tagged w/ Say NO to GMOs
-
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
-
-
A report released Wednesday by the Washington- based Food and Water Watch (FWW) on the destructive impacts of GMOs added fuel to a two-decades-long fight by farmers, economists and experts against the FDA's conclusions.
"Genetically Engineered Food: An Overview" details how the genetic engineering of seeds, crops and animals for human consumption is not the foolproof answer long championed by agribusiness and biotechnology industries to feeding the world.
To the contrary, the study found that genetically engineered/modified (GE/M) organisms do not out-perform their natural counterparts, and their proliferation into vast tracts of cropland have caused a slew of environmental and health crises, and actually increased poverty by forcing millions of farmers to "buy" patented seeds at exorbitant prices.
snip
According to the report, over 365 million acres of GE crops were cultivated in 29 countries in 2010 alone, representing 10 percent of global cropland.
"The United States is the world leader in GE crop production, with 165 million acres, or nearly half of global production," Patty Lovera, assistant director of FWW, told IPS.
"From only seven percent of soybean acres and one percent of corn acres in 1996, GE cultivation in the U.S. shot up to 94 percent of soybean and 88 percent of corn acres in 2011," she added.
The bulk of these crops came from seeds owned by Monsanto.
"Eighty-four percent of GM crops in the world today are herbicide- resistant soybeans, corn, cotton or canola, predominantly Monsanto's 'Roundup Ready' varieties that withstand dousing with herbicide," Bill Frees, science policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) and author of 'Why GM Crops Will Not Feed the World', told IPS.
"Pesticide and chemical companies like Monsanto, DuPont, Syngenta, Dow and Bayer have bought up many of the world's largest seed companies, and now call themselves biotech companies - this represents a historic merger of the pesticide and seed industries, which allows them to profit twice by developing expensive GM seeds that increase use of the company's herbicide products," he added.
Seed patents, an off-shoot of the "agro-biotech revolution" that also spawned GE/M, have had two negative consequences since their original issuance by the U.S. Patent Office in the mid-1990s, Frees told IPS: "They enticed pesticide companies to buy up seed firms; and they led to criminalisation of seed-saving."
"Farmers have saved seeds from their harvest to replant the next year for millennia," he added. "Monsanto is changing that. The company has already sued thousands of farmers in the U.S. for saving and replanting its patented seeds and won an estimated 85 to 160 million dollars from farmers, in lawsuits that have ruined farmers' lives, and (partially explains) why we have ever fewer farmers in America."
The pushback
Ray Tricomo, a mentor at the Kalpulli Turtle Island Multiversity in Minnesota, told IPS, "People of colour must re-radicalise themselves and go on the offensive including the return to land bases, from Turtle Island to Africa and Asia."
"Ancient knowledge systems are to be painstakingly recovered, even if it takes centuries," he added.
And this is exactly what is happening.
Despite the deep pockets and aggressive efforts of Big Agro, a major pushback from a broad coalition of forces has limited 80 percent of GE/M planting to just three export-oriented countries: the U.S., Brazil and Argentina.
Nearly two dozen other countries, including the European Union and China, have passed mandatory GE/M labeling, and millions around the world are refusing seed patenting and developing seed banks to protect, share and preserve their seeds.
In Florida, the 4,000-strong Coalition of Immokalee Workers (CIW) is organising to resist farm wage-slavery and "seed-servitude". The Landless Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil has organised 400,000 peasants to join forces with the nearly half-billion farms around the world that are responsible for producing 70 percent of the world's food.
Navdanya, an organisation in the Indian State of Andhra Pradesh, has united 500,000 farmers in their struggle to fight chemical dependency and save indigenous seeds, including preserving over 3,000 varieties of rice.
"For five years, the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (CSD) had indigenous farmers from all over the globe come to speak against destructive farm practices and GMOs," King told IPS.
"During the Indigenous People's Permanent Forum, there were complaints about the harm caused by industrial agriculture and the acts in the name of agribusinesses. Farm workers like the (CIW) are protesting their fate," she added.
"They are picketing companies like Trader Joes and Whole Foods, letting the public know that their tomatoes were picked from workers who are basically slave labour."
"Third World Network is fighting back by exploring the problem of GMOs and publishing findings that scientists working on GMOs are capitalists using humans as guinea pigs in a global lab experiment," she added.
"[Numerous] deaths and disabilities have been traced back to a GM product emulating tryptophan. It took nearly 20 years to find the source of the problem," King told IPS.
"GM technology is antithetical to an agroecological approach to agriculture, our only hope for truly sustainable food production," Frees told IPS.
"Without radical change we will continue to have famines," he added. "Haiti is a good example of what happens when a country's farmers are put out of business by cheap, subsidised imports from a rich producer nation (here the U.S.)."
More at the linkA report released Wednesday by the Washington- based Food and Water Watch (FWW) on the... more
-
-
A document signed by more than 50 civil society organizations (CSOs) is asking the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development scheduled to take place in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil in June 2012, to ban the use of genetically modified foods.
2012 will mark 20 years since the last Rio Earth Summit, and the planet is worse for the wear, cites the document, stating that environmental, energy and financial issues are all at critical crisis levels. And the excessive financial burdens purchasing GMO seeds has on the world’s poor, in addition to the damaging health and environmental effects of biotechnology, makes the proposed ban a top priority for the world, cites the CSO-hub website, timetoactrio20.org.
Despite biotech companies’ promises of increased crop yields, drought and pest resistant seeds that can relieve the world’s hungry, genetically modified foods have yet to fulfill those promises. Pesticide resistant “superweeds” and insects are on the rise causing more use of the Monsanto pesticide, Roundup, which is now being found in ground and rain water. Farmers, including the planet’s poorest, are spending more money than ever before on buying Roundup Ready GMO terminator seeds instead of traditional and economical methods of saving seeds from each crop season.
The report cites studies showing there are one billion food insecure people around the world while more than double that are suffering from what Dr. T. Colin Campbell, author of The China Study, calls “diseases of affluence”—malnutrition caused from excessive consumption of highly processed foods (many of which contain genetically modified ingredients), meat and dairy products and lead to diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke and cancer.
Small-scale agroecological farming and other sustainable farming methods “developed in the framework of food sovereignty” currently feed about 70 percent of the world’s population, cites the CSOs’ document, stating that the UNCSD has an historical opportunity to eliminate world hunger, improve the environment and financial stability around the world by moving away from biotechnology. Market diversity and research support for small-scale farming could decrease the world’s seed prices by 30 percent—or about $9 billion annually, according to the document.
http://www.organicauthority.com/images/stories/misc/monsantodrips-ccflcr-SierraTierra.jpgA document signed by more than 50 civil society organizations (CSOs) is asking the... more
-
-
Today in the United States, by the simple act of feeding ourselves, we unwittingly participate in the largest experiment ever conducted on human beings. Massive agro-chemical companies like Monsanto (Agent Orange) and Dow (Napalm) are feeding us genetically-modified food, GMO's, that have never been fully tested and aren't labeled. This small handful of corporations are tightening their grip on the world's food supply—buying, modifying, and patenting seeds to ensure total control over everything we eat.
The GMO Film Project (Untitled) tells the story of a father's discovery of GMO's through the symbolic act of poor Haitian farmers burning seeds in defiance of Monsanto's gift of 475 tons of hybrid corn and vegetable seeds to Haiti shortly after the devastating earthquake. After a journey to Haiti to learn why hungry farmers would burn seeds, the real awakening of what has happened to our food, what we are feeding our families, and what is at stake for the global food supply unfolds in a trip across the United States in search of answers.
Are we at a tipping point? Is it time to take back our food? The encroaching darkness of unknown health and environmental risks, seed take over, chemical toxins, and food monopoly meets with the light of a growing resistance of organic farmers, concerned citizens, and a burgeoning movement to take back what we have lost.
We still have time to heal the planet, feed the world, and live sustainably. But we have to start now.
A film by Compeller Pictures
gmofilm.com
Directed by Jeremy Seifert
Produced by Joshua Kunau
Co-Producer, Elizabeth Kucinich
Associate Producer, Timothy Vatterott
Cinematographer, Rod HasslerToday in the United States, by the simple act of feeding ourselves, we unwittingly... more
-
-
GM Freeze today described Defra's decision to approve a GM wheat trial at Rothamsted Research as "a big mistake and premature".
The consent [1], issued today, includes provision to prevent the GM wheat crossing with couch grass and to stop wood pigeon feeding on the crop.
The group opposed the application during a public consultation in the summer including [2]:
*The lack of market for GM wheat anywhere on the planet means it is a waste of time and money (some GBP1.28 million).
*Serious doubts about whether the GM wheat will work as stated.
*Lack of any data on potential health effects.
*Presence of an antibiotic resistant marker gene against European Medicines Agency advice.
*Risk of cross-contamination with other wheat crops and some grasses already problematic as arable weeds.
*Unknown impacts on predator and parasites populations, which already provide some control for aphid infestations.
*Unknown impacts on bird species, which feed on aphids as part of their diet.
*The potential for development of aphids desensitised to the alarm chemical after being continually subjected to the GM deterrent over time so that they do not respond to it when it is constantly produced by the wheat plants 24 hours a day 7 days per week.
GM Freeze asked Ministers to hold a public consultation on the use of synthetic animal genes in GM crops, as one of the key genes in the GM wheat "has most similarity to that from cow (Bos taurus)" according to the applicant.
Commenting Pete Riley of GM Freeze said
"It is clear from the authorisation letter that the Government's scientific advisors have concerns about the possibility of the GM wheat crossing with couch grass, a major arable weed, which could cause long-term problems for farmers if this wheat was ever grown on a commercial scale.
"There are also concerns about wild birds carrying the GM seeds off site, but there is no provision to deal with small birds, such a sparrows, or small mammals doing this.
"The key question Ministers need to answer is why they are funding research into GM wheat for which there is no market in the UK, Europe or anywhere else when other areas of proven, less risky agricultural research, such as agroecology, are crying out for additional funds.
The decision to approve an open-air trial of GM wheat is a big mistake and premature given the serious lack of information in the application. [3] We need to know far more about the alarm chemicals involved and the formation of wheat-couch grass crosses before we start genetically modifying a staple crop."
notes
[1] See "Defra approves GM wheat trial" at www.defra.gov.uk/news/2011/09/16/gm-wheat-trial/
[2] See GM Freeze briefing See Objecting to an Application to Trial GM Wheat in Hertfordshire at www.gmfreeze.org/site_media/uploads/publications/GM_wheat_final.pdf
[3] See GM Freeze action “Object to trialling GM wheat” in the UK for more details at www.gmfreeze.org/actions/20/
http://www.opednews.com/populum/uploaded/chromosome--300-x-300--31940-20090516-7.jpgGM Freeze today described Defra's decision to approve a GM wheat trial at... more
-
-
-
There is genetically modified produce in a lot of the processed food you eat, but this is the first time that Monsanto is taking fresh GM produce from the ground straight to your mouth. If it works out, there will be plenty more.
Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, is known for developing engineered crops (i.e. corn and soybeans) that end up in many of the food products found on grocery store aisles, as well as in fibers and animal feed. Up until now, the company's GM crops have only been available in processed foods--in other words, in little bits and pieces. But now Monsanto is making a move into the consumer market with GM sweet corn, which will be found in a supermarket produce bin or farmer's market near you starting this fall.
There is a good chance you've already eaten GM sweet corn: Syngenta--a Monsanto rival--has been selling it for a decade. And Monsanto already sells GM squash developed by Seminis, which the company bought in 2005. So why is Monsanto's sweet corn a big deal? This is the first consumer product actually developed by Monsanto. While previous industry attempts to introduce GM consumer-oriented vegetables in the 1990s failed miserably (see Calgene's Flavr Savr tomatoes), Monsanto may be warming up to the idea. "I think Monsanto is trying to test the waters here," says Bill Freese, a science policy analyst with the Center for Food Safety. If GM sweet corn works out for the agri-giant, we might see even more GM produce on our supermarket shelves.
Monsanto, which already controls 60% of the U.S. corn market, is including traits in the new sweet corn that make it resistant to both Monsanto's Roundup herbicide and to insects (through the inclusion of Bt toxin, a trait that disrupts insect digestive systems and eventually kills them). As we have mentioned before, at least 21 weed species have become resistant to Roundup. And Bt toxin may have negative health effects--a recent study found the toxin in the maternal and fetal blood of pregnant women, though the implications of that aren't known quite yet.
"There's a concern with these GE crops that we eat with minimal processing [like sweet corn]...we're exposed to a lot more of whatever is in it versus a processed corn product," says Freese. This may be one of the rare cases where processed food is better for you than fresh food.
The market for sweet corn is smaller than the market for grain corn, and up until now GM sweet corn sales have been dominated by Syngenta, which also uses Bt toxin in its product. Now that Monsanto is entering the game, there will be even more room for cross-pollination with non-GM corn crops. "Corn is very promiscuous, meaning it's easy for cross-pollination to occur," says Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist at the Pesticide Action Network North America. "Farmers won't be able to access conventional seeds, and they may lose local varieties."
Think that consumers would never buy a Monsanto-branded ear of sweet corn given the company's controversial reputation? Maybe not--but it doesn't matter. A Monsanto representative told the LA Times: "It's up to us to make sure we help tell people about the benefits...given how sweet corn is normally sold--by the ear, in larger bins in produce sections of the market--it's not really something that can be easily branded."
More at the link.There is genetically modified produce in a lot of the processed food you eat, but this... more
-
-
"New Delhi, August 8th 2011: Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) announced a nation-wide day of action against corporate takeover of our food and farming systems on August 9th, Quit India Day. The day is being marked in scores of locations in fifteen states around the country as “Monsanto, Quit India!” Day, filled with various events where citizens are going to take part to express their resistance against corporate control on our productive resources. This is to save our Food, Farmers and Freedom, announced ASHA in a press release.
“We have chosen the most potent and obvious symbol of corporate takeover of our food and farming – Monsanto, the largest seed company in the world and one of the top five agri-chemical corporations, with an annual turnover equivalent to five years of India’s outlay for National Agricultural Development Programme! Our governments should be aware of its long history of crimes against humanity, by its production and marketing of many toxic chemicals and other hazardous products. On its way to becoming the world's largest seed company, Monsanto used several strategies including preventing farmers from re-using their seed, denying farmers and researchers free and open access to seed, and aggressive, monopolistic market maneuvers that suppressed competition. Monsanto did not shy away from resorting to bribery for getting regulatory approvals. Monsanto had at one point reportedly even stated its goal thus: ‘No food shall be grown that we do not own’, reflecting its profiteering ambitions. This company has sued and jailed farmers for the ‘crime’ of saving and re-using seed from their crops and even when they were victims of accidental genetic contamination! Monsanto and its associates have also not hesitated to sue governments in this country in pursuit of their profits and markets. How is the government hoping that farmers would benefit from the expansion of this company, its products and markets and on what basis and understanding are they partnering with the company?”, said ASHA in its press statement.
“The citizens of this country would like to know what has happened to all the investments that went into the public sector research all these years, given that today an overwhelming chunk of cotton and maize seed markets are controlled by this one company and given that many PPPs are being signed to promote this corporation’s seeds at the expense of this country’s seed sovereignty. Further, various public sector agri-universities are facilitating bio-piracy in the name of collaborative research projects", said the organizers. They pointed out that it is short-sighted on the part of various governments to promote proprietary seed rather than strengthen farmer-level solutions for Seed in agriculture, given that this will only foster mono-cropping, dependence and overly-priced seed which will affect sustainable farm livelihoods. Sustainable alternatives are consistently being ignored on the farm front, the organisers said.
In 15 states across the country, led by farmers’ unions and civic groups, various events have been organized to create awareness amongst ordinary Indians about the true nature of corporations like Monsanto and to put pressure on governments to scrap any deals and partnerships with Monsanto and other such entities. The variety of events include bicycle rallies, Beej Rath, Kisan Jagran Sabhas, public protests and candlelight vigils, film screenings and awareness programs, Kheti Khurak Azaadi Jatha in Punjab and so on.
“We are forced to remind everyone on Quit India Day that we are living in times when our freedom is being jeopardized yet again in insidious ways – if we as a nation want to protect our food sovereignty and if we want to retain control on what we grow and what we eat, we need to resist this corporate takeover. We need to put into place lasting and affordable solutions that are farmer-controlled in our agriculture. Urban consumers should realize that it is not just our farmers who are getting trapped and exploited; consumers should understand that access to safe, diverse and nutritious food for all is also at risk”, said ASHA in its press release.
Details of various events across the country are available at: http://www.kisanswaraj.in/2011/08/07/state-wise-listing-of-events-for-monsanto-quit-india-and-kisan-swaraj-week/
ASHA is an informal network of more than 400 organisations all over India, which through grassroots work, trainings, campaigns and policy advocacy seeks to promote practices and policies that make Indian agriculture ecologically sustainable, ensure dignified livelihoods with income security to its farmers especially the smallholders, preserve their control over agricultural resources like seed, land and water, and ensure adequate, safe, nutritious and diverse food for all Indians."
More at the link"New Delhi, August 8th 2011: Alliance for Sustainable & Holistic Agriculture... more
-
-
Some 400 hectares of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds have been destroyed throughout Hungary deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar said.
The GMO maize has been ploughed under, said Lajos Bognar, but pollen has not spread from the maize, he added. Unlike several EU members, GMO seeds are banned in Hungary.
Authorities have been checking for GMO crops since the beginning of this year as a new regulation came in force this March which stipulates GMO checks before seeds are introduced to the market.
The checks will continue despite the fact that seed traders are obliged to make sure that their products are GMO free, Bognar said.
Compensation unlikely
Controllers have found Pioneer and Monsanto products among the seeds planted. The free movement of goods within the EU means that authorities will not investigate how the seeds arrived in Hungary but they will check where the goods can be found, Bognar said.
Regional public radio reported that the two biggest international seed producing companies are affected in the matter and GMO seeds could have been sown on up to thousands of hectares in the country.
Local farmers complain that the use of GMO seeds has only been revealed now when it is too late to sow again and the entire year's harvest has been lost.
Another problem is that the company that distributed the seeds in Baranya county is under liquidation, therefore if any compensation is paid by the international seed producers, the money will be paid primarily to that company's creditors, rather than the farmers.Some 400 hectares of maize found to have been grown with genetically modified seeds... more
-
-
The European Union Parliament voted to give EU member states the power to restrict or ban genetically modified crops on environmental or health grounds.
The draft legislation, which still has to be considered by EU governments, would enable member states to place restrictions or bans on genetically modified crops that go beyond the EU-wide mechanism of regulation, the BBC reported Wednesday.
A report approved by Parliament members Tuesday said member states "may adopt measures restricting or prohibiting the cultivation of all or particular GMOs [genetically modified organisms], in all or part of their territory, on the basis of grounds relating to the public interest."
More at the linkThe European Union Parliament voted to give EU member states the power to restrict or... more
-
-
On June 28, 2011, the court of Poitiers in central France acquitted eight defendant Volunteer Reapers (les Faucheurs Volontaires) of destroying a genetically modified field trial in 2008.
Among those acquitted were anti-globalist Jose Bove and Francois Dufour, recognized as “repeat offenders.” (Image: Jose Bove)
The court also dismissed Monsanto’s financial claims. Apart from their own legal expenses, the Reapers owe nothing for the 2008 mowing of a GM field trial of Monsanto’s GM corn, Mon810 x Nk603.
The trial marked the third court victory for Volunteer Reapers. Previously, the Chartres 58 and the Orleans 49 were also acquitted, notes the Inf’OGM press release.
The Poitiers decision relied on a technical issue which recognized that the wrong charges were brought against the group since they destroyed a GM field trial, not GM crops being commercially grown.
In 2008, the law was changed to differentiate destruction of a commercial field from a field trial, the latter being considered a “thought crime” rather than destruction of property.
“As the sprinkler waters, the prosecutor and Monsanto are tripped in the process they themselves have established,” notes Inf’OGM.
More at the linkOn June 28, 2011, the court of Poitiers in central France acquitted eight defendant... more
-
-
Support the Australian organic farmer, Steve Marsh, whose organic crop was decertified after becoming heavily GM contaminated, by buying this great song on YouTube for less than $2, proceeds to his legal case. We can and will stand up to these bullies. The battle is underway. Please pass this on.Support the Australian organic farmer, Steve Marsh, whose organic crop was decertified... more
-
-
On the public opening day of the new Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation campus in Seattle, local activists called attention to the negative aspects of the Foundation’s agricultural development efforts in Africa. Although farmers, activists, and civil society organizations throughout Africa and the US have pointed to fundamental problems with the programs of the Foundation and its subsidiary, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the Foundation has been non-responsive to these concerns.
“The technologies that are promoted by the Gates Foundation in Africa are not farmer-friendly or environmentally friendly. Some of them have not been tested fully to determine their effects on the environment and consumers. African farmers are seeking food sovereignty, not imposed unhealthy foods and GMOs!”
– Kenyan farmer and director of the Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK), Samuel Nderitu
The majority of the projects funded by Gates promote high-tech industrial agricultural methods and market-driven development – privatizing seed, lobbying for genetically modified crops, increasing farmer debt alongside corporate profits, and encouraging land consolidation. The Foundation’s “theory of change” acknowledges that this approach will ultimately push many small-scale African farmers off of their land, driving them into the cities to swell the numbers of unemployed and marginalized – but seems unperturbed by such consequences. Thus, the agricultural development agenda on the continent is being determined from Seattle instead of locally, and control over African food systems is being transferred from farmers to transnational corporations.
Local activists emphasize that they support drawing on traditional and indigenous agricultural knowledge, as well as incorporating new technologies into African farming; however, those technologies need to be small-scale, not dependent upon foreign capital, and environmentally and socially sustainable – in other words, agroecological. “To feed 9 billion people in 2050, we urgently need to adopt the most efficient farming techniques available,” says Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food and author of a report issued two months ago. “Today’s scientific evidence demonstrates that agroecological methods outperform the use of chemical fertilizers in boosting food production where the hungry live – especially in unfavorable environments.” De Schutter goes on to stress that agroecology is not anti-technology: “Agroecology is a knowledge-intensive approach. It requires public policies supporting agricultural research and participative extension services.”
This echoes the earlier findings of a 2008 study sponsored by the World Bank and the UN. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) is the most comprehensive scientific assessment of world agriculture to date, relying on the expertise of more than 400 international scientists and endorsed by fifty-eight countries in the global North and South (though not the United States, Canada or Australia). The IAASTD found that small-scale sustainable agriculture, locally adapted seed and ecological farming better address the complexities of climate change, hunger, poverty and productive demands on agriculture in the developing world than industrial agriculture and high-tech fixes like genetic engineering.
Unfortunately, the Foundation’s outdated approach remains to be harmonized with the growing body of scientific literature in support of agroecological farming. Instead, as observed by Kenyan farmer and director of the Grow Biointensive Agricultural Center of Kenya (G-BIACK), Samuel Nderitu, “The technologies that are promoted by the Gates Foundation in Africa are not farmer-friendly or environmentally friendly. Some of them have not been tested fully to determine their effects on the environment and consumers. African farmers are seeking food sovereignty, not imposed unhealthy foods and GMOs!”
cont.
Also here:
http://gmoreport.blogspot.com/On the public opening day of the new Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation campus in... more
-
-
Welcome to the GMO Report (formerly known as the Monsanto Roundup.) With these videos I hope to bring you information about GMO seeds and agriculture that you need to know to take action to protect your food, environment and health.
In this video I talk about Amazon deforestation for GM soy, activism against GM potatoes, global resistance, Glyphosate effects in the US, Monsanto's appeal gets dismissed, and their market decline.
Thanks for the support here, and always treasure the seed, the root of all life.Welcome to the GMO Report (formerly known as the Monsanto Roundup.) With these videos... more
-
-
European salmon farmers and breeders who dominate global sales have a wary eye on transgenic American superfish that grow fast and might gulp part of the $107 billion-a-year aquaculture business.
"We don't have any monster pigs in Europe, or monster cows, and there's no need for such a salmon," said Geir Isaksen, the chief executive at big Norwegian fish farmer Cermaq.
Genetically modified (GM) Atlantic salmon patented by U.S. biotech firm AquaBounty are widely billed as growing at double speed and could be approved by U.S. regulators as early as this summer, taking the global GM food fight to the fish counter.
"This is a safe and stable construct," AquaBounty CEO Ronald Stotish told Reuters, explaining how technicians inject Atlantic salmon eggs with genes from Pacific Chinook and bottom-dwelling ocean pout.
The result -- three species in one, thus transgenic -- would be the first GM animal approved for human consumption, joining GM plants like soy and corn that have been altered to tolerate harsh herbicides.
"If it (GM salmon) becomes a big thing, it's clearly negative for the existing salmon farmers," said Dag Sletmo, an analyst at Oslo investment bank ABG Sundal Collier.
Norwegian Atlantic salmon producers led by Cermaq and Marine Harvest provided 65 percent of world supply in 2010, exporting for a record $5.9 billion as the big new middle classes of Asia and eastern Europe stoked demand.
Sletmo said salmon has become a global commodity whose prices could tumble if genetic tinkering boosts supply while puncturing demand in core markets like Europe, where sentiment runs high against GM food.
"We would expect it to be less challenging to market such a fish in U.S. than in Europe, but it is not certain that it would be marketable in the U.S.," said Joergen Christiansen, spokesman for Marine Harvest, which is "keeping an eye on" AquaBounty.
In an online Washington Post poll last autumn, 58 percent of respondents said they would not eat GM salmon. A European Commission survey at the same time found that 77 percent of Europeans opposed GM food of any kind.
cont.European salmon farmers and breeders who dominate global sales have a wary eye on... more
-
-
Excerpt:
"According to the scientists interviewed, roughly 95 percent of the published research involving GMOs has been conducted and paid for by the biotechnology industry. This means that only five percent of the available research on the subject has been conducted by independent research firms that are much more likely to have an honest, unbiased approach."
Continued at the linkExcerpt:
"According to the scientists interviewed, roughly 95 percent of the... more
-
-
• GMO is "biggest threat" to island's farmers
• Scientists accuse European Food Safety Authority of corruption and fraud
• Doctors invoke the Precautionary Principle
• Consumers want GM-free Irish label to support responsible farmers
This media release can be downloaded at http://www.gmfreeireland.org/press/GMFI53.pdf
DUBLIN — The Irish government and the Northern Irish Assembly must implement a five-year moratorium on field trials and cultivation of GM crops on the island of Ireland, with immediate effect.
Representatives of farm, food, health and environmental bodies from Ireland, Northern Ireland and Wales agreed the demand at the Gathering Momentum: Stop GM! community discussion hosted by the Dublin Food Coop yesterday.
Participants called for the moratorium on GM crops to protect our health, to safeguard our environment, and a voluntary GM-free label to enable farmers and food producers on both sides of the Border to compete in the Non-GMO quality food market that is rapidly spreading across Europe, Asia and the USA.
Irish beef and dairy produce (our two biggest farm exports) benefit from the clean green image of Ireland – the food island. Although no GM crops have ever been released for cultivation on the island, farmers in the Republic bought more than 7.5 million tones of imported GM soy and GM maize animal feed in 2008 – 2010 . Animal produce from livestock fed on these GM feedstuffs is increasingly excluded by leading brands and retailers in the EU and the USA.
Government slammed for mixed messages
Ireland's previous Fianna Fáil / Green coalition government agreed to ban field trials and cultivation of GM crops, and also promised to introduce a voluntary GM-free label which farmers and food exporters need to gain market share . But due to intense lobbying by the US Government and the global pesticide and the animal feed cartels, it failed to implement the policy agreement with any legislation. Two weeks before leaving office, FF’s outgoing Agriculture Minister Brendan Smith voted to weaken the EU’s GM safety rules and claimed that Ireland would now vote in favour of new GM approvals at EU level — without a mandate from the Irish people or the new government that followed.
Farmers and consumers are extremely concerned that the new Fine Gael / Labour government might allow patented GM crops to be grown in the Republic for the first time. Although this government has made no public declaration, contradictory pre-election statements by the coalition partners reveal ignorance and confusion. Fine Gael’s Michael Creed TD, Lucinda Creighton TD, Mairéad McGuinness MEP, and Jim Higgins MEP all promote GM food and farming . Teagasc got €10 million for GM crop research and now wants to experiment with field trials of GMO potatoes.
Biggest threat to farming future
Addressing the meeting on Sunday, Tipperary farmer Richard Auler said "The proposed introduction of GM crops by the new government is now the single biggest threat to the future of farming on this island. It would destroy all of our competitive advantages — including the least polluted topsoil in Europe, our mostly grass-based production system, and our famous clean green image.” The Irish Cattle and Sheepfarmers Association also favours a ban on GM crops . Paolo di Crocia, from Slow Food International , said “Since we live in a global world, stopping the march of GM seeds and crops is not only very important for Ireland, but also for the
developing world, where food security is paramount.”
continued• GMO is "biggest threat" to island's farmers
• Scientists... more
-
-
http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
A new paper shows that consuming genetically modified (GM) corn or soybeans leads to significant organ disruptions in rats and mice, particularly in livers and kidneys. By reviewing data from 19 animal studies, Professor Gilles-Eric Séralini and others reveal that 9% of the measured parameters, including blood and urine biochemistry, organ weights, and microscopic analyses (histopathology), were significantly disrupted in the GM-fed animals. The kidneys of males fared the worst, with 43.5% of all the changes. The liver of females followed, with 30.8%. The report, published in Environmental Sciences Europe on March 1, 2011, confirms that “several convergent data appear to indicate liver and kidney problems as end points of GMO diet effects.” The authors point out that livers and kidneys “are the major reactive organs” in cases of chronic food toxicity.
“Other organs may be affected too, such as the heart and spleen, or blood cells,” stated the paper. In fact some of the animals fed genetically modified organisms had altered body weights in at least one gender, which is “a very good predictor of side effects in various organs.”
The GM soybean and corn varieties used in the feeding trials “constitute 83% of the commercialized GMOs” that are currently consumed by billions of people. While the findings may have serious ramifications for the human population, the authors demonstrate how a multitude of GMO-related health problems could easily pass undetected through the superficial and largely incompetent safety assessments that are used around the world.
Feed’em longer!
One of the most glaring faults in the current regulatory regime is the short duration of animals feeding studies. The industry limits trials to 90 days at most, with some less than a month. Only two studies reviewed in this new publication were over 90 days—both were non-industry research.
Short studies could easily miss many serious effects of GMOs. It is well established that some pesticides and drugs, for example, can create effects that are passed on through generations, only showing up decades later. IN the case of the drug DES (diethylstilbestrol), “induced female genital cancers among other problems in the second generation.” The authors urge regulators to require long-term multi-generational studies, to “provide evidence of carcinogenic, developmental, hormonal, neural, and reproductive potential dysfunctions, as it does for pesticides or drugs.”
“Pesticide Plants”
Nearly all GM crops are described as “pesticide plants.” They either tolerate doses of weed killer, such as Roundup, or produce an insecticide called Bt-toxin. In both cases, the added toxin—weedkiller or bug killer—is found inside the corn or soybeans we consume.
When regulators evaluate the toxic effects of pesticides, they typically require studies using three types of animals, with at least one feeding trial lasting 2 years or more. One third or more of the side effects produced by these toxins will show up only in the longer study—not the shorter ones. But for no good reason, regulators ignore the lessons learned from pesticides and waive the GM crops-containing-pesticides onto the market with a single species tested for just 90 days. The authors affirm that “it is impossible, within only 13 weeks, to conclude about the kind of pathology that could be induced by pesticide GMOs and whether it is a major pathology or a minor one. It is therefore necessary to prolong the tests.”
GMO approvals also ignore the new understanding that toxins don’t always follow a linear dose-response. Sometimes a smaller amount of toxins have greater impact than larger doses. Approvals also overlook the fact that mixtures can be far more dangerous than single chemicals acting alone. Roundup residues, for example, have been “shown to be toxic for human placental, embryonic, and umbilical cord cells,” whereas Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate does not on its own provoke the same degree of damage. One reason for this is that the chemicals in Roundup “stabilize glyphosate and allow its penetration into cells.”
Furthermore, toxins may generate new substances (metabolites) “either in the GM plant or in the animals fed with it.” Current assessments completely ignore the potential danger from these new components in our diets, such as the “new metabolites” in GMOs engineered to withstand Roundup. The authors warn, “We consider this as a major oversight in the present regulations.”
cont.http://www.enveurope.com/content/23/1/10
A new paper shows that consuming... more
-
-
Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the impression that they signify fairness, safety and adequate disclosure to consumers regarding the products those words are attached to. However, regarding the marketing of transgenic foods specifically genetically modified organisms in our food that is anything but the case. I think it is crucial that consumers are aware of what is in their food and how it may affect them and their children in order for them to be able to make informed decisions about what goes into their bodies. This knowledge is essential as a preventative measure to maintaining health and also regarding informing consumers about any other effects what they buy may have on the enviroment. Therefore, in discussing substantial equivalence in regards to GMOs and the underlayer of collusion involved in pushing them into the world I think it important to begin at the beginning.
This is the standard definition of "substantial equivalence":
"Substantial equivalence is a concept developed by OECD in 1991 that maintains that a novel food should be considered the same as a conventional food if it demonstrates the same characteristics and composition as the conventional food."
This concept was pushed in regards to GMOs by the FAO and the WHO in the early 1990s. Its intent was the stripping away of years of testing of so called "novel" foods which can be prohibitively expensive and time consuming and therefore would have affected the profits of companies like Monsanto that have a virtual stranglehold on the FDA, USDA, and other regulatory agencies and governments that have afforded them special treatment in allowing them to use this planet and its species as one huge science experiment. The residual effects of applying these two words to GMOs and in allowing them to be foisted upon the world with little to no adequate testing already negates the validity of applying the substantial equivalence label to them.
____
This is from a paper written in 1997:
John Fagan, Ph.D., Professor of Molecular Biology, Maharishi University of Management
"The concept of substantial equivalence has been used in Europe, North America, and elsewhere around the world as the basis of regulations designed to facilitate the rapid commercialization of genetically engineered foods. For instance, European Commission (EC) regulations concerning novel foods and food ingredients apply the concept of substantial equivalence to both the safety testing and to the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are spared from extensive safety testing on the assumption that they are no more dangerous than the corresponding non-genetically engineered food (1). Using similar arguments, genetically engineered foods classified as substantially equivalent are not required to be labeled as genetically engineered (2). The effect of these regulations has been to allow genetically engineered foods to enter the market place without sufficient testing to assure safety and without sufficient labeling to allow consumers to de cide for themselves whether or not to purchase and eat these novel foods. The health of the population of Europe is thus being placed at risk.
The fundamental inadequacies of this approach have been discussed previously. For instance, one article presented in the Proceedings of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Workshop on Food Safety Evaluation (3), came to the following conclusions: (1) Because the concept of substantial equivalence has no dimensions, it cannot be used as a predictor of which novel foods will require substantial safety testing in animals. (2) Depending on the nature of the novel food, the usefulness of the concept of substantial equivalence in determining the necessity for extensive safety testing ranges from useful to negligible. (3) The number and range of safety tests required is best determined, not by the concept of substantial equivalence, but by the nature of the product under consideration.
At first glance the term substantially equivalent implies that two foods are equivalent in all characteristics that are of importance to the consumer-safety, nutrition, flavor, and texture. However, in actual practice the investigator compares only selected characteristics of the genetically engineered food to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart. If that relatively restricted set of characteristics is not found to be significantly different in these two, the genetically engineered food is classified as substantially equivalent to the corresponding non-genetically engineered food and is required to be neither tested further nor labeled as genetically engineered.
The argument supporting this practice is that since most of the characteristics of a particular genetically engineered food are similar to those of its non-genetically engineered counterpart, it must be the case that the genetically engineered food is substantially equivalent to its non-genetically engineered counterpart with respect to all characteristics relevant to the consumer. This is obviously a fallacious argument, and should not be used as the basis for avoiding more extensive testing and for avoiding the labeling of genetically engineered foods. Most critically, if characteristics important to food safety are not evaluated directly, the safety of consumers will be in jeopardy."
end of excerpt.
____
continued at the link.
Thank you for supporting this blog and for helping me get out this important information.Substantial equivalence. When looking at these two words many come away with the... more
-
-
I just wanted to announce that I now have a blog entitled, The GMO Report where I will be reporting on GMOs and their effects as well as information and truth we all need to know to protect ourselves and our planet from this assault. It is just a baby now but I will be adding much more to it in the coming week(s). Take a look, become a follower if you wish to and please most importantly spread this information to all you can. There is indeed strength in numbers and the only way we will ever win this fight for food sovereignty and a healthy planet is through awareness, education and action.
Thanks,
JanI just wanted to announce that I now have a blog entitled, The GMO Report where I will... more
-
