Say NO to GMOs // Current TV

The Big GMO Cover-Up

Something doesn’t quite add up about genetically modified (GM) foods. Big... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
35 comments

Monsanto Wins Award for Worst Corporate Climate Lobbyist

THE ANGRY MERMAID WINNER IS... Monsanto! ***** Copenhagen, December 15, 2009 - The... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
9 comments

Dr. Vandana Shiva Speaks at Copenhagen Climate Summit Protest

"The Earth Must Call The Shots. The Earth Will Make The Rules." Protests... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
3 comments

Stop Monsanto in Copenhagen

Monsanto is in Copenhagen looking to get carbon credits for toxic soy deforestation.... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
12 comments

New evidence shows huge price rises for GM seed – a stark warning to UK farmers

Against a background of continuing calls from the GM lobby for the Government to back... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
7 comments

Label call for ALL foods from GMO crops

If a cow eats it, and you eat the cow, you eat the GMOS. Where is the labelling? Where... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
28 comments

Michael Pollan: Help protect our farmers from assaults by Monsanto

Save our seeds.

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
6 comments

Monsanto steps back on two GMOs. Why?

I don't think it has anything to do with commercial reasons and everything to do... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
24 comments

U.S. groups call for leadership from Obama administration at World Food Summit

I agree. This is not the time for empty gestures and promises, but concrete actions... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
2 comments

Will our views on gm food be 'modified?'

Never surrender. Gm 'food' will bring us closer to worldwide famine and the... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
1 comment

We are winning the fight against Genetically Engineered trees

Over 17,500 comments against this monstrosity of nature. Let's keep it coming!

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
9 comments

Genetically modified organisms: Where is the science?

What has been of particular interest in this and past debates on the subject is the way in which those who oppose GM crops are painted as being against science (see for instance, the editorial in The Hindu on 21 October, 2009 or Starved for Science by R Paarlberg). There is a blatant attempt by GM promoters to polarise the discussion and manufacture a science-vs.-antiscience debate. All those who oppose GM crops are neither anti-science nor luddites. Indeed, many scientists have been, and still are, critical of GM for a number of good reasons. Scientists and scientific academies, including the National Research Council of the US National Academy of Sciences, have expressed serious concerns regarding the scientific rigour of experiments and the impacts of GM crops, especially on biodiversity.

Those who support GM crops generally believe that science and technology can solve most problems, and see crops as requiring tinkering to improve agriculture. It is such short-term and piecemeal thinking that led to the excesses of the Green Revolution causing damage to soils, depletion of ground water and other harms to ecosystems. There are other supporters of GM who continue to believe that private production of goods and services is inherently superior to public ones, even as governments have been bailing out the private sector in the last year! And then there are those who have financial gains to make if the GM industry prospers.

Let me compare the GM debate with the other major scientific debate - global warming. While scientists who work on climate change and global warming rightly embrace the precautionary principle, many who work in the area of GM plant technologies abandon it altogether. A charitable explanation is that this may have to do with differing perceptions of risk in each case. Perhaps global warming is seen as a serious threat to the entire world, and GM crops may not be understood in the same way. Moreover, some benefits have been attributed to these crops by promoters, making it harder for people to reject them.

But while the naysayers of climate change have now been marginalised through more research and data, those who are concerned about GM crops have been silenced through smear campaigns launched against them. Some of the scientists, like Arpad Pusztai, who raised questions regarding the health effects of GM crops, have had their careers turned upside down. In order to learn about the tentacles and might of agribusiness, one must ask Ignacio Chapela from UC Berkeley about his gut-wrenching tenure battle, which followed his publication in Nature on the contamination of wild strains of Mexican maize by GM maize

The mere use of technology does not make an approach scientific, but this is a common fallacy even among scientists. Good science is characterised by transparency and falsifiability. These do not figure in GM. Instead, faith, the antithesis of science, features in a big way. There are few peer-reviewed journal articles on GM crops. When companies make claims about various positive contributions from their engineered crops, their statements cannot be verified or tested independently. Policymakers and even other scientists who work in the same area have to accept the results on faith.

Earlier this year, an anonymous public statement was signed and submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 26 leading scientists, entomologists who work with insects that infect corn. It stated that scientists are unable to conduct independent research on GM crops as patents prevent full access to research materials and the ability to grow and study these plants. As a consequence, the scientists state, the data that the Scientific Advisory Panel of the EPA has available to it is unduly limited. This means the claims of GM proponents cannot be verified independently or indeed be falsified.

There is general agreement among scientists and academics on the adverse effects on biodiversity as a result of cross-pollination from engineered to non-engineered crops. Still, field trials for GM crops in unmarked areas blow caution and engineered pollen to the winds in closely cultivated fields in India.

The potential damage to human health from GM crops has been shown quite clearly in a few animal systems, but perhaps needs further study. There is good peer-reviewed published evidence to show that Bt toxins are both immunogens (a substance that provokes an immune response) and immunoadjuvants (a substance that enhances immune response) for mammals. Moreover, studies have shown that Bt toxins bind to the mammalian small intestine and have effects on its proper functioning. The concerns raised by the use of viral promoters, which are hotspots for genetic recombination, the use of antibiotic resistance genes, and strong gene promoters (sequences that facilitate the transcription of a gene) to ensure that the foreign genes are expressed, have already been highlighted by many scientists.

end of excerpt.What has been of particular interest in this and past debates on the subject is the... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
5 comments

Stop selling out science to commerce

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
15 comments

A message from Dr. Vandana Shiva: help us fight for the truth

ttp://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/messagefromvandanashiv/

Have you seen this advertisement? Couched deep within the green-washed rhetoric of a recent Monsanto ad is an egregious claim:

Producing more. Conserving more. Improving farmers’ lives. That’s sustainable agriculture. And that’s what Monsanto is all about.

Oh, really?

While the mainstream media and Big Ag pundits seem all too happy to watch how Monsanto and other biotech companies spin and co-opt the term “sustainability,” we at the Center for Food Safety (CFS) are on the front lines fighting against the corporate take-over of our food, farms, and future; advocating for REAL, sustainable, solutions to the problems of the biotech industrial agriculture model.

Over the next month, CFS will be bringing you videos from some experts with whom we work closely in the trenches—Michael Pollan, Vandana Shiva, Anna Lappé, and CFS’s Executive Director Andrew Kimbrell—to help us tell you the real truth about the false claims put forth by Monsanto and other biotech companies. We’ll share with you why these leading activists support the work of the Center for Food Safety.

CFS has been fighting on your behalf since 1997. We have accomplished a lot – we’ve stopped GMO crops including wheat, rice, and alfalfa, and also dangerous pharmaceutical-producing crops. We’ve beat Monsanto in the courts, but they have the substantial resources to continue to challenge CFS; just this week, they asked for the U.S. Supreme Court to consider yet another appeal of our successful lawsuit stopping GMO alfalfa.

We can only accomplish these victories with the support of members like you. Please join Vandana Shiva in supporting our work, to raise the funds we need to continue to fight Monsanto in the courts, and to combat the twisted version of “sustainability” biotech company marketers are trying to foist on the world. We need your help, right now, to raise our goal of $100,000 this Fall — less than the amount Monsanto spent on just ONE AD on the back page of The New Yorker (about $140,000), to support our important workttp://truefoodnow.org/campaigns/messagefromvandanashiv/ Have you seen this... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
3 comments

Bioengineered plants gone wild

You can think this is nothing or that it isn't important. Tell that to your... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
16 comments

GM crops no panacea for food security: U.S. scientist

How long before he is gagged or threatened?
_____-
Senior US scientist Dr Michael Hansen has said genetically modified crops are not the panacea for food security. Rather, the answer to food security lies with small-scale, ecologically rational, sustainable agriculture that focuses on local food systems.

“If you look carefully at global data, the most engineered crop is soybean. Ninety per cent of US acreage, 98 per cent of Argentina acreage and 60 per cent of Brazil are engineered,” he said.

“Scientific data show that on an average Roundup soybean has 10 per cent lower yield than non-engineered soybean. So if you want to feed more people, genetically-engineered soybean will not be the answer,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with The News recently, Dr Hansen, who is associated with the Consumers Union (USA), a non-profit publisher of consumer reports, said: “There is a global agreement under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTDI) and it basically answers the question what kind of agriculture will be most useful in feeding the poor of the world. This four-year assessment, involving 400 scientists, concluded that ‘business as usual is not acceptable.’ They say the answer is not high technology such as genetic engineering or nano technology; rather the answer lies with small scale, ecologically rational agriculture that focuses on local food systems, reforms of trade laws and enabling policy environment and paying attention to gender issues.”

Asked to comment on giant US multinational Monsanto’s claim that Bt cotton requires less water and is pest free, he said: “It’s wrong! In 2002, Bt cotton smuggled from Australia was planted in Sindh. A detailed survey of 138 farmers in four districts reporting growing Bt cotton on 4,249 hectares showed that local cotton variety non-engineered NIAB-78 received six irrigations while Bt cotton received 11 to 12 irrigations which resulted in increased cost of 1,750 rupees per acre. That clearly shows that Bt cotton uses more water.

“Similarly, in 2002, farmers were surveyed in five districts in Punjab. There the cost in terms of rupee per acre for water was Rs2,600 for Bt cotton and Rs2,100 for non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton used 25 per cent more water in Punjab than non-Bt cotton and almost 100 per cent more water in Sindh.”

Asked to what extent the apprehension was true that with the introduction of Bt cotton and other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seed business in Pakistan is likely to be monopolised, he said: “The answer is yes.”How long before he is gagged or threatened? _____- Senior US scientist Dr Michael... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
0 comments

Sustainable Agriculture Group: Monsanto Round Up 3

The third reporting of Monsanto news, GMO news, and news you need to know to stay... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
32 comments

What we can do to help stop the genetic engineering of the food supply

You too can be a part of reaching a good tipping point regarding getting genetically... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
1 comment

Monsanto's man in the Obama administration

Michael R. Taylor's appointment by the Obama administration to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on July 7th sparked immediate debate and even outrage among many food and agriculture researchers, NGOs and activists. The Vice President for Public Policy at Monsanto Corp. from 1998 until 2001, Taylor exemplifies the revolving door between the food industry and the government agencies that regulate it. He is reviled for shaping and implementing the government’s favorable agricultural biotechnology policies during the Clinton administration.

Yet what has slipped under everyone’s radar screen is Taylor’s involvement in setting U.S. policy on agricultural assistance in Africa. In collusion with the Rockefeller and Bill and Melinda Gates foundations, Taylor is once again the go-between man for Monsanto and the U.S. government, this time with the goal to open up African markets for genetically-modified (GM) seed and agrochemicals.

In the late 70s, Taylor was an attorney for the United States Department of Agriculture, then in the 80s, a private lawyer at the D.C. law firm King & Spalding, where he represented Monsanto. When Taylor returned to government as Deputy Commissioner for Policy for the FDA from 1991 to 1994, the agency approved the use of Monsanto’s GM growth hormone for dairy cows (now found in most U.S. milk) without labeling. His role in these decisions led to a federal investigation, though eventually he was exonerated of all conflict-of-interest charges.

Taylor’s re-appointment to the FDA came just after Obama and the other G-8 leaders pledged $20 billion to fight hunger in Africa over the next three years. “President Obama is currently embedded in a bubble featuring some of the fervent promoters of the biotech industry and a Green Revolution in Africa,” says Paula Crossfield in the Huffington Post. Before joining Obama's transition team, Taylor was a Senior Fellow at the D.C. think tank Resources for the Future, where he published two documents on U.S. aid for African agriculture, both of which were funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

The Rockefeller Foundation funded the first Green Revolution in Asia and Latin America in the 1960s, and in 2006, teamed up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to launch the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA). In Taylor’s 2003 paper “American Patent Policy, Biotechnology, and African Agriculture: The Case for Policy Change,” he states: “The Green Revolution largely bypassed sub-Saharan Africa…African farmers often face difficult growing conditions, and better access to the basic Green Revolution tools of fertilizer, pesticides, improved seeds, and irrigation certainly can play an important role in improving their productivity."

In an interview with AllAfrica.com, Obama echoed Taylor's sentiment: "I'm still frustrated over the fact that the Green Revolution that we introduced into India in the '60s, we haven't yet introduced into Africa in 2009."

Yet as Crossfield points out, “There are very good reasons why we have never introduced a Green Revolution into Africa, namely because there is broad consensus that the Green Revolution in India has been a failure, with Indian farmers in debt, bound to paying high costs for seed and pesticides, committing suicide at much higher rates, and resulting in a depleted water table and a poisoned environment, and by extension, higher rates of cancer. If President Obama is lacking this information, it is his cabinet that is to blame.”

While AGRA may not benefit African farmers, it will certainly benefit Monsanto. Some estimate that Monsanto controls 90 percent of the global market for GM seeds.

end of excerptMichael R. Taylor's appointment by the Obama administration to the Food and Drug... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
8 comments

UK forcing GM crops on Africa

This is nothing short of food fascism.

Excerpt:

The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has criticised plans by the government of the United Kingdom to spend about £100 million to support the growing of Genetically Modified (GM) crops in Africa.

According to ERA, a new white paper shows that the UK government will dramatically increase spending on high-tech agriculture in the next five years, much of which will be on GM crop research.

The breakdown of the funding, ERA/FoEN explained, shows that bio-fortified crops, containing so-called added vitamins, will receive £80 million of development money, while £60 million will go into researching drought-resistant maize for Africa, while pest resistance will be funded to the tune of £24 million.

Reacting to the development in a statement issued in Lagos Monday, ERA/FoEN depicted the gesture as an "attempt to control, colonise and contaminate food supply under the guise of helping the Africa continent.

The group added that the white paper avoids the terms "genetically modified" even when scientists and development experts were clear that much of the money would be spent on GM crops.

ERA/FoEN Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey said: "It is extremely ridiculous that the British government overlooked contentious issues such as under-investment in African solutions to hunger, lack of infrastructure and extension services in rural communities and only narrowed our hunger challenge to yields and so-called vitamins. It is shocking that the British government would believe the claims of biotech industry to GMOs yield better than organic or conventional varieties at a time when empirical evidence has shown that such claims are not true."

Bassey reiterated ERA's position that Africans must be allowed to determine what they want to eat as well as how and where they want it grown, explaining that, a recent report from South Africa revealed that even indigenous chickens have refused to eat GM maize.

"If chickens will not eat it why should we? Do chickens have more brains than people? This unholy gesture should be an eye-opener to African governments that hobnob with the biotech industry and their allied research institutes that are only interested in providing un-African solutions to our challenges.

"Time and again we have said that the true test of the sincerity of the global North in addressing the food crisis in Africa is not the thrusting of GMO foods down African throats but to sincerely and without hidden motives listen to Africans and support ecological solutions being developed on the continent. Any attempt to arm-twist African countries into accepting GMO in the guise of aid will not be accepted," Bassey warned.This is nothing short of food fascism. Excerpt: The Environmental Rights... more

JanforGore
added this
2 years ago
|
3 comments

select your country

Community Spotlight

TAGS

tagged w/ Say NO to GMOs

top videos

find current on tv

find current online

recent comments

© 2012 Current TV, LLC All Rights Reserved

the basics

follow us online

tools

stay in touch

© 2012 Current TV, LLC
All Rights Reserved