With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped to the mic and received the loudest applause of the morning with this question on genetically modified (GM) foods.With a packed house, and time for only one more question, author Jeffrey Smith stepped... more
* Critics say GMO sugarbeets promote "superweeds" (Recasts, updates with details from court decision, comments)
By Carey Gillam
KANSAS CITY, Sept 22 (Reuters) - A federal U.S. court has ruled in favor of critics of Monsanto (MON.N) Co's genetically engineered sugar beets, saying the U.S. government failed to adequately evaluate environmental and economic risks associated with the crop.
The U.S. District Court for the northern district of California ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated federal law by failing to prepare an environmental impact statement before deregulating genetically altered sugar beets. Monsanto developed the biotech beets to be resistant to Monsanto's glyphosate herbicide Roundup, and promotes the sugarbeets as "Roundup Ready."
The plaintiffs include the Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance, Sierra Club, and High Mowing Seeds. The groups filed the lawsuit in January 2008.
About 1.1 million U.S. acres were seeded this year to Roundup Ready sugar beets in the fourth year of commercialized production.
Critics say the Roundup Ready beets are dangerous for the environment because they promote the emergence of "superweeds" or weeds that cannot easily be killed because they also develop a tolerance to weedkiller. They also say that organic and convential beet farmers are damaged because the genetically altered sugar beets are wind-pollinated and inevitably cross-pollinate related crops grown nearby.
The court found that USDA gave only "cursory" consideration to some of these concerns, failing to adequately consider the risks. The court has ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment, and will evaluate other remedies in an October meeting of the parties.
In response to the court ruling, Monsanto defended its product.
"The decision was based on procedure and had nothing to do with questioning the safety or efficacy of Roundup Ready sugar beets," said Monsanto spokesman Garrett Kasper.
But one of the attorneys representing the consumer and farmer groups who filed the lawsuit said the ruling spoke to the danger of the biotech crop.
"Monsanto is trying to sweep this under the rug," said Paul Achitoff, a lawyer for the law firm Earthjustice. "The procedure they neglected to follow was to evaluate the impact of the product. The court found they needed to look at the environmental impacts of growing Monsanto's product and they haven't done it." (Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by David Gregorio)* Court finds USDA failed to evaluate risk
* Orders environmental impact report... more
Superb must-read article on the Gates Foundation - Africa's ultimate "strong-man" with the power to make the world bend to its misguided agenda. Good to see this in The Nation and its special focus on food.
EXTRACTS: ...the destinies of millions of the world's poorest farmers are again being shaped by the richest Americans, and philanthropic choices are very different from democratic ones.
In a number of [Gates] grants, for instance, one corporation appears repeatedly--Monsanto. To some extent, this simply reflects Monsanto's domination of industrial agricultural research. There are, however, notable synergies between Gates and Monsanto... and there's some overlap between them. Robert Horsch, a former senior vice president at Monsanto, is, for instance, now interim director of Gates's agricultural development program and head of the science and technology team.
Travis English and Paige Miller, researchers with the Seattle-based Community Alliance for Global Justice, have uncovered some striking trends in Gates Foundation funding. By following the money, English told us that "AGRA used funds from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to write twenty-three grants for projects in Kenya. Twelve of those recipients are involved in research in genetically modified agriculture, development or advocacy. About 79 percent of funding in Kenya involves biotech in one way or another." And, English says, "so far, we have found over $100 million in grants to organizations connected to Monsanto."
_________
Much more at the link. The article attached is well worth the read. I am truly amazed at the arrogance of these companies and their benefactors telling other countries what they need, especially when it is only for their financial benefit. As the attached article at the link relates, people need access to food and to food sovereignty, not to be held to the whims of the rich.Superb must-read article on the Gates Foundation - Africa's ultimate "strong-man" with... more
The agricultural giant Monsanto may well still be the world's most hated company. The company that brought the world Agent Orange, the defoliant of choice in the Vietnam War, followed up a decade ago with a strident push to flood the world with genetically modified crops. It alienated millions – and even its friends and rivals among GM supporters blamed Monsanto's belligerence for putting back the cause by many years. But I'm going to ignore GMs and talk about water. And belligerence.
In part, no doubt, to help salvage its GM-tarnished reputation, Monsanto now makes great play of its efforts to help engineer a second green revolution built around "sustainability".
Sustainability is a much-abused term and it infiltrates almost every corner of the company's website. But to be fair they do try and define what the word means for its business. The company promises that its "sustainable yield initiative" will "reduce by one-third per unit produced the aggregate amount of key resources such as land, water and energy, required to grow crops by 2030."
Many analysts now see water, rather than land, as the key limitation on growing food to feed a future world population of nine billion in the coming decades. So a third more crop for the same amount of water is a valuable goal. The company trumpets especially its work to engineer more water-efficient maize.
Of course, despite the company's public pledge to "share knowledge and technology" the company's corporate aim is to make sure that farmers buy Monsanto-patented water-efficient seeds by the trillion.
But you would expect Monsanto to be especially sensitive about how it manages water in its own farming operations, and particularly to show concern for how neighbouring farmers are facing up to water shortages. Wouldn't you?
The scene shifts to the Hawaiian island of Molokai. This is an old stomping ground of Monsanto's. It is the largest employer and the island is sometimes known as "the birthplace of biotechnology" and "the Silicon valley of the seed corn industry".
This is where Monsanto does a lot of its research into GM crops such as maize, and where it grows many of the seeds it sells to farmers round the world.
Nature on Molokai has suffered badly from the invasion of Monsanto and other big-farm companies. In recompense, Monsanto puts money into a Nature Conservancy programme on the island to "preserve biodiversity and protect water sources".
The company has nonetheless gained a bad reputation there as a water bully. As a local journalist wrote there last year in the Molokai Dispatch, "Monsanto's thirst for more water" threatens its future on the island. "Like most large corporations, Monsanto's number one priority is to maximise profits. In this case it means planting as many acres as possible, and using a lot of water," wrote Todd Yamashita.
Recently, during a drought that emptied reservoirs and forced the local irrigation company to demand 20% water cutbacks from local farmers, Monsanto insisted on the right to take more water and lobbied for a new aquifer to be tapped.
In law, two-thirds of the water from the Molokai irrigation system should go to homestead farmers. In practice big landowners, especially Monsanto, take 84% of the irrigation system's water consumption. Monsanto alone, according to Yamashita, takes almost twice as much water as all 200 homesteaders.
So I think I have this right. In the cause of developing crops that will allow the world's farmers to use less water, Monsanto is so overusing the water in its own backyard that local farmers are have resorted to legal action to get their water back. As the Molokai Dispatch's headline has it: "Monsanto could be its own worst enemy."
end of excerptThe agricultural giant Monsanto may well still be the world's most hated company. The... more
Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers.
To purchase genetically modified seeds, a customer must sign an agreement that limits what can be done with them. (If you have installed software recently, you will recognize the concept of the end-user agreement.) Agreements are considered necessary to protect a company’s intellectual property, and they justifiably preclude the replication of the genetic enhancements that make the seeds unique. But agritech companies such as Monsanto, Pioneer and Syngenta go further. For a decade their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research. Under the threat of litigation, scientists cannot test a seed to explore the different conditions under which it thrives or fails. They cannot compare seeds from one company against those from another company. And perhaps most important, they cannot examine whether the genetically modified crops lead to unintended environmental side effects.
Research on genetically modified seeds is still published, of course. But only studies that the seed companies have approved ever see the light of a peer-reviewed journal. In a number of cases, experiments that had the implicit go-ahead from the seed company were later blocked from publication because the results were not flattering.
...
It would be chilling enough if any other type of company were able to prevent independent researchers from testing its wares and reporting what they find—imagine car companies trying to quash head-to-head model comparisons done by Consumer Reports, for example. But when scientists are prevented from examining the raw ingredients in our nation’s food supply or from testing the plant material that covers a large portion of the country’s agricultural land, the restrictions on free inquiry become dangerous...
by Editors of Scientific AmericanUnfortunately, it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as... more
A group of leading doctors has warned the public to avoid genetically modified food and GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). A revealing press release from this group of concerned physicians states, "The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) today released its position paper on Genetically Modified foods stating that 'GM foods pose a serious health risk' and calling for a moratorium on GM foods."
On May 19th, the AAEM posted their landmark paper calling on “Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks. In addition to a moratorium on GM foods, these doctors also called for non-biased, long-term independent studies, and labeling of all foods containing GM ingredients.
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.”A group of leading doctors has warned the public to avoid genetically modified food... more
On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty, which, among other important points, declared the country "free of transgenic crops and seeds." However, in spite of vocal popular opposition, the legislation left the door open to approvals of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in "exceptional" cases. Now, President Rafael Correa has proposed several changes to the legislation in what is known in Ecuador as a partial-veto and sent it back to the Congress. The president's changes dangerously weaken the law and open the door to Terminator seeds.
Terminator technology is designed to make "suicide seeds," genetically engineered to be sterile in the second generation. The technology has been widely rejected around the world by farmers' movements, governments, research institutions and UN agencies as dangerous, immoral and undesirable.
Alarmed by President Correa's proposals, civil society is now calling on him to drop his amendments and to explicitly ban Terminator technology.
end of excerpt
_________
Just what are these country's leaders being promised in return for being so morally bankrupt? Terminator technology is unproven and a direct threat to biodiversity! I simply cannot believe this. Chevron/Texaco destroys the Ecuadorian rainforest with toxic sludge, and now this president wants to destroy biodiversity with these seeds? Greed will be the end of us all.On February 18, 2009, the Ecuadorian Congress approved a new Law on Food Sovereignty,... more
The Future Of Food offers an in-depth investigation into the disturbing truth behind engineered foods that have quietly filled U.S. grocery store shelves for the past decade.
In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University's Alan York told local media.
'Superweed' explosion threatens Monsanto heartlands
France 24, 19 April 2009 http://tiny.cc/vTMid
"Superweeds" are plaguing high-tech Monsanto crops in southern US states, driving farmers to use more herbicides, return to conventional crops or even abandon their farms.
The gospel of high-tech genetically modified (GM) crops is not sounding quite so sweet in the land of the converted. A new pest, the evil pigweed, is hitting headlines and chomping its way across Sun Belt states, threatening to transform cotton and soybean plots into weed battlefields.
In late 2004, "superweeds" that resisted Monsanto's iconic "Roundup" herbicide, popped up in GM crops in the county of Macon, Georgia. Monsanto, the US multinational biotech corporation, is the world's leading producer of Roundup, as well as genetically engineered seeds. Company figures show that nine out of 10 US farmers produce Roundup Ready seeds for their soybean crops.
Superweeds have since alarmingly appeared in other parts of Georgia, as well as South Carolina, North Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, according to media reports. Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is the most used herbicide in the USA.
GM protesters demonstrate near the French town of Toulouse in March 2008. How has this happened? Farmers over-relied on Monsanto's revolutionary and controversial combination of a single "round up" herbicide and a high-tech seed with a built-in resistance to glyphosate, scientists say.
Today, 100,000 acres in Georgia are severely infested with pigweed and 29 counties have now confirmed resistance to glyphosate, according to weed specialist Stanley Culpepper from the University of Georgia. http://mulch.cropsoil.uga.edu/weedsci/
"Farmers are taking this threat very seriously. It took us two years to make them understand how serious it was. But once they understood, they started taking a very aggressive approach to the weed," Culpepper told FRANCE 24.
"Just to illustrate how aggressive we are, last year we hand-weeded 45% of our severely infested fields," said Culpepper, adding that the fight involved "spending a lot of money."
In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the superweed explosion, North Carolina State University's Alan York told local media. http://deltafarmpress.com/cotton/palmer-amaranth-1226/
The perfect weed
Had Monsanto wanted to design a deadlier weed, they probably could not have done better. Resistant pigweed is the most feared superweed, alongside horseweed, ragweed and waterhemp.In 2007, 10,000 acres of land were abandoned in Macon country, the epicenter of the... more
The global North's super-sized carbon footprint has already trampled the South's farmers, most recently in the form of energy crop plantations, which have been directly responsible for deforestation and farmer evictions in some developing countries, including Indonesia and Tanzania.
Now the world's largest seed and agrochemical corporations are stockpiling hundreds of monopoly patents on genes in crops genetically engineered to withstand the environmental stresses associated with climate change, such as drought, heat, cold, floods and saline soils.
In 2008 the Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration reported that the largest of these companies, including BASF, Bayer, DuPont, Monsanto and Syngenta, had already filed 532 patent documentson so-called 'climate ready' genes at patent offices around the world.
Beyond Europe and the United States, patent offices in major food-producing countries — including Argentina, Brazil, China, Mexico and South Africa — are also being swamped. Since last year's count, the 'Gene Giants' have filed at least 65 more patent documents related to the ability of plants to tolerate environmental stresses, as opposed to biological stresses such as pests or weeds. Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, and BASF, the world's largest chemical firm, have forged a colossal US$1.5 billion partnership to develop such crops, suggesting that the number of patent filings to date is just the beginning.
Bad news
But the huge number of patent filings does not mean that these companies have found the key to unlocking how plants withstand environmental stresses — though they may be knocking on the right door. We do not yet know how these plants will perform in the field. What is clear is that their appearance in the marketplace will increase the concentration of corporate power, drive up costs, inhibit independent research, and, most alarmingly, undermine the rights of farmers to save and exchange seeds.
There is a further danger that, as the climate crisis deepens, governments may strong-arm farmers into planting prescribed biotech seeds with traits deemed essential for adaptation. This is already happening in the United States — the government's Federal Crop Insurance Corporation gives a discount to farmers planting Monsanto's biotech maize seed because, according to data submitted by Monsanto, there is reduced risk of low yields compared to other varieties. It is common for US policies to serve as templates for developing countries, so we shouldn't be surprised to see other governments following suit.
____________
Patents. This is how they will gain control of the world's food supply, and then through innocent looking and vaguely worded bills like HR 875 and others, work behind the scenes to regulate what farmers can plant.The global North's super-sized carbon footprint has already trampled the South's... more
In light of the recent ruling by U.S.D.A. Secretary Tom Vilsack to approve the release of inadequately tested genetically engineered sugar beets into the ecosystem, Sierra Club today sent a letter to President Obama calling for a change from the previous administration.
The Sierra Club has submitted numerous extensive science-based comments to the U.S.D.A. regarding the release of genetically manipulated (GM) crops, only to have these critical issues fall on deaf ears at the USDA.
Laurel Hopwood, Chair of Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Action Team, explains, "This past decade we are seeing new 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, made by crashing through the protective species barrier. These new life forms are spreading their GM traits on a massive scale, an event unprecedented in the 3.8 billion year history of life on this planet."
Neil Carman, Ph.D., scientific advisor for Sierra Club's Genetic Engineering Action Team, explains, "The ecosystem is not a dumping ground for untested GM crops. Mandatory environmental impact statements must be performed for every ecosystem into which any new GM crop is to be introduced, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. To the dismay of the American public, the U.S.D.A. continues to fail to prepare Environmental Impact Statements."
The Organic Consumers Association agrees that the risks posed by the current trajectory of genetic engineering in the fields of agriculture are profound. Ronnie Cummins, Director of the Organic Consumers Association laments, "Pollen blowing in the wind or carried by pollinator species transfer genetically engineered traits to organic crops, posing enormous dilemmas for organic farmers."
Cummins adds, "The American people aren't the only guinea pigs in this huge, untested experiment. Mr. Vilsack intends to play GM promoter when he leads a delegation to the upcoming G8 meeting at talks to reduce world hunger. Gene technologies will destroy the diversity and the sustainable agricultural systems that farmers have developed for millennia and will thus undermine the capacity for those in developing countries to feed themselves."
Until rigorous research is conducted to identify and address the long term impacts of GMOs, such organisms should not be released into the environment. Sierra Club, with 1.3 million members and supporters, and the Organic Consumer Association, with 850,000 network members, urge President Obama to keep his word to protect the land and food for the people of the world.
I think it is time they received a lot of letters. I sent mine, and if I have to do it again I will. This is the wrong direction to take for sustainability. Carrying on the Bush doctrine of industrial agriculture and releasing these organisms into our environment without proper testing is truly negligable. I was hoping to see better from Obama and this USDA, but up to now I have been disappointed. It appears he only placed an "organic" supporter in the second position as another gesture.
This combined with pharma crops being planted where they can infect conventional crops, and calling for MORE ethanol which means more GM corn subsidies is exactly the same policy Bush had. So the question I ask on food policy is, besides the Obamas being able to eat organic while the rest of the poor who cannot afford it or have access to it are stuck with the same crap: WHERE IS THE CHANGE? If you can't stand up to these companies for the people President Obama, you lied about that change.In light of the recent ruling by U.S.D.A. Secretary Tom Vilsack to approve the release... more
Dr. Shiva is the one person in the international community who is standing up to the status quo to bring truth to the masses in order to preserve environmental democracy and biodiversity, and therefore life itself. I love this woman so much because she speaks my heart as well. Seeds are indeed sacred. They are from whence all good things come, and from whence many solutions to the world's problems can be found. And they should be treated with the respect they deserve for the life and sustenance they bring to us all through the graciousness of Mother Earth. You can't get any greener than that.
In this piece, Dr. Shiva ends her speech with a hopeful prediction: That Monsanto will not last much longer, and that she will live to see the end of them. That gives me hope and I will plan to be there as well to see the demise of that soulless, heartless, life sucking evil entity that has done nothing but defile everything sacred about agriculture and our special relationship to the Earth that sustains us.Dr. Shiva is the one person in the international community who is standing up to the... more
Just add the price of seeds (which cannot be saved for replanting) and herbicides to the loses of traditional crops killed by transgenic contamination to the losses incurred by farmers sued by companies like Monsanto, and the only "benefit" you find from this are the profits added to their balance sheets. This is clearly a profit driven "technology" using us as guinea pigs and now the climate crisis and "food crisis" as an excuse to raise prices while stating they care about farmers. I hope reports like this start coming out because we are on borrowed time here regarding preserving the biodiversity of this planet the longer we allow these crops to proliferate their contamination and environmental pollution.Just add the price of seeds (which cannot be saved for replanting) and herbicides to... more
When the British government last week ordered its chief scientist to conduct a review of the merits of genetically modified (GM) crops, those involved in the long running debate over the controversial technology were unsurprised.
Designated a "wealth creator" and future growth industry by the government, biotechnology was unlikely to disappear despite widespread public opposition to the technology and the announcement was soon followed by all the standard tropes of the now-familiar debate.
Amol Rajan at The Independent welcomed the "new campaign against hysteria, irrationality, and stupidity in relation to GM food" while Clare Oxborrow, the senior food campaigner at Friends of the Earth lambasted ministers for an "obsession with GM as a techno-fix solution to problems in food and farming."
This time however, advocates of GM crops turned to a report they hoped could buttress their position with a no-nonsense scientific dismissal of widespread concerns; a essay by Dr. Matt Ridley titled "genetically modified crops and the perils of rejecting innovation."When the British government last week ordered its chief scientist to conduct a review... more
(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, confirms genetically modified (GM) corn seriously affects reproductive health in mice. Non-GMO advocates, who have warned about this infertility link along with other health risks, now seek an immediate ban of all GM foods and GM crops to protect the health of humankind and the fertility of women around the world.
Feeding mice with genetically modified corn developed by the US-based Monsanto Corporation led to lower fertility and body weight, according to the study conducted by the University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna. Lead author of the study Professor Zentek said, there was a direct link between the decrease in fertility and the GM diet, and that mice fed with non-GE corn reproduced more efficiently.
In the study, Austrian scientists performed several long-term feeding trials over 20 weeks with laboratory mice fed a diet containing 33% of a GM variety (NK 603 x MON 810), or a closely related non-GE variety used in many countries. Statistically significant litter size and pup weight decreases were found in the third and fourth litters in the GM-fed mice, compared to the control group.
The corn is genetically modified with genes that produce a pesticidal toxin, as well as genes that allow it to survive applications of Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup.
A book by author Jeffrey M. Smith, Genetic Roulette, distributed to members of congress last year, documents 65 serious health risks of GM products, including similar fertility problems with GM soy and GM corn: Offspring of rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice had altered DNA functioning. Several US farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators in India have documented fertility problems, abortions, premature births, and other serious health issues, including deaths, among buffaloes fed GM cottonseed products.
MORE IN LINKIMMEDIATE RELEASE (November 13, 2008)
(Los Angeles, CA.) - A long-term feeding... more
Children have been used as 'lab rats' in GM rice trials that were carried out in breach of ethics rules drawn up in response to the medical crimes of Nazi Germany, it is claimed.
A group of 22 scientists are condemning a controversial trial involving feeding GM rice to children in China and the US. (photo: The Daily Mail)
Youngsters aged 6-10 were fed so-called Golden Rice, which has been modified to contain enhanced levels of beta carotene or vitamin A.
The rice is being developed to combat Vitamin A deficiency, which is linked to damage to the sight, poor brain development and immune system failure.
However high consumption can also have harmful toxic effects and cause birth defects.
Critics are furious that the GM rice was not put through animal feeding trials to ensure it was safe before being given to children.
The decision to use the children has been condemned as 'completely unacceptable' by a group of 22 scientists - all GM critics - from Britain and around the world.
They claim it is indicative of moves by the biotech lobby, led by the USA and biotech firms, to force GM food into the mouths of the world without proper assessment.
The project was financed and run through the US National Institutes of Health and involved children in China and America.
The scientists have written an open letter to the team behind the experiments, condemning the way they were conducted.
It states: 'We are writing to express our shock and unequivocal denunciation of the experiments being conducted by your colleagues which involve the feeding of genetically modified Golden Rice to human subjects.'
The letter says there has been 'woefully inadequate pre-clinical evaluation' of the rice.
The scientists argue there is a large body of evidence showing GM food production can trigger gene mutations which 'can result in health damaging effects when GM food products are fed to animals'.
The letter adds: 'Our greatest concern is that this rice, which is engineered to overproduce beta carotene, has never been tested in animals'.
It says there is evidence that certain chemicals derived from beta carotene 'are both toxic and cause birth defects'.
Critics of the GM experiments says the Nuremburg code states that children under 10 are not considered legally capable of giving consent to participation in such experiments.
They say the code also requires that human guinea pigs should not be used if scientists have an alternative experimental method.
Thirdly, experiments on humans should not be conducted until tests with animals have identified potential hazards.
Among the leading bodies behind the GM Golden rice project are the biotech company Syngenta, the Rockefeller Foundation and the charitable foundation set up by Microsoft boss Bill Gates.
The list of signatories to the protest letter includes Malcolm Hooper, emeritus professor of medicinal chemistry at Sunderland University, who said: 'This type of experimentation is frightening - children as lab rats - it is not on.'
Another is Prof David Schubert, of the Salk Institute of Biological Studies, San Diego, who said: 'It is completely immoral to feed this rice to children without proper safety testing...It's like putting a new drug on the market with no toxicology or safety trials.'
Other signatories include Prof Carlo Leifert, director of the Tesco Centre for Organic Agriculture at Newcastle University; and Dr Stanley WB Ewen.
Dr Ewen was involved in rat feeding trials in Scotland in 1999 which linked GM potatoes to harmful toxic effects.
________
It is not only unacceptable it's despicable.Children have been used as 'lab rats' in GM rice trials that were carried out in... more
Companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta are now hiding behind technology rights and patents to keep the truth about GM foods from being known. This is much like the gagging of scientists who wanted to dessiminate the truth about climate change. What are they trying to hide?Companies such as Monsanto and Syngenta are now hiding behind technology rights and... more
another possible first... an organic fruit and vegetable garden to replace part of the south facing White House lawn.
>>
"...Claire Strader won the most votes in a national online election to name candidates to fill the role of "White House Farmer."
"Strader's name will be forwarded to President Barack Obama, along with the names of the second- and third-place finishers -- Carrie Anne Little of Mother Earth Farm, in Puyallup, Wash., and Margaret Lloyd of Home Farming in Davis, Calif. -- for consideration."
"This new post would be charged with implementing what could turn out to be your most symbolically resonant step in building a new American food culture. And that is this: tear out five prime south-facing acres of the White House lawn and plant in their place an organic fruit and vegetable garden."another possible first... an organic fruit and vegetable garden to replace part of the... more
Field trials for BT brinjal are set to begin, however, tests have not been adequate in regards to assuring its safety. Sounds familiar doesn't it?Field trials for BT brinjal are set to begin, however, tests have not been adequate in... more
