tagged w/ Bioethics
"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
The latest development in the Gulf is how an incomprehensible bacterium is remarkably eating up the methane gas. It appears that engineered designer genes have also been used to remove the gas just as they have been used to consume the oil. The common denominator is that neither of these microbes are natural microorganisms. This should come as no surprise.
Microbiologist David Valentine at the University of California at Santa Barbara stated,
“Within a matter of months, the bacteria completely removed that methane. The bacteria kicked on more effectively than we expected.”
It sounds to me that this created synthetic genome microbe far exceeded the engineering and programming expectations.
According to a Fox Business report,
“This discovery offered a rare glimpse into the remarkable abilities of an obscure family of microbes in the depths of the Gulf”.
I agree. It is scientifically incomprehensible that any natural microorganism could do this and synthetically engineered microbes are definitely obscure by comparison.
University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye, who has been independently analyzing methane from the Gulf of Mexico, also agrees with me. She said,
“It would take a superhuman microbe to do what they are claiming.”
So it has, Samantha. It was specifically engineered and its “superhuman” genetics were created synthetically.
In a January 7, 2011 article, the UK Register wrote how the scientists were particularly
“surprised at the speed with which the bacteria consumed their enormous meal”.
They also brought up the fact that earlier studies elsewhere in the world suggested methane levels around Deepwater Horizon would be well above normal for years ahead. It’s remarkable what highly engineered designer genes can do.
On January 6, 2011, the Christian Science Monitor reported how the study’s leaders boldly stated that rates of methane decomposition after the Gulf oil spill
“were faster than had ever been recorded in any other place on the planet.”
That’s because these are not natural microbes. You can’t compare apples to grapefruit.
TRACE ELEMENTS ADDED TO THE GULF
In the same CS Monitor report, University of Georgia microbiologist Samantha Joye stated how
“[The Gulf] is not well stocked with trace elements the bacteria need to survive – among them, copper, which bacteria specifically use to deal with the methane. Shortages of copper, as well as other trace elements, likely would have slammed the brakes on the exponential growth in bacterial populations needed to get rid of the methane in fewer than four months.”
The same applies to hydrocarbon-eating bacteria that consume oil, except that iron is needed more than the other trace elements. Since copper and iron are not prevalent mineral elements normally found in the Gulf of Mexico, the synthetic bacterium eating both the oil and the methane would not be able to do so at the remarkable speed they have without such essential earth elements. The only possible way these synthetic bacterium could have done this is by adding the required elements to the Gulf. Spraying a highly dissolved or colloidal mixture of trace elements onto and into the Gulf of Mexico would be absolutely required to accomplish this.
In our October 21, 2010 research article The Gulf BLUE PLAGUE (BP): It’s Not Wise To Fool Mother Nature, we had revealed the abnormally high amounts of elements found in the Gulf and that it was being sprayed along with or separately from the oil dispersants. In August 2010, rain water samples were tested by the Coastal Heritage Society of Louisiana where rain coming directly from the Gulf had unusually high concentrations of iron, copper, nickel, aluminum, manganese, and arsenic.
Without a doubt, the synthetically created bacterium introduced into the Gulf of Mexico to consume the oil and gasses were – and continue to be – fed these essential trace elements. Otherwise, they could not have thrived or reproduced at the accelerated rate they have. The continued spraying in the Gulf by aircraft and by boat is not Corexit or other oil dispersal chemicals. Consider the current spraying to have the same effect of adding liquid fertilizer to your crops.
SYNTHETIC MICROBES MUTATING NATURAL MICROORGANISMS
In early December, 2010 the research vessel WeatherBird II, owned by the University of Southern Florida (USF), went back to the Gulf of Mexico for follow-up water and core samples. As reported by Naomi Klein on January 13, 2011 in Hunting the Ocean for BP’s Missing Millions of Barrels of Oil,
“…these veteran scientists have seen things that they describe as unprecedented …evidence of bizarre sickness in the phytoplankton and bacterial communities…”
This “bizarre sickness” in the indigenous Gulf microorganisms is the direct result of the synthetic microbes that are still creating genetic sicknesses by mutating the DNA of the natural microbes. We had alerted our readers to this in DNA Mutations Confirmed in Gulf of Mexico on September 28, 2010 when we stated,
“DNA mutations are occurring within the Gulf of Mexico at a microscopic cellular level. The obvious effect this has on marine life as well as humans is a Pandora Box of unknowns.”
Tampa Bay Online gave further insight to this in an interview with Dr. John Paul, an oceanography biology professor at USF, regarding the oil plume they had discovered 40 miles off the Florida Panhandle:
It was found to be toxic to microscopic sea organisms, causing mutations to their DNA. If this plankton at the base of the marine food chain is contaminated, it could affect the whole ecosystem of the Gulf.
“The problem with mutant DNA is that it can be passed on and we don’t how this will affect fish or other marine life,” he says, adding that the effects could last for decades.
In Naomi Klein’s article, she describes how Paul introduced healthy bacteria and phytoplankton to Gulf water samples and what happened shocked him. The responses of the organisms “were genotoxic or mutagenic”. According to Paul, what was so “scary” about these results is that such genetic damage was “heritable,” meaning the mutations can be passed on.
Genotoxins pass on genetic changes to successors who have never been exposed to the original gene. Healthy microorganisms are then genetically changed and will pass on their DNA mutations to their descendants. This is a genetic chain-reaction as each mutated microbe interacts with and affects other microorganisms, especially with regards to the food chain:
“…the phytoplankton, the bacteria, and the [microorganisms] that graze on them – the zooplankton – seem to be the most potentially impacted.” – Dr. David Hollander, USF Marine Geochemist: December 6, 2010: Video interview on WeatherBird II.The latest development in the Gulf is how an incomprehensible bacterium is remarkably... more
This is a great victory for independent science as well as a vindication of the work of Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini. Seralini has worked tirelessly to expose the health hazards of Monsanto's GM maize varieties and of Roundup - and the inadequacies of the EU regulatory system for GMOs and pesticides.
For more about the court case, see
GMOs - The AFBV convicted of defamation against G.-E. Séralini
by Christopher HAZEL, January 2011
On Tuesday 18 January, the Paris court handed down its deliberations in the trial that pitted Gilles-Eric Séralini, a researcher in molecular biology at the University of Caen and Chairman of the Scientific Council CRIIGEN , against the French Association for Plant Biotechnology (AFBV), chaired by Marc Fellous. The court sentenced the AFBV to a fine on probation of 1000 euros, one euro in damages (which had been requested by the plaintiff) and 4000 euros in court costs.
Corinne Lepage, President of CRIIGEN, contacted by telephone by Inf'OGM, was delighted with this victory, especially as she admits she was not optimistic after leaving the hearing which was held November 23, 2011. "People can no longer say anything they like about whistleblowers [with impunity]," said she. And she adds: "For the first time a whistleblower is not on the defensive but on the offensive."
G.-E. Séralini had attacked the association and its president in court, holding that they had defamed his research that called into question the safety of several transgenic maize varieties of Monsanto . Indeed, on several occasions AFBV had sought to discredit the work of GE Séralini.
2: http://www.infogm.org/spip.php?article4605This is a great victory for independent science as well as a vindication of the work... more
Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot about what causes green plants to turn yellow and die prematurely. He asked the seed dealer why the SDS was so severe in the one area of the field and not the other. “Did you plant something there last year that wasn’t planted in the rest of the field?” he asked. Sure enough, precisely where the severe SDS was, the dealer had grown alfalfa, which he later killed off at the end of the season by spraying a glyphosate-based herbicide (such as Roundup). The healthy part of the field, on the other hand, had been planted to sweet corn and hadn’t received glyphosate.
This was yet another confirmation that Roundup was triggering SDS. In many fields, the evidence is even more obvious. The disease was most severe at the ends of rows where the herbicide applicator looped back to make another pass (see photo). That’s where extra Roundup was applied.
Don’s a scientist; it takes more than a few photos for him to draw conclusions. But Don’s got more—lots more. For over 20 years, Don studied Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate. He’s one of the world’s experts. And he can rattle off study after study that eliminate any doubt that glyphosate is contributing not only to the huge increase in SDS, but to the outbreak of numerous other diseases. (See selected reading list.)
Sudden Death Syndrome is more severe at the ends of rows, where Roundup dose is strongest. Photo by Amy Bandy.
Roundup: The perfect storm for plant disease
More than 30% of all herbicides sprayed anywhere contain glyphosate—the world’s bestselling weed killer. It was patented by Monsanto for use in their Roundup brand, which became more popular when they introduced “Roundup Ready” crops starting in 1996. These genetically modified (GM) plants, which now include soy, corn, cotton, canola, and sugar beets, have inserted genetic material from viruses and bacteria that allows the crops to withstand applications of normally deadly Roundup.
(Monsanto requires farmers who buy Roundup Ready seeds to only use the company’s Roundup brand of glyphosate. This has extended the company’s grip on the glyphosate market, even after its patent expired in 2000.)
The herbicide doesn’t destroy plants directly. It rather cooks up a unique perfect storm of conditions that revs up disease-causing organisms in the soil, and at the same time wipes out plant defenses against those diseases. The mechanisms are well-documented but rarely cited.
1.The glyphosate molecule grabs vital nutrients and doesn’t let them go. This process is called chelation and was actually the original property for which glyphosate was patented in 1964. It was only 10 years later that it was patented as an herbicide. When applied to crops, it deprives them of vital minerals necessary for healthy plant function—especially for resisting serious soilborne diseases. The importance of minerals for protecting against disease is well established. In fact, mineral availability was the single most important measurement used by several famous plant breeders to identify disease-resistant varieties.
1.Glyphosate annihilates beneficial soil organisms, such as Pseudomonas and Bacillus bacteria that live around the roots. Since they facilitate the uptake of plant nutrients and suppress disease-causing organisms, their untimely deaths means the plant gets even weaker and the pathogens even stronger.
1.The herbicide can interfere with photosynthesis, reduce water use efficiency, lower lignin , damage and shorten root systems, cause plants to release important sugars, and change soil pH—all of which can negatively affect crop health.
1.Glyphosate itself is slightly toxic to plants. It also breaks down slowly in soil to form another chemical called AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) which is also toxic. But even the combined toxic effects of glyphosate and AMPA are not sufficient on their own to kill plants. It has been demonstrated numerous times since 1984
Glyphosate with sterile soil (A) only stunts plant growth. In normal soil (B), pathogens kill the plant. Control (C) shows normal growth.
that when glyphosate is applied in sterile soil, the plant may be slightly stunted, but it isn’t killed (see photo).
1.The actual plant assassins, according to Purdue weed scientists and others, are severe disease-causing organisms present in almost all soils. Glyphosate dramatically promotes these, which in turn overrun the weakened crops with deadly infections.
“This is the herbicidal mode of action of glyphosate,” says Don. “It increases susceptibility to disease, suppresses natural disease controls such as beneficial organisms, and promotes virulence of soilborne pathogens at the same time.” In fact, he points out that “If you apply certain fungicides to weeds, it destroys the herbicidal activity of glyphosate!”
By weakening plants and promoting disease, glyphosate opens the door for lots of problems in the field. According to Don, “There are more than 40 diseases of crop plants that are reported to increase with the use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association between glyphosate and disease.”
cont.Don Huber spent 35 years as a plant pathologist at Purdue University and knows a lot... more
NOTE: Plans for India's first GM crop for human consumption, Bt brinjal (eggplant/aubergine) have triggered a safety report that reveals signs of food toxicity. According to this study prepared independently from industry by Lou Gallagher, environmental epidemiologist and risk assessment expert, there are indications that the consumption of this genetically engineered eggplant (also called brinjal in India) can cause inflammation, reproductive disorders and liver damage.
The report shows why we can't rely on industry tests that purport to show the safety of GMOs and other risky substances.
EXCERPTS from the report by Lou Gallagher:
Were the contract laboratory INTOX PVT LTD and the funder Mahyco uncomfortable with results showing evident toxicity among rats fed Bt brinjal at 1000 mg/kg‐day? Did the researchers write the conclusions for the 14‐day and 90‐day studies themselves or did others write conclusions for them? These questions are of interest since the text does not match the data, the researchers did not sign their reports, and the cover page of the 90‐day report details a completely new report number (R/2183/SOR-90) from that which may be the original, 05.0002.
...current results from these rat feeding studies indicate that rats eating Bt brinjal experienced organ and system damage: ovaries at half their normal weight, enlarged spleens with white blood cell counts at 35 to 40 percent higher than normal with elevated eosinophils, indicating immune function changes; toxic effects to the liver: as demonstrated by elevated bilirubin and elevated plasma acetylcholinesterase.
Study by Dr. Gallagher: http://www.testbiotech.de/node/444
GMWatch note: We've slightly edited the media releases below for our readers.
1. BT BRINJAL EVENT EE1 IS CONFIRMED TO BE TOXIC
Aruna Rodrigues, Sunray Harvesters
Mhow, 15 January 2011
"A further in-depth analyses of the raw data of Mahyco-Monsanto's Dossier of Bt brinjal, its rat feeding studies, shows Bt brinjal is toxic. India faces an overwhelming crisis of fraud. The studies are seriously flawed, and wrongly appraised and reported both by Monsanto in its 'dossier' submitted to Government and worse, by our Regulators. The MoE&F [minister of environment and forests] must firmly hold the line on the moratorium and implement his promise of independent testing in internationally certified labs. The Dossier must now be formally rejected by the Indian Government". Aruna Rodrigues
Lou Gallagher, environmental epidemiologist and risk assessment expert, supported by Test Biotech of Munich, analysed the raw data of the 14- and 90-day studies of the Bt brinjal dossier. She confirms in her report:
"current results from these rat feeding studies indicate that rats eating Bt brinjal experienced organ and system damage: ovaries at half their normal weight, enlarged spleens with white blood cell counts at 35 to 40 percent higher than normal with elevated eosinophils, indicating immune function changes; toxic effects to the liver: as demonstrated by elevated bilirubin and elevated plasma acetylcholinesterase."
She states: "Major health problems among test animals were ignored in these reports. The single test dose used was lower than recommended by the Indian protocols. Release of Bt brinjal for human consumption cannot be recommended given the current evidence of toxicity to rats in just 90 days and the studies' serious departures from normal scientific standards".
The study was requested by Aruna Rodrigues to inform Government and the Supreme Court. Gallagher's detailed examination of the raw data of the 'Dossier' follows and confirms the earlier analyses by Seralini, the French expert from Criigen, who similarly reported statistically significant toxic effects in Bt brinjal as compared to the 'controls'. Given the further negative findings from an examination of the dossier by Jack Heinemann (Genomics), Judy Carman (study design and statistical rigour etc) and the authoritative environmental risk assessment by Andow (published), which confirms that the ERA (Environmental Risk Assessment) for Bt brinjal has essentially not been done, then this raises serious questions which must be answered: no official report has addressed concerns raised by these scientists. Not one Indian scientist within the Regulators or our Agri-Institutions has examined the raw data of the dossier. The revised joint report of the 6 Academies of Sciences has similarly defaulted.
cont.NOTE: Plans for India's first GM crop for human consumption, Bt brinjal... more
WA government hides GM canola test results
Wednesday, 23 December, 2010: A West Australian organic farmer is in limbo, awaiting state government test results and facing genetic manipulation giant Monsanto's legal wrath. Steve Marsh's organic farm has been decertified over GM canola contamination from a neighbour's farm.
Monsanto revealed today that it would give legal support to the GM grower if Mr Marsh sought redress for his losses through the courts.
"For years we called for Farmer Protection laws because GM contamination was inevitable once the Gene Technology Regulator issued unrestricted and unconditional commercial licences," says Gene Ethics Executive Director, Bob Phelps.
"And just this week, the regulator has licensed Monsanto trials of GM canola designed to survive even more repeated sprayings of Roundup herbicide. This will add to the burden of unmanageable herbicide tolerant weeds that already cost Australian land managers over $4 billion per year.
"The West Australian Government sampled the GM canola contaminating 60% of Steve Marsh's land weeks ago but Agriculture Minister Terry Redman is keeping the test results secret until Christmas eve at the earliest.
"Yet Steve's own strip tests found GM canola on his land and last week his organic certifier NASAA [National Association of Sustainable Agriculture Australia] confirmed GM and suspended his certification for at least a year. Steve has lost the premiums that come from marketing his organic produce that has zero tolerance for anything GM, as Organic Standard AS6000 requires.
"That's typical of how the minister treats farmers. Redman has not kept one promise on GM canola segregation and handling, despite claiming 'GM and non-GM canola can be segregated and marketed separately,' when he lifted the GM ban this year. He also welshed on his promise to publish the sites of GM canola farms so that non-GM growers could take evasive action.
"Monsanto's Tony May was present when Redman lifted the GM canola ban and he also sold 20% of the state's public plant breeding company intergrain to Monsanto for a song. They immediately announced that GM wheat is their joint research priority.
"Minister Redman has a responsibility to pass Farmer Protection laws early in 2011 to compensate organic farmer Steve Marsh and all the other growers who will be GM contaminated.
"Minister Redman must give Steve Marsh the Christmas present he needs, by announcing the GM test results today and promising a Farmer Protection law. He must give all farmers the non-GM crop choices that he promised, without economic loss or decertification from GM canola contamination," Mr Phelps concludes.
NOTES TO EDITORS
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/industry-sectors/gm-strain-blows-organic-status-away/story-e6frg95o-1225975191363, The Australian, December 23.
More background and media reports at www.geneethics.orgWA government hides GM canola test results
Wednesday, 23 December, 2010: A West... more
The former United States ambassador to France suggested "moving to retaliation" against France and the European Union (EU) in late 2007 to fight a French ban on Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) corn and changes in European policy toward biotech crops, according to a cable released by WikiLeaks on Sunday.
Former Ambassador Craig Stapleton was concerned about France's decision to suspend cultivation of Monsanto's MON-810 corn and warned that a new French environmental review standard could spread anti-biotech policy across the EU.
"Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits," Stapleton wrote to diplomatic colleagues.
President George W. Bush appointed Stapleton as ambassador to France in 2005, and in 2009, Stapleton left the office and became an owner of the St. Louis Cardinals baseball team. Bush and Stapleton co-owned the Texas Rangers during the 1990s.
Monsanto is based in St. Louis.
The EU's 1998 approval of MON-810 corn has since expired. In recent years, several European countries joined France in banning MON-810 and similar biotech crops while the products are reassessed in light of research showing they could harm the environment and human health.
It is not clear if Stapleton's retaliation scheme was ever implemented.
"In our view, Europe is moving backwards not forwards on this issue with France playing a leading role, along with Austria, Italy and even the Commission ... Moving to retaliation will make clear that the current path has real costs to EU interests and could help strengthen European pro-biotech voices," Stapleton wrote.
MON-810 is engineered to excrete the Bt toxin, which is poisonous to some insect pests. A stacked version of MON-810 is also engineered to be resistant to glyphosate, a herbicide first popularized by Monsanto under the brand name Roundup.
The debate in France over Monsanto's GM products has grown ugly in recent years.
A recent Truthout report detailed the story of Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini, a scientist at the University of Caen in France. Seralini's supporters claim the scientist has faced intimidation from within the French scientific community after he published several studies showing Monsanto GM corn and glyphosate posed risks to human health.The former United States ambassador to France suggested "moving to... more
The USA Rice Federation has filed an amicus curiae (also known as a "Friend of the Court") brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals 8th Circuit in support of rice farmers from Arkansas and Missouri whose favorable jury verdicts against Bayer CropScience are being appealed by Bayer. The Court confirmed on December 9 that it had agreed to accept the filing.
"Two separate federal juries found against Bayer CropScience and awarded damages to groups of Arkansas and Missouri farmers because of the unintentional release of Bayer's Liberty Link genetically engineered rice into the commercial long-grain rice supply in 2006," said Jackie Loewer, a Branch, LA rice farmer and chairman of the USA Rice Federation. "Bayer's decision to appeal is unfortunate and it wrongly seeks to shift the cost of Liberty Link onto rice farmers and away from Bayer," Loewer added.
While not a party to the verdicts under appeal, USA Rice filed its Friend of the Court brief in its role as the global advocate for U.S. rice farmers and all segments of the U.S. rice industry. It seeks to help the court understand the issues raised on appeal by putting in context the relevant federal statute and regulations which are designed to protect U.S. agriculture from the unapproved release of experimental genetically engineered crops. USA Rice staff has testified at the request of rice farmer plaintiffs in three federal trials — including the two verdicts under appeal — and one Arkansas state trial. Rice farmers won all of these jury trials, and the combined damages awarded totaled $52 million.
"USA Rice members have led the effort since August 2006 to remove the Liberty Link traits from the long-grain supply and to mitigate market damage. We've made tremendous progress, but market disruption continues, especially in the European Union but also in other markets like Japan, Korea and Taiwan, where testing of U.S. rice is still required," Loewer said. "Multiple federal and state juries have concluded that rice farmers suffered losses because of Bayer's mismanagement of the company's Liberty Link technology. Those juries are right," concluded Loewer.The USA Rice Federation has filed an amicus curiae (also known as a "Friend of... more
Today as thousands march in Cancun for climate justice, Seattle-based AGRA Watch and La Via Campesina North America are joined by 60 organizations and 40 academics and scientists from around the world who call on the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to support real solutions to climate change, hunger and poverty.
In a letter to the Foundation, the signatories state their concern that the Foundation and its private sector partners are pushing to industrialize agriculture and commercialize genetically engineered crops in Africa at the expense of small farmers and the environment. Over one thousand individuals from more than 30 countries and 48 states in the US to date have also signed a separate online petition in support of the letter.
The letter to the Foundation condemns the industrial approach to agriculture and high-tech 'fixes' like genetic engineering because they undermine sustainable, resilient food systems that are controlled by local populations. Local systems actually mitigate climate change while the spread of industrial agriculture is one of the heaviest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions and loss of plant biodiversity worldwide, thus directly fueling the climate crisis.
AGRA Watch and La Via Campesina North America are sending the letter to the Gates Foundation as thousands of peasant farmers, rural women and men, indigenous peoples, and activists from all sectors of society mobilize in Cancun to reject corporate-driven, market-based solutions to climate change being promoted at the UN climate negotiations. "Both the UN climate negotiators and the Gates Foundation must recognize that false solutions such as GMOs and agrofuels that threaten our biodiversity will further Africa's exploitation, not salvation. We need to see real solutions to reduce climate emissions instead of more pressure on Africa," explained Anne Maina of the African Biodiversity Network, currently present at the talks.
Signatories of the letter and social movements in Cancun assert that real solutions to hunger and climate change are rooted in food sovereignty, the right of peoples and communities to define and control their own food and agriculture systems. La Via Campesina affirms that, "We need millions of peasant communities and indigenous territories to feed humanity and cool the planet" and "thousands of peoples' solutions." Echoing this statement, the sign-on letter calls on the Foundation to redefine its funding priorities in favor of small-scale agroecological agriculture, citing the findings of the 2008 International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) report. The letter further advocates for an authentically participatory process that involves African farmers, farmer organizations, and civil society in decision-making from beginning to end, and urges the Foundation to restructure its grant-making to ensure transparency and accountability to farmers.Today as thousands march in Cancun for climate justice, Seattle-based AGRA Watch and... more
Monsanto and the pro-genetic engineering lobby received a severe blow in the highest German court. The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany reaffirmed on November 24, 2010 that the German precautionary GE law in Germany was constitutional. The Court also acknowledged the unknown long-term risks of genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
Monsanto Legal Attack
In 2005, one of Germany’s 16 federal states - Saxony Anhalt - supported by a lawyer from Monsanto (Freshfield &Co) - challenged the German GE legislation. In particular, they targeted the existing rigorous liability rules and the mandatory public register on the locations where GE crops are grown. Pro-GE lobbists claimed that these legal provisions prevented farmers from planting GE crops and therefore violated the constitution.
After 5 years of legal proceedings, Germany’s highest court reaffirmed that the long-term risks of GMOs are unknown given the current lack of scientific data. Therefore, the German government has an obligation to act cautiously in regards to the preservation of nature for future generations.
In its decision, the court repeatedly stated that GE alters the very structure of life that could have irreversible effects. Therefore, the high level of precaution surrounding the cultivation and the commercialisation of GMO products is perfectly legitimate.
One of the targets of the legal challenge was the mandatory and public register for the locations of fields with GE crops. The court confirmed that this register was very important and legitimate in the context of a democratic and pluralistic society. For the court, the register was also a means to inform society and contribute to the process of public debate.
Another issue under challenge was Germany’s strict liability rules. In Germany, a farmer that cultivates GE crop is considered responsible if the planted GE crops contaminate the neighboring fields. The German Federal Constitutional Court sustained these strict liability rules and also specifically identified GE crops as having negative impacts for GE-free agriculture.
The court decision is also perfectly in sync with the recent agreement at the United Nations meeting on Biosafety that took place in Nagoya (Japan). Countries can now adopt their own national liability regime on GE to fulfill the objectives of the Biosafety Protocol.
This court decision in Germany and the agreement in Nagoya should encourage other countries to adopt similar strict liability rules to prevent GE contamination.Monsanto and the pro-genetic engineering lobby received a severe blow in the highest... more
Big biotech companies that develop genetically modified (GM) organisms have spent more than half a billion dollars on campaign contributions and lobbying in the past decade, raising concerns about an upcoming Federal Drug Administration (FDA) decision that could approve GM salmon for human consumption, according to consumer group Food and Water Watch (FWW).
But the biotech industry has not wooed everyone in Washington. On Thursday, Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) introduced legislation that would ban the GM salmon - sometimes called "frankenfish" - if the FDA approves it.
The GM salmon, which have additional genes that cause the fish to grow faster and larger, would be the first GM animal food approved in the United States. The FDA could reach a decision as early as November 23.
Begich was one of ten lawmakers who signed a letter to the FDA in September asking the FDA to halt the review of the GM salmon. The lawmakers expressed concern about the FDA's review process, which considers the product a new drug for animals instead of a new animal for human consumption, according to the letter.
Begich said the FDA never responded to the letter, and he is not the first government official to feel ignored by the FDA during the review process.
Earlier this week, FWW released internal documents from the Department of the Interior to Truthout showing that federal wildlife officials are concerned about the GM salmon proposal and the FDA's failure to consult the Fish and Wildlife Service about the potential for the salmon to escape and threaten endangered populations in the wild.
"The FDA seems to be on its own timeline and hasn't even responded to a letter signed by several lawmakers," Begich said. "We will move ahead without the agency, taking steps to ban frankenfish and keep humans and our wild salmon safe."
In September, The FDA found the salmon safe for human consumption.
Groups like the FWW and the Consumers Union testified against the FDA's findings, arguing that the FDA had not considered enough data on the potential health and environmental consequences of GM salmon.
Begich also introduced separate legislation that would require GM salmon to be labeled as GM if it is approved.
A Thomas Reuters poll conducted in September shows that 64 percent of Americans are unsure if GM food is safe, and 93 percent of those polled want GM foods to be labeled.
Food companies do not have to notify customers about GM ingredients, and it's unclear if the FDA could require special labels for the GM salmon.
Begich's legislation, which is co-sponsored by Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Patty Murray (D-Washington), may have a tough road ahead.
The FWW, which opposes the GM salmon, is concerned that the heavy political influence of the biotech industry carries more weight in Congress and the FDA than that of concerned scientists and consumers.
A new FWW report details a steady increase in political spending from biotech companies and describes a "revolving door" system of former legislators, who left office and returned to Washington to lobby for companies advancing the technology.
"Over the last few months, our coalition has collected approximately 200,000 petitions from consumers who oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon," said FWW director Wenonah Hauter. "Yet sadly, each of these consumers would have to pay nearly $3,000 to match the biotech industry's lobbying influence."Big biotech companies that develop genetically modified (GM) organisms have spent more... more
Over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations spent over half a billion dollars - $572 million - in campaign contributions and lobbying Congress in support of controversial industry projects like genetically engineered (GE) food animals, according to a new analysis by national consumer advocacy group Food & Water Watch. Political Action Committee (PAC) contributions and lobbying expenditures by biotechnology interests more than doubled during this time.
"The public needs to know that despite their concerns with eating genetically engineered (GE) foods, there's a powerful industry spending hundreds of millions to promote products like GE salmon," said Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch. "Over the last few months, our coalition has collected approximately 200,000 petitions from consumers who oppose FDA approval of genetically engineered salmon. Yet sadly, each of these consumers would have to pay nearly $3,000 to match the biotech industry's lobbying influence."
The analysis comes less than a week before the FDA will close its public comment period on the first GE animal to be approved for human consumption, AquaBounty salmon. The FDA could approve the controversial product as early as Nov. 23.
In addition to promoting GE foods, biotech lobbyists work to prevent foreign governments from banning or limiting the products and fight requirements that they be labeled for consumers.
FDA labeling of AquaBounty salmon has been a hotly contested issue. Despite consumer concerns, the agency currently does not require it. According to an NPR article published earlier this week, a survey of more than 3,000 people (conducted for NPR by Thomson Reuters) revealed that 9 out of 10 people believe GE foods should be labeled. The majority said they would not eat a genetically engineered fish, labeled or not.
Food & Water Watch's analysis also exposed intricate relationships and financial connections between well-connected lobbyists and former high-ranking legislators who lobby Congress and the federal agencies. According to the analysis, food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade associations have hired on as lobbyists at least 13 former members of Congress and over 300 former congressional and White House staffers through well-connected lobbying shops.
The consumer group's analysis comes on the heels of its release of startling U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service emails (obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request) revealing the agency scientists' disbelief that the FDA would approve AquaBounty salmon. With regards to GE fish escapes, one Fish & Wildlife Service geneticist was quoted saying, "Maybe they [the FDA] should watch Jurassic Park."
"It seems the FDA is more interested in pandering to lobbyists then listening to the American public and the other federal agencies it is required by law to consult with," Hauter said.
At least 30 House members and 13 senators have expressed concern with the FDA's review process for GE salmon, with many calling for its outright prohibition.
On Monday, Nov. 22, a coalition of groups including Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety, Friends of the Earth, the Organic Consumers Association, Food Democracy Now and CREDO Action will submit over 200,000 consumer comments to the FDA and President Obama, urging them to reject the approval of genetically engineered salmon.
Click here for Food & Water Watch's full biotech lobbying analysis:
http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/report/food-and-agriculture-biotechnology-industry-influence/Over the last decade, top food and agriculture biotechnology firms and trade... more
Scientists at the University of Bristol have discovered a previously unknown route by which GM genes may escape into the natural environment.
By studying plant-fungi-bacteria interactions at plant wound sites, the team have identified a natural process stimulated by a hormone released by the wounded plant that would allow synthetic genes to move across organisms and out into the wild.
The bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens transforms plant tissue as part of its infection process. This natural process provides an important toolbox for scientists to genetically manipulate many species of plants. Recently this technology has been developed for non-plant organisms including fungi by the Bailey & Foster Group in Bristol’s School of Biological Sciences.
Their success has come from adding the plant wound hormone acetosyringone, which triggers Agrobacterium transformation mechanisms and allows foreign genes to modify cells (genetic transformation). In the natural environment Agrobacterium and fungi likely encounter each other at plant wound sites where acetosyringone is present, raising the possibility of natural gene transfer from bacterium to fungus.
Professor Gary Foster and colleagues tested whether transformation of fungi by Agrobacterium can occur in nature on plants. Their results clearly demonstrate that when placed together on damaged plant tissue, Agrobacterium readily transforms associated fungi. “This suggests a previously unknown route for horizontal gene transfer in nature,” said Professor Foster.
These results may have implications for the risk assessment of GM plants generated via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Agrobacterium can survive within plant tissue following artificial transformation in tissue culture, and can be detected within regenerated transgenic plants. This research shows that these bacteria have the potential to move the same genetic modifications to fungi in a natural environment.
Prior to release of a GM plant, elimination of Agrobacterium following modern genetic modification is a key concern of geneticists and policy makers as it is essential to prevent later escape of synthesised gene from Agrobacterium to other organisms.
Professor Foster said: “This study suggests that the encounter between Agrobacterium and a fungus on the plant surface may lead to gene flow in a previously overlooked way, potentially leaking GM genes into the natural world.”
The Bristol study, published online in PLoS ONE, was carried out with financial support from NERC.Scientists at the University of Bristol have discovered a previously unknown route by... more
New rules aimed at exacting compensation from businesses or organizations that allow internationally traded genetically modified crops to spread into the wild were adopted at a U.N. meeting in Nagoya on Friday.
The treaty, which will allow governments in importing countries to pursue those responsible if crops dropped during transportation damage local ecosystems, was adopted amid growing evidence that the existing system for regulating the global spread of genetically modified crops is failing.
Discussions at the Nagoya meeting last week revealed that only 89 of the 158 countries that signed the Cartagena Protocol of 2000 had reported on how they ensured the safety of imported crops. The Cartagena Protocol was a set of international rules intended to improve monitoring in importing nations of genetically modified organisms.
Most of the countries that have failed to report are developing nations, and many are in Africa. Forty-seven countries have not enacted laws based on the protocol.
Developing countries at the Nagoya meeting called for greater support from developed nations in writing legislation and training personnel to do monitoring.
The treaty agreed on Friday is called the Nagoya-Kuala Lumpur Supplementary Protocol on Liability and Redress to the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.
It lays down rules and procedures on how to respond to damage caused to ecosystems by genetically modified organisms.
If seeds dropped during transportation grow in the wild and damage the local environment, that country's government can specify the party responsible and seek compensation and remedy. If the responsible party fails to take action, relevant administrative bodies will be obliged to do so themselves.
In Japan, a major importer of genetically altered crops, genetically modified organisms have already spread into the wild.
A farm ministry survey at importing ports in 10 prefectures between 2006 and 2008 found genetically modified rapeseed growing in the neighborhoods of eight ports.
The ministry said no evidence of crossbreeding with local plants had been found, but a citizens group in Aichi Prefecture reported that its research, conducted between 2005 and 2009, had found such cases.
Japan screens crossbreeding and other risks under domestic laws based on the Cartagena Protocol. The government has approved 145 genetically modified crops for use in the nation's food or feed supply as of July, including soybeans and varieties of corn.
While commercial production of genetically modified crops is not banned outright in Japan, cultivation is at present limited to research.
The farm ministry said it planned to increase research into crops' impact on ecosystems.
Meanwhile, scientists at the meeting in Nagoya said regulation of genetically modified fish and trees was now becoming an urgent issue. A Canadian company is currently aiming at commercial marketing of quick growing, genetically modified salmon.New rules aimed at exacting compensation from businesses or organizations that allow... more
URGENT: YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED for Professor G-E Séralini and colleagues
Court case coming up in Paris, 23 November 2010
GMWatch is joining French activists in appealing for your support for Professor G-E Séralini and his research colleagues, who are based at Criigen, la Fondation Sciences Citoyennes (FSC) and ENSSER (European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility). The public interest research of Séralini and colleagues on GMOs and pesticide/glyphosate toxicity has international significance, especially in India, where it helped in achieving the moratorium for the Bt brinjal, but also in Canada, Europe and the USA.
Now, Séralini and colleagues find themselves under concerted attack from GM promoters, who have resorted to defamation and flawed logic in an attempt to discredit the scientists. Séralini and colleagues have decided that the only way forward is to go to court to defend their professional reputations and their ability to continue to do public interest research.
Please voice your support for Séralini and colleagues and for the cause of open scientific discourse by signing this on-line petition:
Background about Séralini and colleagues' work
Séralini and his colleagues have undertaken reviews of data provided by Monsanto in order to justify the commercialization of three of its GM maize lines (MON 863, MON 810, NK603). The re-analyses by Professor Seralini and colleagues question the reliability of Monsanto's data to formally prove the safety of these three GM maize lines (inadequacies in methodology, lack of robustness in statistical analysis). Unlike the research performed by the company, the work of Professor Séralini and colleagues has been subject to rigorous evaluation by peers before being published in the scientific literature in 2007 and 2009.
The findings by Professor Seralini’s research team question the validity of approvals granted by the European Commission, given on the advice of the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) for human and animal consumption of these three maize varieties.
Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and his team have repeatedly been subjected to defamatory attacks extending far beyond any scientific discourse and without any scientifically supported justification or merit. Such attacks fundamentally undermine the principles of due scientific discourse and the fairness of an open society and need to be robustly repulsed once and for all.
The professor of molecular biology based at Caen University has been able to identify the person attempting to destroy his good name as a scientist: namely Professor Marc Fellous and indirectly the AFBV (French Association of Plant Biotechnology), chaired by Marc Fellous, Professor of Genetics and former president of the Biomolecular Engineering Commission (a governmental commission to assess agricultural GMOs, of which Professor Séralini was a member from 1998 to 2007). He therefore feels morally obliged to go to court to defend his team's professional reputation against threats to the livelihood of all scientists who seek funding for public interest research.
PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION in defence of the principles of respectful scientific criticism and the use of diverse expertise on issues as sensitive, complex and potentially irreversible as the effects of growing GM crops.
The petition condemns the approach of researchers, who use defamation and flawed/biased logic rather than credible scientific grounds, to unfairly and unjustly argue their case. The petition calls for open and transparent scientific discourse, subject to assessment by peers.
http://sciencescitoyennes.org/spip.php?article1807URGENT: YOUR SUPPORT NEEDED for Professor G-E Séralini and colleagues
Retailers have designated this month as the first NON GMO month. On the Sustainable Agriculture Group I have been featuring stories related to this and how you can help us reach the consumer tipping point in America that will facilitate ridding our food of this irresponsible technology.
This is a conversation with Jeffrey Smith regarding how you can contribute to the tipping point of maintaining food safety, food sovereignty, biodiversity and environmental democracy. GMOS are untested, unstable and unpredictable in our environment, food sources, and bodies. There is some good information at this link as well to work to keep our food safe and healthy.
Save Our Seeds
No To GMORetailers have designated this month as the first NON GMO month. On the Sustainable... more
This October, more than 580 natural food stores nationwide will take part in the first ever Non‐GMO Month, celebrating consumers' right to choose food and products that do not contain genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Organized by the non‐profit Non‐GMO Project, the event coincides with the launch of the "Non‐GMO Project Verified" seal on retail products.
The process of genetic modification, which takes place in a laboratory, typically merges DNA from different species, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacteria and viral genes that cannot occur in nature or in traditional crossbreeding. Virtually all commercial GMOs are bred to withstand direct application of herbicide and/or to produce an insecticide. None of the GMO traits currently on the market offer increase yield, drought tolerance, enhanced nutrition, or any other consumer benefit.
Studies, meanwhile, increasingly show a correlation between consumption of GMOs and an array of health risks. With U.S. consumer confidence shaken by ongoing food safety failures, distrust of GMOs is growing. As a result, more and more consumers are seeking non‐GMO choices, and Nielson reported in February of this year that "GMO‐free" is now the fastest growing store brand label claim.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association estimates that GMOs currently are in approximately 80% of conventional processed foods in the United States, but they are not labeled. This is in sharp contrast to most other developed nations around the world, where there are significant restrictions or outright bans on GMOs because they're not considered proven safe.
To fill the information gap, a "Non‐GMO Project Verified" seal has been created. Manufacturers earn the seal through compliance with rigorous GMO avoidance standards, including ingredient testing, as part of the nation's first third party non‐GMO verification program. Nearly 900 products have been verified to date, with thousands more in the process of becoming verified and new products joining the program every day. Non‐GMO Month celebrations will draw consumer attention to Non‐ GMO Project products, as well as educate them about the GMO issue.
"The Non‐GMO Project stays true to our mission to offer food in its most natural and unadulterated state, " said Michael Besancon, Whole Foods Market senior global vice president of purchasing, distribution and marketing. "We're committed to offering non‐GMO food and products and to educating consumers so they can make informed choices." Whole Foods Market stores nationwide will be participating in Non‐GMO Month, and Whole Foods also in the process of having its entire 365 private label brand verified to the Non‐GMO Project Standard.
Close to 300 independent retailers and co‐ops also are participating in Non‐GMO Month. "Retailers started the Non‐GMO Project because of consumer concern and requests for non‐GMO foods," said Corinne Shindelar, CEO of the Independent Natural Food Retailers Association (INFRA). "We have a responsibility to consumers to ensure the integrity of our food system, and among shoppers who value safe, healthy food, there is a strong desire to avoid GMOs. Non‐GMO Month is a fantastic opportunity to give people the information and non‐GMO choices they are looking for."This October, more than 580 natural food stores nationwide will take part in the first... more
This is the tenth edition of the Sustainable Agriculture Group's Monsanto Roundup where we keep you up to date on GMO, biotech, and Monsanto news. In this edition the news concentrates on biodiversity threats from proliferation of GMOS, landgrabs, and climate change effects:
* First Strong Evidence Of GM Plants Growing In The Wild In The U.S.
* Federal Court Rescinds USDA Approval of Genetically Engineered Sugarbeets
* Gates Foundation and Cargill Paper To Force Soy Monoculture Into Africa
Crops pulled up in Italy
Gm grapevines pulled up in France
BT eggplant protested in the Philippines
DNA from transgenic plants found in milk and animal tissue
Jeffrey Smith spills the beans about GMOS
And various tidbits about this most important topic which the media is seriously remiss about in dessiminating this information to the public at large... plus a few other messages. ;-)
Thanks for supporting this monthly feature of the Sustainable Agriculture Group on Current.
Firstly, thank you to the majority of posters who posted in the last entry who gave me permission to upload this again. Please feel free to comment again. If you posted an on topic comment and would like it put back, please let me know. I also apologize to those who voted this up the last time. Your votes were very much appreciated.
However, the proliferation of meanspirited off topic content overshadowed the main purpose of this entry and was simply unacceptable and I believe deterred others from contributing to the conversation. So thanks to Current as well for that lovely delete button and the choice to do so.
I spend my time reading, researching, and putting this information together because it is important to me and others who post here, and to the real world we all live in. To deliberately seek to undermine and belittle such efforts is simply meanspirited. So this time hopefully the conversation will be on topic, civil, and addressing the important issue of genetic modification in tandem with corporate landgrabs, deforestation and climate change's effects on our food system and health.
Any attempt to once again derail this important conversation will result in it being uploaded again.
Thank you.This is the tenth edition of the Sustainable Agriculture Group's Monsanto Roundup... more
TAKE ACTION ON GM SALMON:
NOTE: Excellent video interview on GM salmon:
Jeffrey Smith on genetically engineered salmon
Chefs weigh in on genetically modified salmon
*Restaurateurs have reservations over serving the modified fish
Producers of genetically modified salmon might have difficulty finding acceptance in restaurants even if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration deems the fish fit for human consumption.
The FDA said a 60-day consultation period will begin Sept. 19 and include a series of public meetings as the agency decides whether to allow the fish to be sold as food. If it wins approval, the fish should be available by 2012.
The salmon was developed by AquaBounty Technologies Inc. of Waltham, Mass., and involved adding genetic material from King salmon to Atlantic salmon, allowing the fish to reach maturity in half the time it takes for typical farm-raised Atlantic salmon. Most farm-raised salmon is Atlantic salmon.
Company material states that the fish is designed to be raised in contained, land-based facilities and that the fish are all sterile females, meaning that even if they escaped from their facilities they would not be able to cross-breed.
However, many restaurant chefs said they would not serve the fish.
Some expressed moral doubts about private companies patenting organisms, some expressed concerns about possible health effects of genetically modified food, and others expressed concern for the environment.
“There is no way I would be interested in serving [genetically modified] salmon,” said Chris Carriker, executive chef of The Gilt Club Restaurant in Portland, Ore. “The eventual damage to the environment would be catastrophic. Scientists say they have sterilized the GMO fish, but eventually one will adapt and destroy the natural process.”
Michael Maddox, chef of Le Titi de Paris in Arlington Heights, Ill., said his customers would not likely approve.
“It sounds kind of weird,” he said of the fish. “We have people ask all the time where the food is from. I think customers want to know where the cheese or the pork or the mushrooms are coming from … I think with the big green movement over the past couple of years, they'd be against [genetically modified salmon].”
In a poll conducted on Wednesday and Thursday on the NRN blog Food Writer's Diary, 26 out of 32 respondents, or 81 percent, said they would not eat the genetically modified salmon or serve it in their restaurant. Only two respondents said they would try the fish, and four said they might.
"It goes against my principles,” said Andy Arndt, executive chef of Aquariva Restaurant in Portland, Ore. He argued that the practice of genetically engineering fish wouldn't be necessary if fisheries were better regulated.
"I'm not interested in seeing 'genetically altered' anything in my restaurant,” said Antonio Bettencourt, chef-owner of 62 Restaurant & Wine Bar in Salem, Mass. "Local, fresh, honest, farm-to-table as much as possible is our mantra. I think people will pay the extra few cents to make sure they know where the food comes from. Maybe larger chain restaurants will have other thoughts, but that is my feeling."
"I don't think that I would serve any genetically modified salmon at Eve," said Troy Graves, chef at the Chicago restaurant. "I do believe that we need a sustainable way to farm-raise fish because the oceans cannot keep up with human consumption. [But] as soon as the government allows a corporation to patent a method of raising fish, there is a certain stranglehold on the fish supply in the future.”
Jonadab Silva, executive chef and co-owner of Jacky’s on Prairie in Evanston, Ill., argued that genetically modifying salmon was unnecessary.
"My opinion is we are looking at the whole issue in the wrong manner," he said. “Instead of making salmon grow faster, why don't we educate consumers to eat other varieties of fish, rather than just salmon, which is on every menu?"TAKE ACTION ON GM SALMON:... more