I want this corn labelled simply to allow the GM apologists a chance to be able to buy it all up and shove it down their throats instead of all of us being put at risk. Again, no regulatory accountability or oversight, and no environmental tests done. And once again NO MEDIA COVERAGE of it ANYWHERE. I sometimes wonder why I even care to post these items in the hopes of alerting people to exactly what is being done behind their backs and without their consent in hijacking our sustenance for profit. Perhaps people deserve what they get at this point. So here you have it, your dinner served up by chemical companies that poisoned you and this planet for the last fifty plus years. Bon apetit.I want this corn labelled simply to allow the GM apologists a chance to be able to buy... more
Real Food Media and the Institute for Responsible Technology urge consumers to take the No GMO Challenge to protect themselves from one of history’s greatest man-made health and environmental threats – genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The No GMO Challenge begins with a spring-inspired cupboard cleanout and a 30-day commitment to eating as many non-GMO meals as possible. Organizers of the No GMO Challenge hope U.S. shoppers will flex their considerable spending power during the No GMO Challenge to buy only non-GMO products, starting Earth Day. People who have already signed up for the No GMO Challenge include moms, farmers, chefs, scientists, physicists, biologists, home cooks, retailers and food writers who regularly blog about healthier foods.
Consumer polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled so they can avoid buying them. Nearly two-thirds of products on supermarket shelves contain unlabelled genetically modified ingredients. A controversial Food and Drug Administration exception made in the 1990s, permits GMOs to enter the food supply without adequate safety testing, say watchdog groups.
To help get the word out about GM foods, organizers of the No GMO Challenge are asking people to pledge that for 30 days, they will avoid GMO food made from the 5 main GM crops: corn, soy, canola and cottonseed oil, and sugar from sugar beets.
Ann Marie Michaels, the founder the Real Food Media Blog Network says, “We are asking consumers to try to avoid these foods and to blog about it, tweet about it, post about it on Facebook, and get the word out as much as possible. At the No GMO Challenge site http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/, we’ll have videos and news articles you can link to or blog about or tweet, and you can also just write about your experiences going GM-free.”
Bloggers can join a weekly blog carnival every Monday to share stories about GM food, and enter to win prizes every Thursday, from sponsors including US Wellness Meats, Zukay Live Foods and Tropical Traditions who will be giving away prizes like grass-fed meats, GMO-free salad dressings, and organic coconut oil.
The rolling No GMO Challenge, similar to the Eat Local Challenge launches today and will continue until GMOs are driven out the food supply, organizers say. Consumers are asked to organize, educate and build awareness about the dangers of GMOs until that goal is realized.
Jeffrey Smith, a leading expert on the health dangers of GMOs, says that Earth Day is the right time to draw attention to the environmental threat posed by GMOs. “GM crops concentrate corporate control of food, increase herbicide use without increasing average yields, endanger food security, are detrimental to sustainable and organic farming, and trap farmers in a cycle of debt and dependence. They shrink biodiversity, harm beneficial insects, damage soil bacteria, contaminate non-GM varieties, and persist in the environment. The presence of self-propagating genetic pollution might outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.”
Scientists warn that GM foods may set off allergies, increase cancer risks, damage food quality and produce lasting toxins in the environment. GMOs also increase the risk of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, due the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM food.Real Food Media and the Institute for Responsible Technology urge consumers to take... more
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
This Friday morning, the world’s largest natural and organic products trade show will start off with an Educational Session on international efforts to secure a non-GMO food supply. The session, titled “GMO's: Gettin'M Out of our Food” (8:30 to 10 am in Anaheim Convention Center Room 207A), brings together prominent speakers from the fields of science, policy, and natural products.
According to Michael Funk, Board Chair and Founder of UNFI, “There is no greater threat to the natural and organic industry than GMOs.” GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are created when DNA from one species is inserted into another species in a laboratory, creating combinations of plant, animal, bacterial, and viral genes that do not occur in nature or through traditional cross-breeding. Funk will bring an industry perspective to the session, discussing how GMOs affect natural products manufacturers, retailers, processors and growers, and encouraging industry members to join efforts addressing contamination risks. The primary solution he will be suggesting is participation in the Non-GMO Project.
The Non-GMO Project (www.nongmoproject.org), which was first launched two years ago at Expo West 2007, brings together stakeholders across North America in a collaborative effort to ensure the sustained availability of non-GMO options. As a Board member of the Project, along with top executives from Eden Foods, Lundberg Family Farms, Nature’s Path Organic Foods, Organic Valley, and Whole Foods Market, Funk is committed to supporting the Project’s strategy of product verification and uniform “Non-GMO Project Verified” labeling (the label will start appearing on products in October 2009).
Funk says that UNFI’s support will include highlighting “Verified” products: “We look forward to promoting and identifying items that have gone through the verification process in our catalogues, web site and other sales materials. Our focus will be on continuing to provide this critical information to retailers and consumers, giving additional integrity to the products we sell.” Funk would like to see “all companies in the natural products industry begin to enroll their brands through the Non-GMO Project’s verification process. By doing so,” he says, “we can ensure that we keep GMOs out of our food supply.”
The session’s other speakers, Michael Hansen, Ph.D, of the Consumers Union and John Fagan, Ph.D, of FoodChain Global Advisors, will speak about GMO science and policy, both in this country and internationally. Hansen, who will be focusing on the health implications of GMOs, says, “Recent scientific studies raise questions about the safety of GE (genetically engineered) foods.” He adds, “People are always shocked to learn that the FDA does not require safety testing of GE foods before they are allowed on the market. In fact, except for the FlavrSavr tomato, FDA has never made a conclusion about the safety of any GE crop.” Fagan will offer an update on the European Union’s GMO policies (the EU requires labeling on any product containing more than 0.9% GMO, and in most EU countries no GM crops are grown), and will also talk about GMO struggles in India, Brazil, and elsewhere across the globe.This Friday morning, the world’s largest natural and organic products trade show... more
Satyagraha, a non violent method of civil disobedience wherein participants bypass all laws that seek to deprive them of the basic necessities of life (food, water, shelter, medicine, a sustainable planet, freedom.) Gandhi started such a satyagraha when thousands marched to the sea risking beatings to collect salt on their own in defiance of the British and their tax on it. Dr. Vandana Shiva is now defying the laws of those seeking to patent and own the very seeds of life themselves with a seed satyagraha to speak out for our right to environmental democracy.
What Monsanto and other companies are doing in monopolizing seed is a crime of immense proportions in regards to denying freedom and environmental biodiversity which threatens life. But there are ways to move around their schemes to control our food and water. The wisdom of Gandhi and great advocates of freedom, peace, and environmental democracy like Dr. Shiva are greatly needed in our world now.
Make no mistake about it, Monsanto cares not for your health or for feeding you. They care about profit at any cost even at the expense of the sustainability and biodiveristy of this planet.
Would I walk to the sea risking beating to show my support for food democracy and having a sustainable planet for the future in defiance of Monsanto and all those seeking to deny it to me? Damn right I would. Would you?
Thank you Dr. Vandana Shiva for being a voice of truth, wisdom, and freedom for so many people around this world.Satyagraha, a non violent method of civil disobedience wherein participants bypass all... more
French journalist and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, author of the book and documentary The World According to Monsanto, an exhausting investigation into genetically-modified organisms and Monsanto, the world´s largest transgenic seed producer, spoke with Latinamerica Press managing editor Elsa Chanduví Jaña about the effects of these seeds and Monsanto´s ambitions to “control the world´s food chain.” Robin participated in the seminar “Seeds of Diversity vs. Transgenics” in Lima Jan. 28-29, which Comunicaciones Aliadas and Latinamerica Press co-organized.
The interview follows.
Stand up for your right to eat healthy natural foods.French journalist and filmmaker Marie-Monique Robin, author of the book 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
Consumers in Europe have resisted GM foods and for good reason. However, there is a stealth way that GMOs are winding up in food, and it is through GM animal feed. This particular article and action based in the UK calls for the end of GM feed that secretly finds its way into meat, fish, and dairy products. It always astounds me how people in Europe seem more savvy on these important issues and always take a stand and are successful. We need such a movement in the United States to say NO to these GMOs that are not independently tested or labelled from finding their way into our food supply and environment stealthily or otherwise. Perhaps this year will be the year. I personally think GMOs will see a decline as more people become aware of the health and environmental risks, and as more people tire of the secrecy maintained surrounding them by Monsanto and other chemical companies.Consumers in Europe have resisted GM foods and for good reason. However, there is a... more
We are on the tip of the iceberg regarding GMOs in our food supply. They have only been in our food supply for a little over a decade. We may not truly begin to see the full health effects of them for another twenty years. However, they are continued to be allowed to be spread thoughout the world to kill biodiversity and threaten traditional agriculture as we know it with little to no oversight. And Monsanto like coal, oil, and tobacco companies is paying big bucks to try to make people believe they do not need any independent testing of these test tube organisms they are passing off as food. As the end of this article states, Monsanto sure does have some explaining to do, only they do not give interviews. I wonder why?We are on the tip of the iceberg regarding GMOs in our food supply. They have only... more
Brazil-s Amazon jungles, known as the lungs of the world, lost almost 12,000 square kilometres (4,800 sq. miles) in just 12 months, a rise of almost 4.0 percent, new figures showed Friday.
The National Institute for Space Research (INPE) said the deforestation of the vast jungles due to encroaching farm exploitation, was 3.8 percent higher from August 2007 to July 2008 than in the previous 12 months.
The areas most affected were in northern Para and in the central Mato Grosso region, which is a huge producer of soya beans.
Over the past three years, the Brazilian authorities have succeeded in sharply reducing the loss of the Amazon rainforests, the biggest zone of tropical woodland on the planet.
Brazil is fighting to preserve its five million square kilometers of Amazon forest, a battle which it wants to be recognized as a service against global warming.
It argues that its efforts should be rewarded with financial input from other countries which would go to helping poor Amazon populations that might otherwise turn to cutting down trees.
But the results from 2007-2008 show that a surface equivalent to Solvenia or Israel was lost compared with the previous year.
The government had warned that the figures were likely to rise and has brought in new measures to combat the problem, including a system of fines.
It has also passed a series of agreements with soya, meat, wood and mineral producers that they will not buy illegal products.
Environment Minister Carlos Minc has said that without these measures the deforestation would have been twice as large.Brazil-s Amazon jungles, known as the lungs of the world, lost almost 12,000 square... more
Following similar actions by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly, agriculture ministers from the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have confirmed their plans for the entire island to be declared a GM-free zone.
The ministers announced their plan at the Terra Madre Ireland 2008 conference on food and farming policy in September.
The Irish Minister of State for Food and Horticulture, Trevor Sargent, emphasized the pitfalls of GMOs in agriculture, and also pointed out the opportunity available to Ireland in the controversy- ' the option for us in Ireland is very clear: Ireland- the food island. We can sell that! The green clean food island-they really want that in Germany . Anywhere you go where our main markets are, they want that green clean food island. How about if Bord Bia [the Irish food Board] tries to sell Ireland- the GM laboratory? I wonder how that would go down.'
The Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Affairs, Michelle Geldernew, said, 'We must protect the diversity of both plants and animals, and avoid damaging natural resources and contributing to climate change. Once we go down the GM route there is no going back: we need to keep Ireland GM-free.'
______________
At least we will have the natural beauty of Ireland, Scotland and Wales untouched by Monsanto s demon seeds. So if you are shopping and want to buy imported foods that are GMO free, Ireland may just be your best bet.
go raibh míle maith agat.Following similar actions by the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly,... more
* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.
* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.
* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc. Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.
* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto. Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.
*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.
____________
Another administration of cronies? Is this what we will get as change? I sure hope this is not true.* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack;s support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical... more
They may be moving to do so but they are coming up against much resistance from farmers, consumers, and various organizations that see their patenting of seeds for what it is: a move to control food and water to exploit the poor and this planet for profit.The encouraging news is that more people every day are waking up to the truth about our food and buying locally, growing food themselves, and fighting back. And we must fight back. Our future depends on it.
From article:
New report warns of corporate concentration, commodification of nature; highlights global resistance grounded in 'Food Sovereignty.'
ETC Group today releases a 48-page report, 'Who Owns Nature?' on corporate concentration in commercial food, farming, health and the strategic push to commodify the planet's remaining natural resources.
In a world where market research is becoming increasingly proprietary and pricey, ETC Group's report names names, discloses market share and provides top 10 industry rankings up and down the corporate food chain. Not all the corporations identified in ETC Group's new report are household names, but collectively they control a staggering share of the commercial products found on industrial farms, in our refrigerators and medicine cabinets.
An international advocacy organization based in Canada, ETC Group has been monitoring corporate power in the industrial life sciences for the past 30 years. The report reveals that:
From thousands of seed companies and public breeding institutions three decades ago, 10 companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales From dozens of pesticide companies three decades ago, 10 now control almost 90% of agrochemical sales worldwide From almost 1,000 biotech start-ups 15 years ago, 10 companies now account for three-quarters of industry revenues The top 10 pharmaceutical companies control 55% of the global drug market
With collapsing systems - eco, climate, food and financial - as the backdrop, Who Owns Nature? warns that, with engineering of living organisms at the nano-scale (a.k.a. synthetic biology), industry is setting the stage for a corporate grab that extends to all of nature.
'About one-quarter of the world's biomass has already been commodified, explains ETC Group's Pat Mooney.'With extreme genetic engineering, we're seeing new corporate strategies to capture and commodify the three-quarters of the world's biomass that has, until now, remained beyond the market economy.'
snip
Who Owns Nature? reports on daunting trends in corporate concentration and technology convergence, but it also points to a very different reality and a powerful contrast to the corporate-controlled life sciences. Although a single company - Monsanto - accounts for almost one-quarter of proprietary seed sales, about three-quarters of the world's farmers routinely save seed from their harvest and grow locally-bred varieties. Wal-Mart may be the world's largest buyer and seller of retail food, but 85% of global food is consumed close to where it is grown - much of it outside the formal market system.
'There is vast and growing resistance to the dislocation and devastation caused by the agro-industrial food system,' points out Silvia Ribeiro of ETC Group. 'In the global struggle for Food Sovereignty, the playing field isn't level, but the scope of resistance is massive - peasant farmers, fisher people, pastoralists and allied civil society and social movements are fighting for locally controlled and socially just food and health systems.'
To download the full report:
http://www.etcgroup.orgThey may be moving to do so but they are coming up against much resistance from... more
How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in the US? How much transgenic contamination? Environmental toxification? Where are the independent studies that conclude that GE foods unequiviocably do not contribute to allergies, diabetes, thyroid conditions, cancer, Morgellon's Disease, early puberty in children fed GM soy formula, and other diseases that have been on the rise since GM foods hit the market? Why is Monsanto and the FDA fighting consumer disclosure which is a democratic right of the people if these foods are safe?
Personally, I do not believe that GM foods are benign. I believe there are health effects to them that we are not being told about because it would hurt the profits of Monsanto and other agrbusiness /chemical/ poison making companies.The majority of the world is against genetic modification of food. The only ones really pushing it are governments and world organizations like the World Bank that seek to make profits. There is no real need for it except profit motive by chemical companies looking to exploit the poor and now the climate and food crises with their ethanol.
Yet, the U.S. government in collusion with Monsanto allows it to be sold in our country without disclosure to the public. I think that if labelling is not to be allowed on foods in this country containing their GM ingredients that there needs to be a MAJOR boycott in this country of all companies that sell any corn and soy processed foods. They then need to feel it where it will hurt THEM the most until they disclose the source of their ingredients. I am tired as a citizen of having to deal with the secrecy of a government that cares more about their own profits and political cronyism than the health and wellbeing of the American people and the environment. ANY food that is also a registered pesticide is not something I want my child or myself to consume.
____
From the article:
A study published today by the Austrian government identified serious health threats of genetically engineered (GE) crops. In one of the very few long-term feeding studies ever conducted with GE crops, the fertility of mice fed with GE maize was found to be severely impaired, with fewer offspring being produced than by mice fed on natural crops. Considering the severity of the potential threat to human health and reproduction, Greenpeace is demanding a recall of all GE food and crops from the market, worldwide.
The study, sponsored by the Austrian Ministries for Agriculture and Health, was presented today at a scientific seminar in Vienna, Austria. Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, summarised the findings: Mice fed with GE maize had less offspring in the third and fourth generations, and these difference were statistically significant. Mice fed with non-GE maize reproduced more efficiently. This effect can be attributed to the differences in the food source.
snip
Owned by Monsanto, the GE maize variety tested in this study is tolerant to a herbicide and resistant to certain insect pests. It has been approved for planting and food use in a variety of countries, including the US, Argentina, Japan, Philippines and South Africa. In Mexico and the European Union(1), it is approved for food and feed use.
"This study is yet another example that the food and feed safety of GE crops and food cannot be guaranteed. The reproductive toxicity of this GE maize was a totally unexpected result, but regulators around the world had considered this GE maize variety as safe as non-GE varieties - a potentially devastating error," said Dr. van Aken.How many studies will have to be performed to get GM ingredients listed on labels in... more
Thank you for the opportunity to hopefully have this question asked of Mr. Gore on Digg. Through so many years he has been and will continue to be a voice of reason and a great inspiration to me.Thank you for the opportunity to hopefully have this question asked of Mr. Gore on... more
The Indian government has drawn criticism from civil society organisations over gaps in regulating trials and safety data on genetically modified (GM) crops in recent months.
The international nongovernmenal organisation Greenpeace told reporters last week (15 October) that India's monitoring and enforcement of GM crop trials "are in shambles". They say state governments often have no knowledge of field trials being conducted and biosafety tests are being increasingly outsourced to private firms, with no evidence of government oversight.
India is currently testing 56 GM crops, including 41 food crops, developed by public and private institutes. Genetically modified Bt cotton, containing a gene that is lethal to bollworm pests, is the only GM crop grown commercially in India. GM aubergine, mustard, rice and tomato are undergoing trials.
But a senior official at India's Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC), which clears trials of GM crops, told SciDev.Net that regulatory standards were being maintained. GEAC has authorised state agricultural universities to regulate GM crop trials in their respective states "and so far we have found them to be competent in their job", she says.
Trials of Bt rice in the central Indian state of Jharkhand also came under sharp criticism by the Delhi-based nongovernmental organisation Gene Campaign in September. Gene Campaign's convener Suman Sahai says an independent survey of the trial sites by her organisation reveals serious gaps in the methods of the Maharashtra Hybrid Company (MAHYCO), an Indian partner of biotechnology company Monsanto.
Especially worrying, says Sahai, is that Jharkhand is home to rich rice biodiversity that could be seriously affected by contamination with GM crops.
Sahai says that in addition to both farmers and the state agricultural university being unaware of the trials, rice was grown during months when there are no pests making the study of pest resistance difficult, there was no physical containment of the trial sites from surrounding farmers' fields, and trials were conducted uphill of normal fields allowing water containing seeds and soil to flow onto them.
Indian government officials and MAHYCO did not respond to Sahai's charges made public last month (September 16).
The Indian government has proposed that a National Biotechnology Regulatory Authority (NBRA) be set up as a 'single-window clearance system' for all genetically modified crop and medicinal products. A draft bill on the NBRA is in circulation for comments.
But Pushpa Bhargava, former director of the Hyderabad-based Center for Cellular and Molecular Biology and appointed by an Indian court to the GEAC in August, told SciDev.Net, setting up a new body is meaningless, "without first identifying what is wrong with the existing regulatory system and the remedies".The Indian government has drawn criticism from civil society organisations over gaps... more
Commercialized GM crops are confined to soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Soybeans and corn predominate, and are used mainly to feed animals or fuel cars in rich nations. For instance, Argentina and Brazil export the great majority of their soybeans as livestock feed, mainly to Europe and Japan, while more than three fourths of the U.S. corn crop is either fed to animals or used to generate ethanol for automobiles. Expanding soybean monocultures in South America are displacing small farmers, who grow food crops for local consumption, and thus contribute to food insecurity, especially in Argentina and Paraguay. The only other commercial GM crops are papaya and squash, both grown on miniscule acreage.
Most revealing, however, is what the biotech industry has engineered these crops for. Hype and promises of future innovations notwithstanding, there is not a single commercial GM crop with increased yield, drought-tolerance, salt-tolerance, enhanced nutrition or other attractive-sounding traits touted by the industry. Disease-resistant GM crops are practically non-existent.
We have yet to see genetically modified food that is cheaper, more nutritious or tastes better, says Hope Shand, research director for the Ontario-based ETC Group. Biotech seeds have not been shown to be scientifically or socially useful.
The industry's own figures reveal that GM crops incorporate one or both of just two traits; herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. Insect-resistant cotton and corn produce their own built-in insecticide to protect against certain, but far from all, insect pests. Herbicide-tolerant crops are engineered to withstand direct application of an herbicide to kill nearby weeds. These crops predominate, with 82 percent of global biotech crop acreage.
Herbicide-tolerant crops (mainly soybeans) are popular with larger farmers because they simplify and reduce labor needs for weed control. They have thus helped facilitate the worldwide trend of consolidating farmland into fewer, ever bigger farms, like Argentina's huge soybean plantations. According to a 2004 study by Charles Benbrook, former executive director of the Board on Agriculture of the National Academy of Sciences, herbicide-tolerant crops have also led to a substantial increase in pesticide use. Benbrook's study found that adoption of herbicide-tolerant crops in the United States increased weed-killer use by 138 million pounds from 1996 to 2004 (while insect-resistant crops reduced insecticide use by just 16 million pounds over the same period).
The vast majority of herbicide-tolerant crops are Monsanto 's Roundup Ready varieties, tolerant to the herbicide glyphosate, which is sold under the brand-name Roundup. The dramatic rise in glyphosate use associated with Roundup Ready crops has spawned an epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, just as bacteria evolve resistance to an overused antibiotic. Farmers respond to resistant weeds by upping the dose of glyphosate and by using greater quantities of other herbicides, such as the probable carcinogen 2,4-D (a component of Agent Orange) and the endocrine-disrupting weed killer atrazine, recently banned in the European Union. Glyphosate-resistant weeds and rising herbicide use are becoming serious problems in the United States, Argentina and Brazil.
Commercialized GM crops are confined to soybeans, corn, cotton and canola. Soybeans... more
Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and malnutrition it has been locked in for decades, according to a major study from the United Nations to be presented today.
New evidence suggests that organic practices – derided by some as a Western lifestyle fad – are delivering sharp increases in yields, improvements in the soil and a boost in the income of Africa's small farmers who remain among the poorest people on earth. The head of the UN's Environment Programme, Achim Steiner, said the report "indicates that the potential contribution of organic farming to feeding the world maybe far higher than many had supposed".
The "green revolution" in agriculture in the 1960s – when the production of food caught and surpassed the needs of the global population for the first time – largely bypassed Africa. Whereas each person today has 25 per cent more food on average than they did in 1960, in Africa they have 10 per cent less.
A combination of increasing population, decreasing rainfall and soil fertility and a surge in food prices has left Africa uniquely vulnerable to famine. Climate change is expected to make a bad situation worse by increasing the frequency of droughts and floods.
It has been conventional wisdom among African governments that modern, mechanised agriculture was needed to close the gap but efforts in this direction have had little impact on food poverty and done nothing to create a sustainable approach. Now, the global food crisis has led to renewed calls for a massive modernisation of agriculture on the hungriest continent on the planet, with calls to push ahead with genetically modified crops and large industrial farms to avoid potentially disastrous starvation.
snip
The research conducted by the UN Environment Programme suggests that organic, small-scale farming can deliver the increased yields which were thought to be the preserve of industrial farming, without the environmental and social damage which that form of agriculture brings with it.
An analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. That increase in yield jumped to 128 per cent in east Africa.
"Organic farming can often lead to polarised views," said Mr Steiner, a former economist. "With some viewing it as a saviour and others as a niche product or something of a luxury... this report suggests it could make a serious contribution to tackling poverty and food insecurity."
The study found that organic practices outperformed traditional methods and chemical-intensive conventional farming. It also found strong environmental benefits such as improved soil fertility, better retention of water and resistance to drought. And the research highlighted the role that learning organic practices could have in improving local education. Backers of GM foods insist that a technological fix is needed to feed the world. But this form of agriculture requires cash to buy the patented seeds and herbicides – both at record high prices currently – needed to grow GM crops.
Regional farming experts have long called for "good farming", rather than exclusively GM or organic. Better seeds, crop rotation, irrigation and access to markets all help farmers. Organic certification in countries such as the UK and Australia still presents an insurmountable barrier to most African exporters, the report points out. It calls for greater access to markets so farmers can get the best prices for their products.
_______________
Let's REALLY feed the people and give the power back to the farmers. GMOs are not the solution. Giving farmers the tools they need to grow natural food and the mechanisms to get them is.Organic farming offers Africa the best chance of breaking the cycle of poverty and... more
The most common argument from proponents of GM crops is that genetically engineered food will be necessary to feed a growing world population. They argue that, if the world population continues to grow, it will be necessary to increase crop yield by new technologies, such as genetic engineering.
There is very little evidence to support this argument. In fact, most of the data points in the opposite direction. In 2003, Aaron deGrassi, a researcher at the Institute of Development Studies at Sussex University, published an analysis of the GM crops which biotech companies are developing for Africa.
These included cotton, maize and sweet potato. He discovered that conventional breeding and ecological management produced a far higher yield, at a fraction of the cost of genetic engineering. At that time, the GM research on sweet potato was approaching its 12th year. 12 scientists were involved and the project had already cost €6m. The result indicated that the yield had increased by 18%.
On the other hand, conventional sweet potato breeding, working with a much smaller budget, had produced a virus-resistant variety with 100%. More importantly for small, subsistence farmers, the non-transgenic sweet potato had not been patented. [GMW: It also emerged subsequent to deGrassi's report that the final trial results showed the GM sweet potato had failed completely in term sof both virus resistance and increasing yields.]
A 2007 study, conducted by Kansas State University agronomist Dr Barney Gordon over the past three years, suggests that the yield from RoundupReady soya was 9% less than conventional varieties. A report from the United States Department of Agriculture stated in April 2006 that currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars.
If GM crops are vital for combating hunger, it seems strange that they have not been endorsed by the Food Security Report from the International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) published in 2008.
This report is a collaboration between public bodies such as the World Bank, the United Nations Environment Programme, the World Health Organisation and representatives from governments, NGOs and scientific bodies. It is a thorough sifting of the evidence about agriculture, food production and security, running to 2,500 pages. It took four years to complete, and invoved the work of 400 scientists.
The report does not endorse the claim that GM crops will feed the world. It argues that a drastic change in agricultural practices will be necessary in order to counteract soaring food prices, hunger, social inequality and environmental degradation.
It maintains that GM crops are controversial, and that they will not play a substantial role in addressing the challenge of climate change, loss of biodiversity, food security, poverty and hunger. It did not rule out a role for GM crops in the future, but highlighted the problems which the current regime of patenting seeds has on farmers and researchers.
snip
Robert Watson, the director of the IAASTD, and chief scientist at the UK Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, responded to a question from the Daily Mail – Are GM crops the simple answer to hunger and poverty? with the words – I would argue, no.
The report concludes that 'Assesment of the technology lags behind its development, information is anecdotal and contradictory, and uncertainty about possible benefits and damage is unavoidable.'
The GM lobby often accuses those opposed to GM as being anti-science. Nothing is further from the truth.
The most common argument from proponents of GM crops is that genetically engineered... more
The above paragraphs summarize published data that clearly show the following:
(1) Compounds structurally related to a common small molecule can have a lethal effect when present as even a minor contaminant in a food supplement.
(2) The GM enhancement of a metabolic pathway by the overexpression of genes for that pathway can have unpredictable consequences in the form of synthesizing a toxin.
(3) Finally, in the case of golden rice, it is argued that biologically active compounds derived from aberrant plant carotenoid synthesis could have profound effects on human development.
Similar arguments can be made for NEP-derived fatty acids that are directly incorporated into brain lipids and about NEPs overproducing vitamin E. Aberrant fatty acid composition of brain lipids is implicated in Alzheimer’s disease,45,46 and vitamin E has a role similar to RA in mammalian development.47 The excess consumption of a nutrient can also have negative effects. For example, a clinical trial with vitamin E supplementation showed that a relatively small dose increased the risk of heart failure,48 and smokers who supplemented their diet with -carotene had an increased risk of lung cancer.49 Therefore, there is a potential for nutrient toxicity in NEPs because upper tolerable levels of many nutrients are not well established (p. 107)35 and are likely to vary between individuals and lifestyles.
The information presented here shows that not only the potential harm of the product should be considered for risk assessment, but the GM process itself. The data clearly invalidate the argument that "the regulatory trigger for risk assessment should be based upon the physical features of the product rather than the process by which the product was generated."50 While it is true that traditional breeding methods can give rise to potentially hazardous products, the most recent assessment of GM food safety by the National Research Council35 stated that GM “has a higher probability of producing unanticipated changes than some genetic modification methods" (p. 118), but it curiously concludes by stating that the risk of GM technology is no greater than conventional breeding methods.
There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe (see, for example, McHughen and Smyth,50 Bradford et al.,51 and Miller et al.52) is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention.53 Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted.
The necessity of labeling all GM products and particularly NEPs is therefore critical if there is any hope of monitoring adverse health consequences due to their consumption. For example, it would have been impossible to identify the source of the toxic tryptophan supplement if the product were not traceable through labeling. It follows that before NEPs producing biologically active molecules such as -carotene, omega-3 fatty acids, or vitamin E are introduced into the food chain, great care must be taken to do rigorous, multigenerational animal safety assessments with the hope of identifying risks to health (for methods, see, for example, the 2007 publication by the National Toxicology Program54 and Pusztai and Bardocz55). In addition, the products must be labeled and traceable, and the unpredictable and unintended metabolic changes that may occur in NEPs require the thorough testing of the entire edible portion of the plant, not just the designated product as is almost always done by biotech companies...
David R. Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD
J Med Food 11 (4) 2008, 000–000 The above paragraphs summarize published data that clearly show the following:
(1)... more
