with getting GMO... more
-
-
One year ago we saw a crime of nature unparalled committed by BP. As the Deepwater Horizon exploded sending 11 men to their deaths, a tragedy of immense proportion began to play out on our tv screens, and a twenty four hour feed of the Micondo well was made available for us to witness the killing of the Gulf and the species that live there.
This "accident" by BP in league with Transocean and Halliburton that was so much in our consciousness then has been relegated to unimportant by our media and our government. This crime, unpunished, the criminals, now left free to continue the very behavior that led to this environmental catastrophe as they also repair their image as the stories of illness and death are covered up and ignored is a crime against nature and a betrayal of our future.
And they think we have forgotten. They think we will let it go. They think they have escaped justice. I say, they are wrong.
And just like Jeffrey Smith, I too see the other more insidious spill that will affect generations to come for all time. The spill of an irresponsible science experiment already going horribly wrong. To unleash such a genetic storm upon the world with no idea how it can be reigned in if it goes wrong is not only irresponsible but criminal. But the companies involved and the biotech industry didn't and don't care about that. They knew there was much profit to be made from unleashing this on an unsuspecting global populace, and that even the ill effects could be used to profit from it.
This invasion into our ecosystems, our bodies and the generations to come can no longer go unchecked. It is grievously immoral to allow such a spill to continue especially being aware of the consequences now without knowing just how bad it will get in even ten to twenty years time. And just as with the Gulf disaster, it is government collusion with industry that has seen our futures sold to the highest bidder as our planet is used as a petrie dish!
People reading this, please understand the weight of what is being done to your world and act. We have the power, we have the tools, we have the voices. It's time for them to be heard. Our future depends on it.One year ago we saw a crime of nature unparalled committed by BP. As the Deepwater... more
-
-
Excerpt:
"According to the scientists interviewed, roughly 95 percent of the published research involving GMOs has been conducted and paid for by the biotechnology industry. This means that only five percent of the available research on the subject has been conducted by independent research firms that are much more likely to have an honest, unbiased approach."
Continued at the linkExcerpt:
"According to the scientists interviewed, roughly 95 percent of the... more
-
-
It's 2031. Biodistress is taking its toll on our planet as many islands in the Pacific and the Indian Oceans have now succombed to the rising seas while drought is now "normal" in many parts of Africa, Asia and the Western and Southeastern United States. The great rivers of the world, the Yellow, the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra, the Amazon, the Mekong, the Thames, the Colorado to just name a few all with continuing falling water levels as population increases have brought about migrations from areas where drought and water scarcity can no longer support growing food, and where the great glaciers of the world such as the Himalayas, Alps and Patagonia are now melting to the point where water is scarce and in many areas non existant.
Great forests that once spanned South America and the U.S. were levelled to grow BT corn, GM soy and the fuel that takes our food and water, giving us back diseases, deforestation and pollution as people continue to starve in our world as access to food is but a dream in a world where markets over value that which has no value while ignoring what has the greatest value. Our food is also now part of this vast monoculture world of the biotech companies that stole our seeds and our right to save them. And through their greed we now hunger not just for sustenance, but for justice.
It was in 2020 that the great famine occurred. It started in Africa where the GM seeds had been forced upon the people there with stories of high yields, little pesticide usage and a promise of bringing people out of poverty, failed. With the coercion of government agencies however, including and most prominently the U.S. these terminator seeds made their way around the world, eventually blowing their transgenic pollution onto organic crops and perpetuating a death spiral of biodiversity that now seeks to bring an end to the richness and beauty of a planet that was once thriving.
This particular famine was unlike any other, as it was started by a gene that was placed in the GM crop shutting off and producing a toxic mold that could not be controlled, as the companies had not tested these new "climate change" seeds properly before releasing them upon us all. Biodistress was actually the catalsyt as warming temperatures interacting with other environmental factors attributed to soil nutrient depletion had affected the capacity of the seeds to perform as was claimed they could. All who had purchased those seeds saw their crops yellow, wither and die globally. Economies across the world were scrambling to cover their losses as the hungry crowded streets in anger demanding restitution as many died. Farmer suicides increased not only in India, but in Asia and Africa where they had lost everything not only to the crop collapse but to the drought, deforestation and lack of water that dessimated their livestock as well.
We had warned the world that entering into this too fast and too deeply without knowing all of the consequences could lead to this result. We demanded restraint and disclosure from governments. We fought for sustainable agriculture, saving seeds and a world where farmers not corporations that made war chemicals grew our food. But we were overruled and finally in 2015, it was deemed illegal to grow any other seeds but those GM seeds of these companies. We were essentially told, you eat what we provide or you die... only, people are now dying in greater numbers as monoculture has proven to be a failure as it has dessimated our forests, polluted our water, killed our biodiversity and brought about new diseases we were not prepared to deal with.
However, we keep on fighting. Underground seed distribution centers are now coming into place by those who foresaw this disaster and saved organic non GMO seeds. Imagine that. We who simply wish to grow healthy food, now considered outlaws. But it is a badge we wear with honor as the fight for our right to grow food, save seeds and preserve agriculture continues.
Next installment: How we take our food back.
I have written this to illustrate what can happen if we continue on the road we are on. The good news in this is that we have a choice. We have a voice. It doesn't have to be this way. Let's raise our voices. Let's make that choice. Let's take back our food, our water, our planet! More to come.It's 2031. Biodistress is taking its toll on our planet as many islands in the... more
-
-
My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that erupted over the Fort Collins collection in the mid 1980s. Journalists had published stories dramatically detailing the grossly negligent manner in which deposits to the seed bank were treated. Numerous seed deposits were spilling out onto the floors of the facility, the facility was woefully understaffed, there was no testing of the seed and a virtually complete failure of required regeneration — in short a seed saving disaster. A legal petition by my organization to rectify the decision seemed to get the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) attention. But when no real action resulted we litigated. I was a very active member of that legal team. As such I reviewed much of the material in the case that documented USDA’s complete disregard for the safety and integrity of the seeds under its care. This litigation ultimately forced a settlement where USDA agreed to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conditions at the seed bank improved somewhat.
Since that first experience I learned that bigger is definitely not better or safer when it comes to seed saving. As noted elsewhere on this site, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) strongly advocates for in situ protection of plant diversity, and when ex situ seed saving is required it should reside at the most local and ecologically appropriate level. This has been one of the bases for CFS’ longstanding concerns about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Not surprisingly these fears have recently been justified. In December 2010 NordGen, the entity overseeing Svalbard, fired its Director Jessica Kathle. Some at NordGen believed that she was a “scapegoat” for the seed bank’s well known problems including continuing deficits, significant understaffing, and failure to do routine tests on the deposited seed to determine viability. (http://dagendresen.wordpress.com/about/Dot.) Sadly it seems like the Fort Collins fiasco redux.
There is however yet another important concern about Svalbard. The Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), which supports the operational costs of Svalbard, has received almost $30 million dollars in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Global Diversity Trust, “Funding Status 1-1-2011.” http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)This is by far the largest support of any non-governmental entity. As is well known, the Gates Foundation has very close working ties to Monsanto. The Gates Foundation invested $23 million in Monsanto in 2010 to help the company through some financial woes, and has been a determined supporter of spreading Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops throughout the developing world. In 2006 the Gates Foundation hired Rob Horsch, a former Monsanto Vice President and a key scientist involved in the creation of the company’s Round Up Ready crops in the 1980s, as their Senior Program Officer for their International Agriculture Development Program. This Monsanto connection to Svalbard is very troubling as the corporation owns almost a quarter of all the world’s commercial seeds and is the world’s leader in the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of plant genetics (including plant genes, cells and seeds). Monsanto has also had a decade long history of persecuting and prosecuting thousands of farmers for saving seeds.
Svalbard’s ties to the Gates Foundation and Monsanto are not the only issue. Only two private corporations have donated to the GCDT. Dupont/Pioneer Seeds has donated $1 million as has Syngenta. (Global Diversity Trust, “Funding Status 1-1-2011.” http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)Together these two companies own another 25% of the world’s commercial seeds and are also among the leaders in agriculture biotechnology and in patenting of plant genetics. So a major question looms. Why this interest by these biotech companies and their surrogates in paying the operational costs of Svalbard? These companies have no record of altruistic concern for the integrity and diversity of seeds and have in fact been destroying that diversity through genetic engineering and patenting for decades. The most obvious hypothesis is that these corporations see in Svalbard an opportunity to gain further control of the world’s plant genetics — being able to utilize the seed bank as a resource for germplasm that can be used for creating patentable hybrid or genetically engineered seed varieties.
To test that hypothesis I requested that the CFS legal team investigate the deposit agreements at Svalbard. The point of this analysis was to see if in some way the contract between Svalbard and depositors created an advantage for these corporations in their efforts to control and patent seed genetics. As the legal memorandum reveals, the answer to the question is “yes.” The Svalbard agreement does provide corporations seeking to patent plant genetics additional advantages in their efforts.
cont.My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that... more
-
-
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.
“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”
The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.
Feed’em longer!
One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.
Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”
“Pesticide Plants”
Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.
When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”
GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”
Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”
cont.http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
A new paper shows that consuming... more
-
-
Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.
This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":
"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."
This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.
____
This is from a paper written in 1997:
John Fagan, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management
"The concept of substantial equivalence has been used in Europe, North America, and elsewhere around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods. For instance, European Commission (EC) regulations concerning novel foods and food ingredients apply the concept of substantial equivalence to both the safety testing and to the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are spared from extensive safety testing on the assumption that they are no more dangerous than the corresponding non-genetically engineered food (1). Using similar arguments, genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are not required to be labeled as genetically engineered (2). The effect of these regulations has been to allow genetically engineered foods to enter the market place without sufficient testing to assure safety and without sufficient labeling to allow consumers to de cide for themselves whether or not to purchase and eat these novel foods. The health of the population of Europe is thus being placed at risk.
The fundamental inadequacies of this approach have been discussed previously. For instance, one article presented in the Proceedings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Food Safety Evaluation (3), came to the following conclusions: (1) Because the concept of substantial equivalence has no dimensions, it cannot be used as a predictor of which novel foods will require substantial safety testing in animals. (2) Depending on the nature of the novel food, the usefulness of the concept of substantial equivalence in determining the necessity for extensive safety testing ranges from useful to negligible. (3) The number and range of safety tests required is best determined, not by the concept of substantial equivalence, but by the nature of the product under consideration.
At first glance the term substantially equivalent implies that two foods are equivalent in all characteristics that are of importance to the consumer-safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture. However, in actual practice the investigator compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If that relatively restricted set of characteristics is not found to be significantly different in these two, the genetically engineered food is classified as substantially equivalent to the corresponding non-genetically engineered food and is required to be neither tested further nor labeled as genetically engineered.
The argument supporting this practice is that since most of the characteristics of a particular genetically engineered food are similar to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it must be the case that the genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to its non-genetically engineered counterpart with respect to all characteristics relevant to the consumer. This is obviously a fallacious argument, and should not be used as the basis for avoiding more extensive testing and for avoiding the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Most critically, if characteristics important to food safety are not evaluated directly, the safety of consumers will be in jeopardy."
end of excerpt.
____
continued at the link.
Thank you for supporting this blog and for helping me get out this important information.Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the... more
-
-
-
I just wanted to announce that I now have a blog entitled, The GMO Report where I will be reporting on GMOs and their effects as well as information and truth we all need to know to protect ourselves and our planet from this assault. It is just a baby now but I will be adding much more to it in the coming week(s). Take a look, become a follower if you wish to and please most importantly spread this information to all you can. There is indeed strength in numbers and the only way we will ever win this fight for food sovereignty and a healthy planet is through awareness, education and action.
Thanks,
JanI just wanted to announce that I now have a blog entitled, The GMO Report where I will... more
-
-
On the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from Friends of the Earth International reveals that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops across Europe continues to decline – with an increasing number of national bans, and decreasing numbers of hectares dedicated to GMOs [1].
The report, 'Who Benefits from GM Crops?', reveals that less than 0.06% of European fields are planted with GM crops – a decline of 23% since 2008. Seven member states uphold bans on Monsanto's GM maize due to growing evidence of its negative environmental impacts. Three countries have banned BASFs GM potato due to health concerns, immediately after its authorisation in spring 2010, and for the first time five member states have sued the European Commission over the authorisation of a GM crop [2]. Public opposition to GM food and feed has increased to 61% Europe wide [3].
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The widespread opposition to genetically modified crops and foods in Europe continues to rise because consumers and farmers can see that they offer no added value and only additional environmental and health risks.
GM crops will hinder not help our challenge of ensuring we can feed our global population with safe and healthy food."
Globally, the research highlights how even pro-GM Governments in South America have been forced to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of GMOs on famers, citizens and the environment.
The Brazilian Government has launched a GMO free soy programme to help farmers' access non-GMO soy seeds. In Argentina new research has exposed how the herbicide Glyphosate, used on the majority of GMOs grown worldwide, could have severe negative impacts on human health [4]. This has led to bans on spraying of the herbicide near people's homes. In Uruguay, local areas are declaring themselves GM-free.
Martin Drago, food sovereignty coordinator for Friends of the Earth International said: “Farmers and citizens in South America are bearing the burden of ten years of GM crops with widespread health disasters and rising costs. The myths on which the biotech industry is built are crumbling.
The havoc wreaked across South America shows that this technology is not fit for purpose. It is a wake up call for the rest of the world to move towards more ecological methods of farming.”
'Who Benefits from GM crops? An industry built on myths' also finds that:
- A new generation of GM crops designed to promote the use of hazardous pesticides Dicamba and 2,4 D are set for release in the US. Biotech companies are promoting these as a solution to the failure of existing GM crops to control weeds and reduce pesticide use.
- Biotech companies, aided by the US Government are now looking to new markets in Africa in an attempt to rescue their business. The Gates foundation, which funds billions of dollars worth of agriculture projects in Africa has bought shares in Monsanto, giving it a direct interest in maximising the profits of GM companies rather than protecting the interests of small holders in Africa.
NOTES:
[1] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2011.pdf
[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/FoEE_Who_benefits_fact_sheet.pdfOn the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from... more
-
