tagged w/ Bt corn
-
Some people might ask why I continue to talk about this. Well, that is because biodiversity to me is the linchpin to our survival as a species. Without it and with GMO monocrops deciding our food source it is highly likely in my view that we will face a worldwide famine in the future because of this transgenic contamination that is killing biodiversity. And I believe Mexico is just the tip of the iceberg.
So many thousands of varieties of rice, corn and other crops have been killed off due to industrial agriculture and losing sight of what agriculture is all about. Agriculture is now another facet of our lives that has been privitized and industrialized to the point where farmers no longer even have to put their hands into the Earth to plant it. There is no closeness in the relationship between Mother Earth and the planting of the seeds that are the miracle of life combined with water the elixir of life. It is now being made into a cold, greed driven, downright scary business where yields are not gotten to feed hungry people, but to be used as a commodity to feed animals for slaughter, make biofuels, pay off debt, and take up land that could be used more productively.
And now, even this contamination is being hidden from the people en masse as well as research being thwarted on these GMOs to give us the truth of their longterm effects on our health and our environment. Just what kind of world are we making for future generations? Where is the truth they will seek when they don't get it from us?
Agriculture in many countries is not just the action of planting seeds in the ground to make a profit off a government subsidy to support a corporation's profit sheets. It is a sacred tradition that shows the spiritual relationship we have to the only planet that can sustain our needs. It is a labor of love conducted by the first stewards of our global environment so many centuries ago that has survived, but is now slowly being stolen from us.
To see that relationship being totally destroyed saddens and outrages me. To look at the future in a world run by a handful of multinationals whose only tradition is to not lose one dollar of business at any cost as we continue to fall further and further away from the closeness we once has to this Earth also explains to me why we have no peace. And I think that's worth talking about. We have great power within us to preserve that which has been handed down for centuries that has worked in continuing the natural processes that have sustained us. To use that power to destroy that which sustains us is in my view to doom us to an certain future we cannot afford to risk.Some people might ask why I continue to talk about this. Well, that is because... more
-
-
Ever since GMOs were first introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers’ groups and NGOs have warned that they would contaminate other crops. This has happened, just as predicted. In this article we look at how communities in different parts of the world that have experienced contamination are developing strategies to fight against it.
[Three videos accompany this article which can be viewed here: http://www.grain.org/videos/?id=195]
When GM crops are planted they contaminate other crops with transgenic material. In places where GM crops are grown on a large scale, it has already become almost impossible to find crops of the same species that are free of GM material. And the contamination spreads even to areas where GM crops are not officially permitted. [1] The GM Contamination Register, managed by GeneWatch UK and Greenpeace International, has documented more than 216 cases of GM contamination in 57 countries over the past 10 years, including 39 cases in 2007. [2]
Monsanto and the other biotech corporations have always known that their GM crops would contaminate other crops. Indeed, it was part of their strategy to force the world into accepting GMOs. But around the world people are refusing to lie down and accept genetic modification as a fact of life; instead they are struggling against it, even in places subject to contamination. In fact, some communities experiencing contamination are developing sophisticated forms of resistance to GM crops. These usually begin with short-term strategies to decontaminate their local seeds, but often seek over the long term to strengthen their traditional food and agricultural systems.
We look at the experiences of communities in different parts of the world in dealing with GM contamination to see what insights they can offer others faced with similar situations. Each situation is unique, and gives rise to different processes. Common to all of them is the primary importance of collective action – of communities working at the grassroots to identify their own solutions and not depending on courts or governments, which, without strong social pressure, tend to side with industry.Ever since GMOs were first introduced in the mid-1990s, farmers’ groups and NGOs... more
-
-
NOTE: A German magazine has had honey tested and found extensive GM contamination.
This is a summary in English of the most relevant parts of the article reporting their findings.
The original article in German is here
http://www.oekotest.de/cgi/ot/otgs.cgi?doc=92008
Thanks to the GMWatch translators for this http://web.archive.org/web/20071225180614rn_1/www.gmwatch...
--- ---
In 2008, media reports showcased the various impacts of environmental contamination on bees and beekeepers: in the Germany's Baden-Württemberg state, 500 million bees died in Spring due to the insecticidal seed treatment agent clothianidin. Another example is the case of a Swabian beekeeper, who destroyed his whole honey harvest because it contained pollen of the GM corn MON810, after the administrative court declared the honey as 'non marketable'. The judgement is not yet absolute.
In its January edition, the German eco- magazine Öko-Test published an article on the analysis of 24 honeys, including 6 canola honeys, for GM and pesticide contamination, as well as other quality criteria.
Only 3 products were rated "very good" while six either got an "inadequate" rating or "failed". A whopping eleven samples (almost half of the samples) - mainly from South America - were contaminated with GM pollen, predominantly of GM Roundup Ready soy. Although the oil plant supplies little nectar and therefore is not a honey plant, the bees apparently still take the pollen. Latin American countries - where aplenty GM soy is grown - are at the same time suppliers of a bigger part of the world honey production.
At least, honey from German beekeepers as well as those from Southeastern Europe and fair trade honey were unpolluted. For the latter, the reason might be that small-scale beekeepers often produce their honey in less contaminated regions than big apiaries. Among the canola honeys, the lab found GM in the Canadian Canola-Clover Honey - unsurprisingly, as Canada mostly grows GM canola.
Pesticides appeared virtually exclusively in German products, mostly the insecticide thiacloprid - found in honeys with a high proportion of canola. Unfortunately, even the supposedly organic canola honey by Allos contained increased residues.
Reacting to the test results, the company Breitsamer wrote that beekeepers are victims of genetic engineering; they themselves are not using GM, do not grow GM crops, and do not have any interest in herbicide resistant crops. Furthermore, the bees could not be controlled as they search for nectar within an area of 50 square kilometre. By way of contrast, the discounter Lidl commented that the entry of GM soy pollen is completely accidental, and could vary widely within one charge; moreover, the quantities are very small.
The article concludes that while nobody wants GM in their honey, the findings show that coexistence of conventional and GM agriculture is impossible. Therefore, the ratings reflect a political reality rather than being due to lack of due diligence by the honey producers. Furthermore, the legal position does not support the honey as the GM pollen are not GMOs as such - the legislation explicitly deals with GMOs. Thus, the GM content in honey neither has to be approved nor labelled. On the other hand, judgements such as the one from the administrative court regarding the GM maize MON810 show that there are other legal conceptions. The background: at present MON810 is not clearly approved for human consumption.
Sometimes the level of 0.9 percent is used - as honey only contains only around 0.1 to 0.5 percent pollen, labelling then would not be compulsory. In any case, transparency for the consumer falls by the wayside.NOTE: A German magazine has had honey tested and found extensive GM contamination.... more
-
-
On Nov. 11, Austria's Ministries for Agriculture and Health released the results of a long-term study [PDF] of genetically modified organisms. A widely used strain of GM corn, they found, appears to decrease both birthrates and the size of offspring in mice -- and the problems seem to grow with each generation.
This is a troubling conclusion. U.S. farmers planted the first commercial GMO crops in 1996. Today, upwards of 90 percent of U.S. soy, and 60 percent of U.S. corn, come from GMO seeds. Those crops suffuse our food supply -- they provide the bulk of our cooking oil and sweetener, and feed the animals that feed us. By 2003, as much as 75 percent of processed food available in the United States contained GMO ingredients, according to an estimate cited by the USDA. GM corn and soy acreage have only expanded since then.
Of course, the reproductive function is complex and intimately linked to the body's other systems. If GMOs are affecting our ability to reproduce, then it seems likely they're affecting our health in other ways, too.
Yet the Austrian study dropped with a thud in the U.S. media. The New York Times didn't mention it; on The Washington Post website, it rated a few paragraphs in the midst of a daily health round up.
Nor did it seem to penetrate the world of our president-elect. Less than two weeks after the Austrian study emerged, Obama named the members of his transition team for issues related to the USDA. Among them was Michael R. Taylor, a consultant who has spent the past 30 years bouncing among high-level positions at the USDA, the FDA, and Monsanto, the company that dominates the lucrative market for GMO seeds. Taylor served as director of policy at the FDA during the 1990s, when GMOs began to infiltrate the food supply.
A few days before that, Des Moines Register agriculture correspondent Philip Brasher speculated that Obama will be as friendly to the ag-biotech industry as his predecessor, based on "both [Obama's] statements of policy and the type of people from whom he's taking advice."
Given the startling conclusions of the Austrian researchers and Obama's evident embrace of GMOs, it's time to revisit how the U.S. government regulates the technology.
More at the linkOn Nov. 11, Austria's Ministries for Agriculture and Health released the results... more
-
-
Raise the alarm for Mexican corn-s biosecurity: a molecular study conducted by Mexican, American and Dutch researchers demonstrates the presence of genes from genetically modified organisms (GMO) among the varieties of traditional corn cultivated in the remote regions of Oaxaca State in the southern part of the country, even though the Mexican government has always maintained a moratorium on the use of transgenic seed.
The results of this study incite the experts to demand much more restrictive protective measures. Old time agriculture as practiced in Mexico - where wind-blown pollination of corn is the norm and where peasants are in the habit of exchanging their seed - seems to aggravate the risk of rapid GMO contamination.
An article that details their conclusions should be published in the next edition of the review, Molecular Ecology. It was written by Elena Alvarez-Buylla of the Institute for Ecology of the Autonomous National University of Mexico (UNAM), with the collaboration of a dozen other scientists.
Their work could relaunch the controversy that was unleashed in 2001 by a highly controversial article in the magazine, Nature, the authors of which, biologists David Quist and Ignacio Chapela from the University of California at Berkeley, revealed that criollos (traditional) corn from the Oaxaca region - one of the cradles of that cereal - were contaminated by Roundup Ready (RR) and Bt genes, property of the American company Monsanto.
In her book, The World According to Monsanto, (due for release in March 2009 and already available for pre-order at Amazon.com), Marie-Monique Robin related how Mr. Chapela became a victim of media lynching at that time at the instigation of the dominant company in the GMO market. Nature ended up publishing a disclaimer, deeming that the two biologists article was insufficiently backed up.
However, seven years later, the work Mrs. Alvarez-Buylla directed broadly confirms their conclusions, as a report published in the November 13 Nature emphasizes. The researchers have discovered transgenes in three of the twenty-three fields of Oaxaca-s northern sierra where samples were taken in 2001, then in two places sampled in 2004.
American Allison Snow, of the University of California and author in 2005 of a preliminary study that seemed to undermine Ignacio Chapela and David Quist-s discoveries (and which were then immediately exploited by GMO partisans), is publishing an additional complimentary note in the same issue of Molecular Ecology, in which she judges the molecular analysis conducted by the UNAM team to be very good, bringing to light the positive evidence of transgenes.
snip
The study-s authors call for a strengthening of biosecurity measures to preserve native corn varieties, especially in Mexico, corn-s center of origin. They say Mexico must set up truly independent laboratories and adapt criteria of molecular analysis to the Mexican reality, rather than trusting methods used in countries such as the United States which have an agricultural system entirely different from our own.
But their greatest concern at present involves planned pharmaceutical trusts which want to make a profit on corn biomass and use it as a bioreactor in order, for example, to express vaccines and anti-coagulants. Given the incidents that have already occurred in the United States where they have trouble separating bioreactors from GMO, we may fear that corn could turn into the garbage bin of the pharmaceutical industry, at the expense of its purpose as food, fears Mrs. Alvarez-Buylla. What shall we do when anti-coagulants arrive in Mexican tortilla?
* Quotes and apostrophes eliminated because they won-t show on post properly.Raise the alarm for Mexican corn-s biosecurity: a molecular study conducted by... more
-
-
We are on the tip of the iceberg regarding GMOs in our food supply. They have only been in our food supply for a little over a decade. We may not truly begin to see the full health effects of them for another twenty years. However, they are continued to be allowed to be spread thoughout the world to kill biodiversity and threaten traditional agriculture as we know it with little to no oversight. And Monsanto like coal, oil, and tobacco companies is paying big bucks to try to make people believe they do not need any independent testing of these test tube organisms they are passing off as food. As the end of this article states, Monsanto sure does have some explaining to do, only they do not give interviews. I wonder why?We are on the tip of the iceberg regarding GMOs in our food supply. They have only... more
-
-
Monsanto purchased a brazilian sugarcane ethanol company for 290 million dollars. Who the hell is that going to feed?
From the article:
At a time when many people were questioning causes of the recent food crisis, many more were investigating how our food systems can move forward to sustainably feed the increasing world population. Recently, the U.N. Task Force on Trade, Environment and Development released a report touting the noteworthy yields and economic benefits of organic agricu... in Africa. Even recognizing that organic production offers significant hope for increasing food security. Another report released earlier this year by the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Scien... noted that a "radical change" was needed for agriculture, and that agricultural biotechnology held little promise. But corporations like Monsanto took a different approach to the problem -- exploiting the food crisis as a means to sell more of their own biotech seeds.
Monsanto-s website is rife with articles discussing how its applications of biotechnology will supposedly solve the food crisis. Back in June, on the cusp of the World Food Summit, Monsanto announced plans to double crop-yields by 2030 with biotechnology. The New York Times covered the story including a quote from a soybean genetics expert at the University of Nebraska who stated, The hype-to-reality ratio of that one is essentially infinity ... seeing an exponential change in the yield curve is unlikely. But while experts were doubting Monsanto-s claims, a Business Week article quoted Hugh Grant, the head of Monsanto, saying, That isn-t a feel-good thing ... Satisfying the demand curve is a great business opportunity. Grant may consider that quote a gaffe, but it was a telling sign regarding where Monsanto-s true interests lie: not with people, but with profits.
Last week Monsanto purchased Aly Participacoes Ltda, a Brazilian company involved in sugarcane breeding and sugarcane ethanol. Monsanto-s press release noted, Global demands for raw sugar and biofuels are beginning to rise at a faster pace than the current production levels in sugarcane, a crop that is essential to meeting these demands, said Carl Casale, executive vice president of global strategy and operations for Monsanto.
Last time I checked, hungry people can-t eat ethanol and probably can-t afford sugar. So why, in the middle of a food crisis, is Monsanto investing in sugarcane ethanol?Monsanto purchased a brazilian sugarcane ethanol company for 290 million dollars. Who... more
-
-
How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in the US? How much transgenic contamination? Environmental toxification? Where are the independent studies that conclude that GE foods unequiviocably do not contribute to allergies, diabetes, thyroid conditions, cancer, Morgellon's Disease, early puberty in children fed GM soy formula, and other diseases that have been on the rise since GM foods hit the market? Why is Monsanto and the FDA fighting consumer disclosure which is a democratic right of the people if these foods are safe?
Personally, I do not believe that GM foods are benign. I believe there are health effects to them that we are not being told about because it would hurt the profits of Monsanto and other agrbusiness /chemical/ poison making companies.The majority of the world is against genetic modification of food. The only ones really pushing it are governments and world organizations like the World Bank that seek to make profits. There is no real need for it except profit motive by chemical companies looking to exploit the poor and now the climate and food crises with their ethanol.
Yet, the U.S. government in collusion with Monsanto allows it to be sold in our country without disclosure to the public. I think that if labelling is not to be allowed on foods in this country containing their GM ingredients that there needs to be a MAJOR boycott in this country of all companies that sell any corn and soy processed foods. They then need to feel it where it will hurt THEM the most until they disclose the source of their ingredients. I am tired as a citizen of having to deal with the secrecy of a government that cares more about their own profits and political cronyism than the health and wellbeing of the American people and the environment. ANY food that is also a registered pesticide is not something I want my child or myself to consume.
____
From the article:
A study published today by the Austrian government identified serious health threats of genetically engineered (GE) crops. In one of the very few long-term feeding studies ever conducted with GE crops, the fertility of mice fed with GE maize was found to be severely impaired, with fewer offspring being produced than by mice fed on natural crops. Considering the severity of the potential threat to human health and reproduction, Greenpeace is demanding a recall of all GE food and crops from the market, worldwide.
The study, sponsored by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health, was presented today at a scientific seminar in Vienna, Austria. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, summarised the findings: Mice fed with GE maize had less offspring in the third and fourth generations, and these difference were statistically significant. Mice fed with non-GE maize reproduced more efficiently. This effect can be attributed to the differences in the food source.
snip
Owned by Monsanto, the GE maize variety tested in this study is tolerant to a herbicide and resistant to certain insect pests. It has been approved for planting and food use in a variety of countries, including the US, Argentina, Japan, Philippines and South Africa. In Mexico and the European Union(1), it is approved for food and feed use.
"This study is yet another example that the food and feed safety of GE crops and food cannot be guaranteed. The reproductive toxicity of this GE maize was a totally unexpected result, but regulators around the world had considered this GE maize variety as safe as non-GE varieties - a potentially devastating error," said Dr. van Aken.How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in... more
-
-
The grand scheme to introduce genetically modified foods into Kenya seemed to shift into top gear after the Ministry of Agriculture launched a campaign last month to make the country appreciate them.
First, Minister for Agriculture, William Ruto, who has on several occasions publicly expressed his support for the introduction of GM foods into the country, launched the National Biotechnology Awareness Strategy last month.
According to a statement Ruto sent to the press, the strategy was aimed at offering Kenyans "accurate and reliable information and knowledge" about such branches of biotechnology as tissue culture, molecular breeding and genetic modification.
"This will enable Kenyans to make informed decisions and be involved in determining the pace of adoption of biotechnology in the country," he said.
However, Ruto went ahead to state that Kenya will embrace GMOs, making it appear the government had launched the awareness campaign merely to state its pro-GMO stance.
This has led to fresh fears that the government has irrevocably decided on introduction, cultivation and commercialisation of GMOs in the country.
snip
The Ministry of Higher Education, Science and Technology has also been preparing to take back to parliament a Bill that was heavily criticised last year for failing to address the concerns of farmers and consumers and for merely seeking to create the necessary legal framework for the introduction of GMOs in Kenya.
snip
"They want to do it by force, the so-called national awareness strategy is a mere gimmick," said Josphat Ngonyo of the Africa Network for Animal Welfare. Mr Ngonyo said KBioC, of which he is a member, has attempted to get the agriculture minister to listen to its side of the GMO story to no avail. KBioC is anumbrella body representing over 50 farmers' groups, religious organisations, consumer organisations and NGOs.
snip
But one of the leading proponents of genetic engineering in Kenya, Dr Florence Wambugu, told The EastAfrican that those opposed to the introduction and proliferation of GMOs in Africa are profiteers and fearmongers.
"There are those who get business from fearmongering," she said. She also accused Greenpeace International of offering false information by claiming that some of the maize seeds grown in Kenya are contaminated by GM-materials.
This drew the ire of a Greenpeace official who accused Dr Wambugu of employing "scare tactics" in campaigning for GMOs in Africa.
"The genetic engineering industry, and their spokesperson for Africa, Florence Wambugu, must be really desperate if they are now resorting to lies, and ridiculous ones... Greenpeace never ever endangered the environment, the life of farmers and the health of consumers by putting a single genetically engineered seed into any soil anywhere in the world, and whoever suggests the opposite is completely out of touch with reality," said Jan Van Aken of Greenpeace's Sustainable Agriculture.
What is interesting is that even though she denied that Monsanto ever funded her in her pro-GMO campaign, Dr Wambugu nevertheless admitted that she gets money from such bodies as the United States Development Agency (USAid), Rockefeller Foundation, Dupont and CropLife International.
The latter is an organisation represented in 91 countries whose members include the global who's-who of the genetic engineering industry -- BASF, Bayer CropScience, Dow Agrosciences, Dupont, FMC, Monsanto, Sumitomo and Syngenta. Dr Wambugu is the founder of Africa Harvest, which campaigns for GMOs in Africa.
_________________
The grand scheme to introduce genetically modified foods into Kenya seemed to shift... more
-
