tagged w/ GMOs
-
A newly released hidden video is available for unrestricted use by the members of media at a new website http://occupy-monsanto.com. Occupy Monsanto is calling for protests on September 17, 2012, at Monsanto facilities across the globe to demand GMO labeling and the elimination of cancer causing toxic chemicals in our food supply.
During a face-to-face encounter caught on hidden video, Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant is challenged on how his company has an "artificial buffer" of acceptance in the consumer marketplace because "people don't know if what they are eating is GMO."
In the video GMO Labeling campaigner Adam Eidinger also speaks before the entire shareholder meeting, urging acceptance of GMO labeling. He decries the agrichemical giant's contribution to the rise of "Superweeds" and "Superpests" that develop resistance to ever more toxic chemicals sprayed on them. Despite the challenge of Monsanto to "reform," no shareholders challenged Eidinger on the facts except for Grant. Eidinger also asks Grant from the podium how much the company will spend fighting GMO labeling efforts in 2012.
When pressed by Eidinger a second time on the labeling issue Grant asserts that Monsanto complies with and supports US laws regarding labeling. He admits, "There is an increasing category of GMO-free as well, so we would support the overarching umbrella of labeling."
Eidinger responded that his question addressed efforts to change the laws to mandate labeling. "Is the Company going to oppose these labeling efforts wherever they take place?" he asks. Grant relents, "We would be absolutely open and willing to engage in a dialog with our broad industry peers," when it comes to the question of labeling GMOs.
Currently, Monsanto faces new lawsuits from organic farmers, while in California a GMO labeling ballot proposition is under review. More than 550,000 people have signed onto the JustLabelit.org citizens' petition to the Food and Drug Administration for GMO labeling and last fall for the first time about 100 people marched in a GMO Right2Know March from New York to the White House to demand President Obama keep his campaign promise to label GMO foods. (Video of the promise can be seen here. )
About Occupy-Monsanto.com
The Monsanto Annual Shareholders' Meeting concluded official activities of the Right2Know March for GMO labeling which was sponsored by the Non-GMO Project and many other organizations and businesses. Some coordinators of last year's march have set their focus on Monsanto. In March of 2012 a new "Occupy Monsanto" campaign will be formally launched to focus on changing Monsanto's business practices and support the principles of the Occupy movement.
More at the linkA newly released hidden video is available for unrestricted use by the members of... more
-
-
If you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets that you take his word at face value, you would be in good company, but you might be terribly wrong. Organizations well versed in the agricultural issues facing developing nations are saying his annual letter, released last week, is completely mistaken when it asserts that a lack of support for GMO crop development is responsible, in part, for allowing world hunger to endure. We interviewed Heather Pilatic, Ph.D., co-director of the Pesticide Action Network North America (PANNA), to show us the other, important side of the story.
TakePart: In the introduction to his letter, Bill Gates cites the Green Revolution of the 1960s and '70s, saying scientists created new seed varieties for rice, wheat, and maize, and that this resulted in increased crop yield and a decrease in extreme poverty around the world. Do you agree that this is a model to use moving forward?
Heather Pilatic: The Green Revolution is a story that some people like to tell, but it has little basis in historical fact. Take the Green Revolution’s origins in 1940s Mexico, for instance. It was not really about feeding the world; Mexico was a food exporter at the time. Rather, the aims included stabilizing restive rural populations in our neighbor to the south, and making friends with a government that at the time was selling supplies to the World War II Axis powers and confiscating oil fields held by Standard Oil (a funding source for the Rockefeller Foundation, one of the key architects of the Green Revolution).
We can also learn from India, the Green Revolution’s next stop after Mexico. India embraced the Green Revolution model of chemical-intensive agriculture. Now it is the world’s second biggest rice grower with surplus grain in government warehouses. Yet India has more starving people than sub-Saharan Africa—at more than 200 million, that’s nearly a quarter of its population. History shows that a narrow focus on increasing crop yield through chemical-seed packages reduces neither hunger nor poverty.
So no, we do not agree that the Green Revolution offers a promising model for addressing poverty.
TakePart: Bill Gates is urging that more money be donated to agricultural innovation, including crop GMOs, because "one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation." Of course, this argument worries all of us. Will you explain PANNA's perspective?
Heather Pilatic: We could not agree with Gates more on the first point. Investment in agriculture in the developing world is enormously efficient and more impactful on the ground than investment in just about any other sector. It is also true that more people than ever before are going hungry, needlessly. We have enough food to go around now. We disagree with Gates on two points—one scientific and one political.
First, the science. Most of the rest of the world's experts agree that GMOs are not what the world's poor need to feed themselves. The science simply doesn't bear this claim out. Our staff scientist was a lead author in the most comprehensive analysis of global agriculture ever undertaken, the UN & World Bank's International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (the IAASTD). After four years and with the input of over 400 experts, and reams of evidence, the IAASTD concluded that the developing world's best bet for feeding itself in the 21st century was explicitly not the kind of chemically intensive farming that accompanies GMO seeds. Rather, these experts found that smaller scale, farmer-driven, knowledge-intensive, ecological agriculture is one of the most promising ways forward for the developing world in particular. The U.N. Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food has reported that ecological farming can double food production within 10 years. This is the kind of agriculture we should be investing in.
Second, the political—and this cuts two ways. We must finally recognize that hunger is a problem of poverty and access to resources, especially land, not agricultural yield. The solution to world hunger is a political one: stop kicking farmers off their land and dumping product on the world market that puts them out of business; protect farmers’ rights to save and exchange seed; kick the bankers out of food-crop commodities speculation, they're playing roulette with our food system; write fair trade policies; listen to the world's poor, they know what they need...in short, democratize food and farming if you want to address hunger.
Finally, here in the U.S., kick the farm lobby out of Congress and the pesticide industry out of our federal regulatory agencies (EPA & USDA). Together, these two special interests have a chokehold on U.S. farm, aid and trade policy, and dominate our agricultural research agenda in ways that make it possible for a smart man like Bill Gates to believe and prosyletize on behalf of an approach to agriculture that A, the rest of the world knows is defunct; and B, has failed—after 14 years of commercialization and billions of dollars in public research funding—to deliver on a single one of its promises to the public.
More at the linkIf you assume that Bill Gates is so well informed about all his philanthropic targets... more
-
-
If you happened to be walking around Lower Manhattan this morning, you might have noticed the anti-Monsanto chants echoing from Foley Square. In a protesting trifecta, Occupy Wall Street, Occupy Big Food, and Food Democracy Now joined forces to support family farmers as the first phase of their federal court case against food industry giant Monsanto. The crowd of around 200 people included farmers from as far away as Maine as well as local food activists and chefs.
The case against Monsanto (Organic Seed Growers Trade Association et al. v. Monsanto) aims to protect farmers against aggressive lawsuit and crop contamination from Monsanto’s genetically modified seeds. Organic and non-GMO crops can be severely damaged by the introduction of GMO seeds and farmers whose crops have been infiltrated are vulnerable to lawsuits from Monsanto who owns a vast majority of the genetics on commodity crops such as corn, soybeans and cotton.
Farmers’ fear of being sued by the multi-billion dollar company is not unfounded. According to Monsanto, since 1997, it has filed 145 lawsuits against farmers and settled 700 other disputes out of court.
Today in Federal District Court in Manhattan, Judge Naomi Buchwald will hear complaints from farmers and determine whether or not their case against Monsanto will move forward. Protestor and organic farmer Deb Taft of Mobius Fields in Westchester, New York said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the outcome of this morning's hearings.
Many protestors felt it was an accomplishment in itself that the case has made it to Federal District Court. An unnamed protestor and chef at a local private school said he came out to stand with farmers who finally got their day in court. He has been wary of Monsanto since the mid 1980s, when the issues of genetically modified organisms were mostly talk, rather than reality.
While all of the protestors united around their distrust of and frustration with Monsanto, their specific reasons for being there were varied. Some were concerned with the lack of seed choice now that Monsanto has put many local providers out of business while others were concerned with Monsanto’s global presence (Monsanto is currently being sued for biopiracy in India).
Protestors pointed to a long history of infractions on the part of Monsanto, which they demonstrated by creating a human timeline of the company’s history. Monsanto genetically modified its first plant in 1982, but the company’s story goes back to the beginning of the 20th century. John Francis Queeny, a pharmaceutical industry veteran, founded the company in 1901 and in 1902 Monsanto sold its first product to Coca-Cola — saccharin, the artificial sweetener that has been linked to cancer. Protestors this morning also referenced Monsanto's role as one of the companies that manufactured Agent Orange, an herbicide used by the U.S. Army in Vietnam that has been proven to caues severe health damage and birth defects.
But the protestors main focus today was the effect that that GMOs have on biodiversity and farmer livelihood. Andrew Faust, a permaculture teacher and founder of The Center for Bioregional Living in Ellenville, New York, urged consumers to use their buying power to boycott Monsanto products. Currently, advocacy groups working under the slogan “Right to Know” are lobbying for GMO labeling, which is already required in the European Union and China, and which Monsanto is fighting against.
According to a tweet from someone present in the courtroom, the judge will give her ruling on this morning’s hearings, which ended around 11:30 am, by March 31st. Those interested in supporting the farmers' cause can sign Food Democracy Now!’s pledge to support America’s farmers and donate to the Right to Know campaign.
More at the linkIf you happened to be walking around Lower Manhattan this morning, you might have... more
-
-
The giant bio-tech firm Monsanto yesterday announced a major withdrawal from the UK amid intense opposition to genetically modified foods.The company, the leading multinational behind the production of GM crops, is closing its wheat growing operation, based in Cambridge.
Officials said the move was partly due to the opposition to GM crops which has inspired the Daily Mail's campaign against so-called "Frankenstein Foods". Monsanto is also seeking to sell off crop-breeding centres in France, Germany and the Czech Republic.
The move was widely seen as an indication that the company has given up hopes of introducing GM crops to Europe. Pete Riley, of Friends of the Earth, said last night: "If they are pulling out, we should rejoice."
Monsanto's decision was made public on the eve of the Government's final announcement on the prospects for GM crop cultivation here. Earlier this week it was revealed that the Government's own research had found that GM farming would pollute the countryside for generations. Monsanto's Cambridge unit employed 125 people developing hybrid wheat varieties for the European market.
The company bought the former Government Plant Breeding Institute from Unilever in 1998, declaring that GM crops would be established within five years. But a Monsanto spokesman said last night the expected business had "never materialised". Last month, Bayer CropScience pulled the plug on UK field trials, leaving just one company, Syngenta, actively pursuing GM here. The results of the Government research had been wdely seen as dealing a bodyblow to supporters of GM crops.
Disturbing figures came from three separate studies conducted on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.They showed that pollen contamination would spread far further than previously thought and "feral" growth of weed killer -proof plants from just one crop would persist for years.
At the same time, the heavy use of chemicals associated with the crops could wipe out some bird species.The warnings followed the massive public suspicion of GM crops revealed by the Government's own national consultation.
In an initiative involving hundreds of public meetings and 37,000 questionnaires, 93 per cent of respondents said not enough was known about the long-term effects of GM foods on health, while 86 per cent said they would not eat it. Concern about pollution of organic and other farms was mentioned by 95 per cent, while 93 per cent said GM technology was driven more by profit than public interest.
There has also been concern over the close relationship between the Labour Government and Monsanto. David Hill, Tony Blair's new spin doctor, is a former adviser to Monsanto and Science Minister Lord Sainsbury holds a stake in a firm linked to Monsanto, which is handled by a blind trust. The GM row in Europe has escalated recently, with comments from EU environment commissioner Margaret Wallstrom that GM companies were lying and trying to force unsuitable crops on European farmland.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-199884/GM-giant-quits-Britain-amid-backlash.html#ixzz1l3z17I91
http://www.healingtalks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/GMO-Free-Is-Fastest-Growing-Retail-Brand2.jpgThe giant bio-tech firm Monsanto yesterday announced a major withdrawal from the UK... more
-
-
Dow and its affiliate companies, knowingly and willfully, sold products of Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) in India routing it through untainted companies by re-labeling them to subvert the asset attachment orders of Indian courts. TOI has accessed internal documents - emails, correspondence and memos etc - of Dow showing how the chemical giant decided to label UCC products and sell them in its name to evade taint and prosecution.
The documents show Dow continued to set the prices for UCC products in India, though it now claims UCC is a separate entity and it has no responsibility for the firm's liabilities for the 1984 Bhopal gas tragedy. Dow sold goods worth $24 million of UCC products in 1999 through one company alone. The correspondence indicates that there was a concerted and conscious attempt to create a firewall between Dow and UCC in public domain, and rebrand UCC as Dow's.
These documents were submitted as evidence by one such front company in litigation against Dow in a US Court, which remained buried in the records so far.
Dow has never claimed ownership over UCC's liabilities in India, and insisted that the latter is a separate legal entity. The Bhopal activists have demanded that the corporate veil between the two be breached by courts and the government to prosecute the chemical giant, which has also got embroiled in the controversy over sponsoring the London Olympics, 2012.
A mail from Dow Chemical Pacific Manager in April 2001 reads, "There was a big lawsuit with UCC in India in the past. UCC considered the case is closed but India's official and companies didn't think so. Presuming the product ships directly from USA to India, my suggestion is to selling the product under Dow legal entity with Dow label and document will be a good way to proceed."
Another email from Graham Fox, Dow Chemical regional GM for Middle East &Indian subcontinent, to Ravi Muthukrishnan, country manager, Dow Chemical International Pvt. Ltd. (Mumbai) in January, 2001, states, "As you will be aware, UCC have not sold directly to India since Bhopal and have used Mega Visa to handle many of their sales of specialty chemicals, some bulk chemicals and wire & cable products. They work across our Dow businesses and have some several million $ sales revenue as I understand it."
A third letter indicates that this was part of a well-thought out strategy to create a firewall between Dow and UCC after their merger. A Catherine Maxey, Public Affairs director at Dow, wrote in March, 2001, "Union Carbide Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. UCC will not be issuing any more press releases, product announcements, price increases, etc. All business activities are done under the umbrella of a Dow business. We face the market as Dow. Reporters will be tempted to keep talking about Union Carbide. But we should discourage reporters from using the words Union Carbide, unless it's reference to a historical activity. There should be no need for a trade press reporter to refer to Union Carbide, as we face the market as Dow They should not call a product a "Union Carbide product." All products are sold as Dow products now. Any current or future activity of a business is done as Dow."
Another email reveals that Dow officials were making crucial decisions like price of UCC products.
An email from Arpana Mody, Dow India manager in June, 2001, reads, "We agreed on the following procedural steps for handling Mega Visa orders through Singapore: Mega Visa-Mumbai, after obtaining enquiry will refer to respective Business Managers in Dow-India for pricing. This will be for products where pricing is not standard and subject to change. After getting order from Mega Visa-Mumbai, Mega Visa-Singapore will place order on UCC-Singapore, under copy to respective Business Managers and Mr Ashish Mitra at Dow India for price approval."
Yet another email from a Dow manager says, "Since Megavisa Singapore is a dummy company who negotiates nothing and owns nothing, Dow India now would like to do the business with MegaVisa India direct." But the idea was shot down by higher ups in the legal department of the company, stating, "Country management and I are against this idea at the present time due to the threat of litigation and the protest incident of a couple of months ago."
The series of correspondence reveals the linkage between various Dow companies internationally, the use of `corporate veil' and their continued trading of UCC products in India after the courts here named it as a proclaimed offender and ordered its movable and immovable properties attached.
The Indian government in its curative petition has not asked the Supreme Court to breach the corporate veil between Dow and UCC.Dow and its affiliate companies, knowingly and willfully, sold products of Union... more
-
-
Bill Gates is one very confused billionaire philanthropist.
He understands global warming is a big problem — indeed, his 2012 Foundation Letter even frets about the grave threat it poses to food security. But he just doesn’t want to do very much now to stop it from happening (see Pro-geoengineering Bill Gates disses efficiency, “cute” solar, deployment — still doesn’t know how he got rich).
He love technofixes like geoengineering and, as we’ll see, genetically modified food. Rather than investing in cost-effective emissions reduction strategies today or in renewable energy technologies that are rapidly moving down the cost curve, he explains that the reason invests so much in nuclear R&D is “The good news about nuclear is that there has hardly been any innovation.” Seriously!
His Letter includes the ominous chart at the top, and he warns of the dire consequences of climate change:
Meanwhile, the threat of climate change is becoming clearer. Preliminary studies show that the rise in global temperature alone could reduce the productivity of the main crops by over 25 percent. Climate change will also increase the number of droughts and floods that can wipe out an entire season of crops. More and more people are raising familiar alarms about whether the world will be able to support itself in the future, as the population heads toward a projected 9.3 billion by 2050.
Strong stuff.
And yet, as the AP reported this week, the wealthiest of all Americans gets very prickly if you don’t wholeheartedly endorse his techno-fix adaptation-centric approach to dealing with this oncoming disaster:
Bill Gates has a terse response to criticism that the high-tech solutions he advocates for world hunger are too expensive or bad for the environment: Countries can embrace modern seed technology and genetic modification or their citizens will starve….
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent about $2 billion in the past five years to fight poverty and hunger in Africa and Asia, and much of that money has gone toward improving agricultural productivity.Gates doesn’t apologize for his endorsement of modern agriculture or sidestep criticism of genetic modification. He told The Associated Press that he finds it ironic that most people who oppose genetic engineering in plant breeding live in rich nations that he believes are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.
Resistance to new technology is “again hurting the people who had nothing to do with climate change happening,” Gates said.
The real irony is that most people who diss efficiency and renewables and aggressive greenhouse gas mitigation, like Gates, live in rich nations that are responsible for global climate change that will lead to more starvation and malnutrition for the poor.
Where is the story that says, “countries to embrace existing technology to reduce emissions or their citizens will starve” or resistance to aggressive low carbon technology deployment is “again hurting the people who had nothing to do with climate change happening”?
This is not a blog on genetic modification, so I’ll just quote the AP story:
Bill Freese, a science policy analyst for the Washington-based Center for Food Safety, said everyone wants to see things get better for hungry people, but genetically modified plants are more likely to make their developers rich than feed the poor. The seed is too expensive and has a high failure rate, he said. Better ways to increase yields would be increasing the fertility of soil by adding organic matter or combining plants growing in the same field to combat pests, he said.
The biggest problem with those alternatives, Freese said, is the same one that Gates cited in high-tech research: A lack of money for development.
snip
But the fact is, as Oxfam and others have made clear, global warming is poised to make food vastly more expensive, which will be devastating to the world’s poor know matter how much money Gates dumps into GM crops — see Oxfam Predicts Climate Change will Help Double Food Prices by 2030: “We Are Turning Abundance into Scarcity”:
More at the linkBill Gates is one very confused billionaire philanthropist.
He understands global... more
-
-
Chinese researchers at Nanjing University have found small segments of rice ribonucleic acid (called microRNA or miRNA for its tiny size) in the blood and organs of people who eat conventional rice. The study does not address how the assimilation of plant RNA into human bodies could affect the debate over the next generation of genetically modified food crops, but the revelation that miRNA can likely survive digestion and take up residence in human cells certainly will provide ammunition for the anti-GMO camp, the most liberal of whom have been calling for toxicological and safety testing of patented plants since the inception of the biotech industry over a decade ago.
In the Chinese study, rice genetic material influenced the uptake of cholesterol from the blood by binding itself to receptor cells in the human liver. If confirmed, this would be the first time scientists have witnessed ingested plant miRNA that actually alters human physiology by regulating cell functions in this way, says AlterNet contributer Ari LeVaux in a recent piece. What’s more, it calls into question the doctrine of “substantial equivalence” – a dogma the biotech industry has clung to since 1991.
Under substantial equivalence, companies such as Monsanto Co. have built a body of case law that shields GMOs from the same rigorous safety testing that patented drugs must undergo. The reason: GMOs are assumed to be essentially the same as their whole-food counterparts. This reasoning works well enough where products such as Bt-corn are concerned. This is because GM corn and alfalfa are spliced with specific herbicide resistant genes from bacteria that are themselves assumed to be safe and natural in their isolated form.
“There is no need for, or value in testing the safety of GM foods in humans,” declares Monsanto’s website. “DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods. DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard.” Interestingly, this reasoning seems to undermine the legitimacy of plant patenting if nothing “novel” is being created, but that’s a whole other can of worms.
However, substantial equivalence might not sit so well with consumers faced with a new generation of GMOs that use miRNA sequences to shut down or turn down a targeted gene in an insect predator. The difference now, and this miRNA study supplies the evidence, is that our genetically-altered food could very well be genetically altering us.
The argument for the safety testing of GMOs can now go something like this: because humans and insects share some very similar proteins that process miRNAs (source), the small RNAs from GMO plants could adversely regulate genes in humans.
Proponents of little to no regulation of biotechnology agree that safety testing would only encumber the shared utopian dream of producing as much food as cheaply as possible for a booming world population. If that’s the case, anti-GMOers are going about this “crusade” all wrong. Maybe a more effective tactic would be to scrutinize more closely the real world performance of GM crops.
Monsanto is now the largest seed company in the world. Pointing out that their business model is antithetical to time-tested agricultural practices developed over thousands of years of human history, namely the ability of farmers to save seeds and breed new heirloom varieties to keep genetic diversity at optimal levels, might also bolster the naturalist case. Indeed, there is research to suggest that a path to bounty for the food-insecure populations of the world won’t come through new agricultural products or methods, but a revival of pre-industrial farming practices.
That’s not to say there isn’t a happy medium where scientists can be scientists without having to alienate large groups of agriculturalists and consumers. Critics argue this can’t occur until geneticists attach a higher ethical value to the business of natural plant breeding than setting the stage for a fully-patented biosphere.Chinese researchers at Nanjing University have found small segments of rice... more
-
-
Monsanto shareholders rejected a concerned shareholder’s proposal and upheld management viewpoint, as expected–after all, they did own shares in Monsanto–at the 2012 annual shareholders meeting held today at Monsanto Headquarters in St. Louis, MO. A shareholder representing Harrington Investments had submitted a proposal to create a study of “‘material financial risks or operational impacts’ associated with its chemical products and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).” Monsanto management issued a statement recommending that its shareholders vote against the proposal, which they did, of course.
Although Monsanto’s statement claimed to support the freedom of farmers to choose whatever farming system they wanted, John Harrington, CEO of Harrington Investments, said he doubted that Monsanto was truly supportive of farmers’ freedom because “genetic drift from GMO crops is contaminating their conventional and organic crops.” The GMO contamination takes away the farmers ability to market crops to Europe, China, and Japan where GMO crops are not accepted.
Although the meeting was only open to shareholders, there were protesters demonstrating outside the meeting. The protest was organized by Organic Consumers Association (OCA), Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA), and Harrington Investments. Shareholders should be concerned that eventually Monsanto will be held responsible for the “human health and environmental damages” from its toxic pesticides, herbicides (Roundup-glyphosate), and genetically engineered seeds, which would cause Monsanto stocks to drop in value.
More at the linkMonsanto shareholders rejected a concerned shareholder’s proposal and upheld... more
-
-
A week of Occupy Wall Street Maui events kick off today with the establishment of an encampment near the Monsanto offices in Kihei.
A series of marches, rallies and vigils are planned throughout the week as the group expresses their concerns over herbicide use, production of GMO products, and arguments of impacts on small farmers.
An event flyer makes claims of food supply control, government manipulation and environmental poisons.
Monsanto Hawaii Community Affairs Director, Paul Koehler responded to the planned demonstrations saying that while the company respects everyone's right to voice their opinion, he said, "It's unfortunate that a number of misleading and factually incorrect statements about Monsanto and genetically engineered crops continue to circulate."
snip
Koehler said Monsanto Hawaii is working with the Police Department to ensure safety of all during the planned Occupy events. "Our number one concern," he said, "is for the safety of everyone involved, including that of drivers passing by on the highway, pedestrians, our employees and the demonstrators."
More at the linkA week of Occupy Wall Street Maui events kick off today with the establishment of an... more
-
-
Protests Outside Monsanto 2012 Annual Meeting Planned
Shareholder's Resolution Would Require Chemical Giant to Study Risks of its Genetically Engineered Crops
ST. LOUIS, Jan. 20, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- On Tuesday, January 24 at 1:30 PM, Monsanto officers and shareholders will vote on a shareholder proposal to create a study of "material financial risks or operational impacts" associated with its chemical products and genetically modified organisms (GMOs).
The proposal represents one of the strongest signals to date that the biotech food conglomerate is facing growing consumer, legal, and regulatory uncertainties. As of today, however Monsanto has told John Harrington that they will not recognize his proxy who would speak on behalf of the resolution for only three minutes under normal circumstances.
The meeting itself is only open to shareholders but concerned citizens will be demonstrating outside the northeast entrance to Monsanto's Lindberg campus beginning at 12:00 noon. Monsanto Headquarters is located at 800 North Lindberg Boulevard in St. Louis, MO.
Adam Eidinger, an organic food activist who recently led a walk from NY to Washington DC on behalf of honest food labeling, will present the shareholder resolution on behalf of Napa, California based Harrington Investments (HII) with help from the Pesticide Action Network of North America (PANNA).
Eidinger will be available for interview before and after the shareholder meeting, which he will drive a "Label GMO" art car to attend. Representatives from HII and PANNA will be also available for interview before and after the shareholder meeting. Eidinger's written testimony is available by request.
In its statement recommending shareholders to vote against the HII resolution, Monsanto management stated that, "Farmers should have the freedom to choose which production method is best suited for their needs, whether organic, non-GM conventional or biotechnology traits. All of these systems can and do work effectively side by side…"
John Harrington, CEO of Harrington Investments questions the veracity of Monsanto's statement: "While I am heartened by Monsanto's sudden concern for the freedom of farmers, the unfortunate reality facing American farmers right now, is that genetic drift from GMO crops is contaminating their conventional and organic crops. This can be disastrous because many GMO crops cannot be sold to important markets, such as Europe, China and Japan. The potential legal implications for Monsanto are staggering."
More at the linkProtests Outside Monsanto 2012 Annual Meeting Planned
Shareholder's Resolution... more
-
-
According to an article in German in the Ithaca journal, a German university study has found significant concentrations of glyphosate in the urine samples of city dwellers. The analysis of the urine samples apparently found that all had concentrations of glyphosate at 5 to 20-fold the limit for drinking water. As well as being used increasingly widely in food production, glyphosate-based weedkillers often also get sprayed onto railway lines, urban pavements and roadsides.
http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin
Disturbingly, the Ithaca journal reports (in our translation), "The address of the university labs, which did the research, the data and the evaluation of the research method is known to the editors. Because of significant pressure by agrochemical representatives and the fear that the work of the lab could be influenced, the complete analytical data will only be published in the course of this year."
http://www.ithaka-journal.net/herbizide-im-urin
News of this study comes not long after the publication of a study confirming glyphosate was contaminating groundwater. Last year also saw the publication of two US Geological Survey studies which consistently found glyphosate in streams, rain and even air in agricultural areas of the US.
http://www.gmwatch.org/latest-listing/1-news-items/13549
Other recent studies - see the abstracts of the 4 below - indicate that people may not only be absorbing glyphosate from multiple sources but that it can circulate in the blood and can even cross the placental barrier and so reach the developing fetus.
---
---
Aris, A. and S. Leblanc (2011). "Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in EasternTownships of Quebec, Canada."
ReproductiveToxicology 31(4).
Pesticides associated to genetically modified foods (PAGMF), are engineered to tolerate herbicides such as glyphosate (GLYP) and gluphosinate (GLUF) or insecticides such as the bacterial toxin bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). The aim of this study was to evaluate the correlation between maternal and fetal exposure, and to determine exposure levels of GLYPandits metabolite aminomethylphosphoricacid (AMPA), GLUF and its metabolite 3-methylphosphinicopropionicacid (3-MPPA) and Cry1Ab protein (a Bt toxin) in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Blood of thirty pregnant women (PW) and thirty-nine nonpregnant women (NPW)were studied. Serum GLYPand GLUF were detected in NPW and not detected in PW. Serum 3-MPPA and CryAb1toxin were detected in PW,their fetuses and NPW. This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities.
---
---
Chang, F. C., M. F. Simcik, et al. (2011). "Occurrence and fate of the herbicide glyphosate and its degradate aminomethylphosphonic acid in the atmosphere."
Environ Toxicol Chem 30(3): 548–555.
This is the first report on the ambient levels of glyphosate, the most widely used herbicide in the United States, and its major degradation product, aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), in air and rain. Concurrent, weekly integrated air particle and rain samples were collected during two growing seasons in agricultural areas in Mississippi and Iowa. Rain was also collected in Indiana in a preliminary phase of the study. The frequency of glyphosate detection ranged from 60 to 100% in both air and rain. The concentrations of glyphosate ranged from antipyrine>benzoic acid>glyphosate in terms of both the apparent permeability coefficient and the initial slope, defined as the linear rate of substance transferred to the fetal compartment as percent per time, a parameter used to compare the two experimental models. The results from the in vitro studies were in excellent agreement with the ex vivo results (caffeine approximately antipyrine>benzoic acid>glyphosate). However the transfer rate was much slower in the BeWo cells compared to the perfusion system. The advantages and limitations of each model are discussed in order to assist in the preparation, prediction, and performance of future studies of maternal-fetal transfer.According to an article in German in the Ithaca journal, a German university study has... more
-
-
Robert Kenner (Food Inc.) has done this video for GMO labelling. Freedom on the Internet is important as we all know, but so is freedom to make informed choices about the foods we purchase and consume. This needs to be the year we see that happen.Robert Kenner (Food Inc.) has done this video for GMO labelling. Freedom on the... more
-
-
Ignacio Chapela will be familiar to readers of Stuffed and Starved. He’s a soil biologist at Berkeley and an outspoken critic of genetically modified crops, a position which has focussed the wrath of the biotechnology industry upon him. Here is a short analysis he penned earlier today on news from Europe that chemical company BASF will be pulling its GMO operations from Europe, where they are unwelcome (because ineffective and dangerous), and moving them to North Carolina.
Will the English-speaking media lose its nerve and write about it? Based on past experience, my wager goes to the habitual policy of silence, and I expect that the news will continue all but unrecorded in English. Most of us will not celebrate as we should.
Other languages do comment and give a little more detail, albeit still briefly. In German, the word is printed clearly: “BASF admits defeat”, while in French: “The number one chemical concern in the world, the German BASF has announced on 16 January 2012 that it gives up the development and marketing of new transgenic products intended for the European Union.”
Clearly put: one of the largest among the few who banked on the GMO route to do agriculture is giving up in its own home turf, defeated by public opposition to its products which evidently do not live up to expectations.
You will find some records in the business websites, mostly deploring the European hostility towards GMOs, the loss of jobs (about 150-170 in Europe, although many are relocated to North Carolina, for an overall loss of about 10 jobs altogether) and repeating again the idea that rejecting GMOs in the environment is tantamount to committing economic suicide and “rejecting the future” as if this was possible.
I say that the future holds very little promise for GMOs altogether, and BASF is only the first to have the capacity to recognize the thirty years of bad investments. They can afford this move, which is not unannounced and forms part of a year-long reconfiguration of the company to navigate tighter economic straits ahead, because they are diversified and have strengths in other fields. Monsanto and Syngenta, for comparative example, have stood in complete dependency of GMOs since their mothership companies shed them off to swim or sink on transgenic markets twelve years ago; Bayer and Dow stand somewhere in between. Where Monsanto’s stock would have floundered if they announced they were closing GMO R & D in St Louis, Missouri, BASF’s stock hardly budged on the equivalent news (it actually ticked upwards in the Frankfurt exchange) – the timing of the news release may well have been a token of deference to BASF’s partner Monsanto, protecting the latter’s stock from the shock on a day when the US stock markets are closed.
The reasons for the failure of BASF’s products in Europe are many and very diverse, but the fundamental truth stands that over the decades no real benefit has offset the proven harm caused by GMOs. It is fine to blame “the European public”, but we know that this public is no better or worse than our own in the US or anywhere else – had there been a GMO equivalent of the iPad, masses would have thronged the streets of Europe clamoring for their use. But it may be just as true that BASF would continue to push GMOs into Europe were it not for the tireless and creative work of many hundreds of thousands, the kinds of numbers needed these days to make a self-evident point which counters accepted official policy. So I say to our European friends: embrace the credit that is hurled at you and loudly celebrate what will not be announced as your victory in the newspapers.
We are left in desolate America, though, land of government by Monsanto, where BASF is relocating its GMO headquarters (some specialty technical BASF outfits remain in Ghent and Berlin). In the North it is impossible to know where the nearest non-GMO plant may be, while in the South and in Mexico the tragedy of GMO soy- and corn-agriculture continues apace, driven by corrupt or willfully ignorant governments and against public opinion much stronger and much more vocal than what we have seen in Europe. Far from recognizing the failure of GMOs altogether, something that should have happened at least a decade ago, BASF identifies the opportunities offered by the brutal realities of the Third World, opportunities which are better capitalized with the centralization, mechanization and property-rights enforcement possible only through GMOs. As we celebrate the lifting of perhaps one third of the pressure upon Europe to give in to GMOs, let’s not forget those places where they will continue to be used as the effective spear-head of corporate biological mining of other lands.Ignacio Chapela will be familiar to readers of Stuffed and Starved. He’s a soil... more
-
-
Did a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of genetically modified foods? According to Ari Levaux at the Atlantic, the answer is a resounding yes.
The study in question, performed by researchers at China’s Nanjing University and published in the journal Cell Research, found that a form of genetic material — called microRNA — from conventional rice survived the human digestive process and proceeded to affect cholesterol function in humans.
Levaux argues that this new study “reveals a pathway by which genetically modified (GM) foods might influence human health” which should cause us to completely revisit the question of GM crops’ safety. And he’s right to be alarmed, just a little off on the reasoning.
Let’s take a closer look at how this study applies to current GM technology, shall we?
I would argue that several studies have already suggested that existing GM foods might present a health risk. For example, this study in The International Journal of Biological Sciences found evidence that Monsanto’s Bt corn causes organ damage in lab animals. Then there’s this one which showed that GM soybeans can alter mice on the cellular level — an indication that genetically modified material survives digestion and is active in animals that consume it.
Of course, advocates of genetically modified foods will observe that the phenomenon of genetic transfer through consumption applies to all plants and that GM foods are therefore “substantially equivalent” to non-GM foods. As Levaux explains at length, this concept of substantial equivalence has been used by the biotech industry as well as our government to push GM foods through safety testing with minimal scrutiny. What’s Monsanto’s defense of all this? On its website, the company claims:
There is no need to test the safety of DNA introduced into GM crops. DNA (and resulting RNA) is present in almost all foods … DNA is non-toxic and the presence of DNA, in and of itself, presents no hazard … So long as the introduced protein is determined to be safe, food from GM crops determined to be substantially equivalent is not expected to pose any health risks.
So the fact that the Chinese team found active genetic material going from plants to humans isn’t really new and doesn’t really change what we know about how existing genetically engineered crops might affect us.
But what is new — and what Levaux missed — is that the Chinese study happens to involve exactly the kind of genetic matrieral — microRNA — that biotech companies hope to use in their next generation of genetically modified foods.
Today’s GMOs are almost entirely based on adding new genes to crops like corn, soy, and cotton in order to alter the way the plants function. And even then new functions are mostly limited to making plants either able to tolerate herbicides or to produce their own. But if biotechnology companies are successful in their efforts, there may soon be genetically modified foods that use microRNA — simply put, snippets of RNA whose potency were only discovered around a decade ago — to target, and block the function of specific genes in pests.
Thus the news that plant microRNA can survive digestion and affect human systems brings into question the wisdom of pursuing this kind of technology in food.
As explained to me by Doug Gurian-Sherman, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists and expert in genetically modified foods, microRNA technology is an area that biotech companies are actively pursuing. Monsanto itself has a whole web page devoted to the technology, which they call RNA interference.
Gurian-Sherman notes that the Chinese study — though requiring confirmation and follow-up research — raises “an initial red flag.” It calls into question “any general statement that [microRNA] technology would be inherently safe,” he adds.
He observes that humans and insects share a surprising amount of DNA material — evolution favors reusing and recycling genes even among creatures as different as insects and humans. If this research bears out, then it’s entirely possible that microRNA meant to target a specific insect gene will also have an effect — possibly unpredictable — in humans. This is especially true because, for technology like this to work as a pesticide, the microRNA must be present in high levels in the plant, which makes it even more likely the genetic material will make it all the way into the human gut.
snip
UPDATE: Dr. Michael Hansen, Senior Scientist at Consumers Union wrote to me after this post was published with an important point about the significance of the Chinese study. While he agreed that the main implications relate to the possible risk from microRNA-based GM foods, he also felt that this study did make a new and somewhat startling finding regarding how plant genetic material affects humans. As he put it, the study “showed that the miRNA not only survived digestion [in humans] but also was taken up and moved to other parts of the body where a specific impact was noted. The studies you cited — from Seralini’s lab and Malatesta’s lab — only show that GE crops can have an adverse effect on animals.”
more at the linkDid a recent scientific study just change the way we should think about the safety of... more
-
-
You’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to superweeds so formidable and fast-spreading that they break farm machinery and render millions of acres of farmland useless. These superweeds have evolved as a direct consequence of Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready pesticide-seed package. Now superbugs are emerging, resistant to Monsanto’s transgenic insecticidal crops. Ecologists predicted this ecological disaster 15 years ago.
The big question is, can we possibly learn from this ecological and agronomic disaster? The U.S. Department of Agriculture and Monsanto’s rival, Dow Chemical, apparently cannot.
From bad to worse
Instead of abandoning this losing strategy, Dow is trying to get us running faster on the same old broken pesticide treadmill. Dow and USDA are hoping to quietly approve a new genetically engineered corn seed that basically swaps RoundUp (glyphosate) out and an even worse weedkiller (2,4-D) in. Bad idea.
As with Monsanto’s RoundUp Ready lines, the herbicide with which these seeds are engineered to be used (2,4-D) will surge in use. Dow aims to get 2,4-D-resistant corn to market this year, soy next year and cotton in 2015. These three crops dominate U.S. agriculture, blanketing over 100 million acres of mono-cropped countryside and driving the pesticide market. Only this time, the fallout will be even worse. Here’s why:
2,4-D is a more toxic herbicide, both to humans and to plants. 2,4-D is a reproductive toxicant (associated with lower sperm counts) and its formulations have been linked to cancer (in particular non-Hodgkins lymphoma), disruption of the immune and endocrine (hormone) systems and birth defects. EPA has also expressed a “concern for developmental neurotoxicity resulting from exposure to 2,4-D.”
2,4-D does and will drift off of target crops – both through spray drift and volatilization. The latter enables chemicals to travel with moving air masses for miles. Neither applicator nor innocent bystander can prevent such movement. The spread of 2,4-D across our lands will damage non-target crops and vegetation, devastate adjacent ecosystems and poses a very real threat to rural economies and farmers growing non-2,4-D-resistant crops. Conventional farmers growing their product miles away will suffer severe crop losses, while organic farmers will lose both crops and certification, resulting in business failures, job losses and an economic unraveling of already-stressed rural communities.
2,4-D-resistant “superweeds” will arise and spread just as RoundUp-resistant “superweeds” have taken over farms and countryside in the Midwest and Southeast. Where will this leave struggling farmers? What even more deadly pesticide will the biotech companies resort to next?
Corn is wind-pollinated which means that genetic material from 2,4-D corn will contaminate non-GE corn. You cannot put a GE genie back in the bottle.
What next?
Will Dow provide compensation to farmers, their children and rural communities for the harms likely to occur should the company secure approval of its 2, 4-D resistant corn? I rather doubt it. Dow has still refused to assume responsibility for the deaths and devastation arising from the pesticide explosion in Bhopal, India in 1984, so why would the company show any integrity now?
It will take an active, engaged public to get USDA back on track and in the business of serving the public interest.
What about USDA? Can we expect our public agency to carefully scrutinize the likely fallout of approving 2,4-D resistant corn? One problem is that USDA does not really want to know what the public thinks.
More at the linkYou’ve all heard the news: farmers across the country are losing their fields to... more
-
-
A court hearing in New York City at the end of this month will determine if a "pre-emptive" lawsuit by a clutch of U.S. and Canadian organic producers against seed and ag chem firm Monsanto will go ahead.
U.S. District Judge Naomi Buchwald said she will hear oral arguments Jan. 31 in Manhattan on a motion by St. Louis, Mo.-based Monsanto to dismiss the suit filed last March 31 by a group of 83 farmers, seed growers and farm organizations.
The suit "seeks court protection for innocent family farmers who may become contaminated by Monsanto seed," according to a release last week from the Colorado-based lead plaintiff, the Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association (OSGATA).
The suit, the plaintiffs claim, is "to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed."
"Last August we submitted our written rebuttal and it made clear that Monsanto's motion was without merit," OSGATA president Jim Gerritsen, a seed potato grower in northern Maine, said in the release. "Our legal team, from the Public Patent Foundation, is looking forward to orally presenting our position."
Canadian plaintiffs attached to the suit include Ottawa-based Canadian Organic Growers (COG), Quebec advocacy group Union Paysanne, the Manitoba Organic Alliance, the Peace River Organic Producers Association and a number of producers in Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario.
"Monsanto's technology is harmful for organic producers and processors," COG executive director Beth McMahon said in a separate release this week. "To penalize our growers for GMO contamination adds insult to injury, and we won't back down from this fight."
"Never been"
Monsanto's previous suits against farmers for alleged infringement on its patented seed suggest the company "intends to assert its transgenic seed patents against certified organic and nontransgenic seed farmers who come to possess more than 'trace amounts' of Monsanto's transgenic seed, even if it is not their fault," the plaintiffs claimed last year.
Between 1997 and April 2010, the organic producers' suit claims, Monsanto filed 144 lawsuits against farmers in at least 27 different states for alleged infringement of its transgenic seed patents and/or breach of its license to those patents.
More at the linkA court hearing in New York City at the end of this month will determine if a... more
-
-
Yesterday late morning, dozens of people on t invaded the premises of the Monsanto Monbéqui to voice their revendications. / Photo DDM, Chantal Longo.
This is an order of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) that September 5, 2011 set fire to the powder. A beekeeper German who found the presence of pollen from GM maize Mon 810 sued and the court found her honey unmarketable. In fact the coexistence of GM crops in open fields and beekeeping is incompatible. A few days later the same court overturned the safeguard clause for the corn taken by France in 2008. Which sows confusion among beekeepers that the number of hives and bees decreases dramatically after the problems of the Regent, the Gaucho and across the great southern Asian hornet. Starting from a standing meeting Léojac they signed yesterday a coup by penetrating so cunning in the administrative buildings of the Monsanto-Monbéqui installed near the Garonne. An advance guard of about twenty of them acted as the Trojan horse posing as deliverymen and then opening the gates to the main body. The surprise was total. When the police arrived the occupants were on the premises with hives, smoker and realize what a picnic invigorating.
See you Friday 13 in Paris at the Department of Ecology
Negotiations were begun shortly before one o'clock. And the Prefect of Tarn-et-Garonne Fabien Sudry received 30 to 14 hours a delegation. The interview lasted 90 minutes with calls to the Ministries of Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet and Bruno Le Maire to find both a rendezvous in Paris on Friday from 13 to 16 hours, but mostly to see if n ' is not possible to re-route the order Barnier, 2007 prohibiting transportation and sale of seed. This progress in the dialogue was explained to 17 hours to hundreds of people still present on the premises of Monsanto. The final slogan is as follows: "We did not win, but we must remain mobilized and see what to do after January 13th." And just as quietly emptied the premises under the eye of some twenty policemen visible on the site and did not have to intervene.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Léojac meeting or diversion?
By yesterday morning the peasant confederation organized in the hall of Léojac an interregional meeting on "GMOs and coexistence bee impossible." Over two hundred people filled the room mid-morning to hear presentations from the highest quality. Then around 11 o'clock half the hall was deserted by beekeepers from all over the Deep South who was heading the site of Monsanto Monbéqui about thirty miles away. The morning ended for the public by remaining an invitation to join the militants or to be in front of the prefecture.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The developer of the witnesses
Jean Sabench> Saint-Pons-de-Tomières. "We managed to create an event that is national in scope because there are people from all over France, as well as the Ardèche Britain or the Puy de Dome again. It comes to Monbéqui to tell him to stop Monsanto's crap. With everything they traffic, we can no longer sell our products. They are asked to respect the law but also to comply with our products. We do not want them to crush everything in their path. The MON 810 will put us on the straw. We must stop this! "
Josie Riffaud> Gironde. "We're not there to burn everything. Rather, we are in the symbol. Beekeepers are increasingly worried about their future. At the rate things are going in a few years there will not be any bees on the planet. With the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union which has invalidated the safeguard clause Monsanto 810 maize made by France in 2008 we opened a Pandora's box. We must quickly close it before it's too late. "
Alain Bernard> Tarn. "For many products that French beekeepers do not become unsaleable at once we strongly urge the competent authorities to set up a second moratorium before the start of planting GM because of the risks facing our bees with GM crops . We can not accept losing everything without a fight. Today, we play our survival. We are totally against the wall. "
(Related by J.-Ph.L.)
This is a translationYesterday late morning, dozens of people on t invaded the premises of the Monsanto... more
-
-
Hans Herren, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized scientist specializing in sustainable agriculture. He is president of the Millennium Institute, a non-profit development research and service organization dedicated to sustainable development. Dr. Herren co-chaired the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science & Technology (IAASTD), an initiative sponsored by the World Bank and United Nations in partnership with the World Health Organization that assessed global agriculture and recommended agroecological solutions to world hunger.
Dr. Herren has earned numerous awards that recognize his research achievements. These include the 2002 Brandenberger Preis for improving the living standards of Africa's rural population, the 2003 Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, and the 1995 World Food Prize for his work developing a successful biological control program that saved the African cassava crop, and averted Africa’s worst-ever food crisis.
Dr. Herren’s work in agroecology in Africa has been credited with saving millions of lives by enabling African people to produce the food they need. He developed the “push-pull” system that uses simple but powerful bio-control strategies to effectively manage corn pests, resulting in large increases in yields.
There is much discussion today about the need to “feed the world” because of the growing global population. What do you think needs to be done in order to ensure there is adequate food for everyone in the world?
HH: The issue is less on how to feed the world than how to nourish the poor and hungry. Today we produce 4600 calories per person per day, so there is enough food to feed twice the present population. The problem is that we produce mostly cheap commodities rather than quality food. These cheap products, in addition to being of low nutritional value, are based on a few crops that carry a large ecological, social, and economic footprint. What is needed is to support farmers in developing countries to grow their own healthy food by providing information, know-how, financial support for inputs, and support for them to access markets, among others.
Food security is achieved when availability, access, stability, and utilization are assured equally for all. There is also a need for new and participatory research into sustainable agricultural practices, based on the principles of agroecology and organic farming, which would free farmers from dependence on external inputs such as chemical pesticides and fertilizers.
Some agricultural “experts” are calling for another Green Revolution. What are your thoughts on this?
HH: What we need least is another Green Revolution. What is needed now is to move forward with the lessons learned from the Green Revolution, taking forward what has worked and leave behind most of it, since the Green Revolution has left agriculture dependent on external inputs that are non-sustainable and becoming more and more expensive since they are based on oil, a finite resource, and also synthetic fertilizers, also based on finite natural resources.
The way forward is to understand and work with the system in a holistic and integrated manner. Silver bullets, reductionism as often promoted by the agri-chemical industry are not solutions.
More at the linkHans Herren, Ph.D. is an internationally recognized scientist specializing in... more
-
-
Over the holidays, the USDA approved a strain of Monsanto's genetically engineered corn that can now be planted freely in the environment and distributed throughout the U.S. food supply, with no oversight or efforts to track its safety.
Monsanto says the strain is drought-tolerant, but the USDA itself has actually found otherwise.
Instead, the agency ignored its own results as well as concerns from the public, which has little trust in the safety of the crop. Nearly 45,000 public comments were written in opposition to the particular corn variety and only 23 comments were written in favor, according to the Cornucopia Institute.
Approving an Agent Orange Chemical
Other GMO crops are also on the way. Cornucopia reports that the USDA has opened a public comment period for a soybean variety from Monsanto containing increased levels of an omega-3 fatty acid—which you hear a lot about as being healthy, but it doesn't not naturally occur in soybeans.
The agency is also holding a public comment period for a GMO corn from Dow engineered to better resist the poisonous herbicide 2,4-D.
Cornucopia explains more:
While the USDA attempts to assure the public that 2,4-D is safe, scientists have raised serious concerns about the safety of this herbicide, which was used as a key ingredient in “Agent Orange,” used to defoliate forests and croplands in the Vietnam War.
2,4-D is a chlorophenoxy herbicide, and scientists around the world have reported increased cancer risks in association with its use, especially for soft tissue sarcoma and malignant lymphoma. Four separate studies in the United States reported an association with chlorophenoxy herbicide use and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Mark Kastel from Cornucopia said, "the approval of a cultivar resistant to 2,4-D will cause an exponential increase in the use of this toxic agrichemical,” comparing it to Monsanto's GMO corn that has become resistant to its Roundup herbicide—and which has led to the evolution of superweeds that grow up to three inches per day.
Bad News for Public Health and Safety
The science of the effects of this chemcial is frightening:
Research by the EPA found that babies born in counties with high rates of 2,4-D application to farm fields were significantly more likely to be born with birth defects of the respiratory and circulatory systems, as well as defects of the musculoskeletal system like clubfoot, fused digits and extra digits. These birth defects were 60% to 90% more likely in counties with higher 2,4-D application rates.
Birth defects were also found to be more likely in babies conceived in the spring—when application of herbicides is at its highest.
There's also a touch of irony that should not be overlooked, again from Cornucopia:
In its petition, Dow AgroSciences states that 2,4-D is increasingly important for chemical farmers because of the presence of weeds that have developed resistance to glyphosate, as a result of the widespread use of Monsanto’s genetically engineered glyphosate-resistant crops.
When Monsanto introduced glyphosate, it was touted as a safer and less toxic alternative to herbicides like 2,4-D. Now, an emerging body of scientific literature is raising serious concerns about the safety of glyphosate as well.Over the holidays, the USDA approved a strain of Monsanto's genetically... more
-
-
Failed "Drought Tolerant" GMO Corn Won't Help Farmers!
The US Department of Agriculture's review of Monsanto's own data shows that years of investment into so-called "drought-tolerant" biotech crops have been nothing more than a risky and very expensive failure. Monsanto's new "drought-tolerant" genetically-modified corn variety MON 87460 does not perform any better than non-GMO varieties.
Ignoring the data, on December 21, 2012, the Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced it would allow unlimited planting of MON 87460. The company and the USDA have both admitted the crop will fare only modestly better than current conventional varieties under low- and moderate-level drought conditions. This means that this corn will be useful only for a fraction of corn acres – just 15 percent by USDA estimates.
In addition, in the United States and abroad there are several types of new, drought-tolerant corn, grown through natural breeding techniques that are likely to do as well or better than Monsanto’s corn. Data from U.S. researchers suggest that conventional breeding is producing drought tolerance two to three times faster than genetic engineering.
Only traditional breeding methods, coupled with agricultural methods that promote soil health, have proven capable of increasing stress tolerance and making plants more resilient to reduced water availability.
The danger is, now that MON 87460 has been deregulated, it will inevitably contaminate truly resilient varieties of organic and conventional corn, destroying the rich genetic diversity that the world's farmers have cultivated in the planet's infinitely varied micro-climates.
Please protect biological diversity by taking action to stop Monsanto's failed "drought-resistant" GMO corn.
To learn more about how genetic diversity -- not genetic engineering -- is the key to climate adaptation, watch this video:
Take Action Now! More at the linkFailed "Drought Tolerant" GMO Corn Won't Help Farmers!
The US... more
-
