tagged w/ transgenic contamination
-
This is a developing story that not only has environmental implications but economic as well. An all out corporate push to now own the sugar market in the US through genetic modification even though court rulings have called for environmental reports. You can be sure they won't be forthcoming soon.This is a developing story that not only has environmental implications but economic... more
-
-
I don't think it has anything to do with commercial reasons and everything to do with what tests have shown. That GMOS are unsafe for human consumption.I don't think it has anything to do with commercial reasons and everything to do with... more
-
-
Never surrender. Gm 'food' will bring us closer to worldwide famine and the killing of biodiversity. The people must stand strong against the PR corporate ag/government brainwashing onslaught to control our food for profit.Never surrender. Gm 'food' will bring us closer to worldwide famine and the killing of... more
-
-
WHERE is the accountability for this?
-
-
Over 17,500 comments against this monstrosity of nature. Let's keep it coming!
-
-
You can think this is nothing or that it isn't important. Tell that to your children in another ten to twenty years. There are scientists doing experimentation on these transgenes and DNA, and what they are seeing is troubling.
But don't believe them, only go by the corporate and government PR and let your own political biases be your guide. I am sure that will serve the preservation of biodiversity and ecology for your children well. And don't say you weren't warned. Allowing GMOs out into the environment unchecked was and is one of the gravest environmental crimes of this century.
http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/
The group giving you the important news you need to know about GMOs, food safety, and food sovereignty.You can think this is nothing or that it isn't important. Tell that to your children... more
-
-
French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal, almost approved for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean
*On the data submitted on Bt brinjal by Mahyco for approval from the Indian government
The data submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) of the Union environment ministry is not valid; it has not been signed by the scientist who conducted the tests. What is more scandalous is that the studies on the effects of Bt brinjal were conducted for just three months.
If the product is to be consumed by humans, the tests should have been for a period of at least two years—the lifespan of a rodent.
Worse, Mahyco tried to cover up the side-effects by jumbling data on various types of brinjal in a way that it was hard to compare Bt brinjal with normal brinjal. I am sorry to say people in the geac did not carefully assess the data. It is also not clear how the geac overlooked the fact that Bt brinjal has a protein that induces resistance to antibiotics. Mahyco has not studied hormonal impacts of Bt brinjal—Bt toxin found in it could lead to reproductive health problems.
*On his findings on Roundup Ready soybean that tolerates herbicides
Our study found that even minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybean like polyethoxylated tallowamine kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. The research was published in this year’s July edition of the journal Toxicology. Some pregnant women who consumed RR soybean developed disorders. This combined with certain studies on animals in labs (conducted by others) made us conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor.
*On claims that GM plants reduce the need for pesticides
This is a false projection. Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted. RR soybean that makes up 63 per cent of GM plants in the world contains high amounts of Roundup. The US food and drug administration (usfda) has allowed up to 400 ppm Roundup residues in animal feed. It is much more than what we recommended. There was a paper published in June in Scientific American saying usfda would review the approval accorded to RR soybean because of our study.French scientist Gilles-Eric Seralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified... more
-
-
"...food industry and export players have made it clear that they will need to have clear marketing channels that allow for a choice between non-genetically modified wheat and biotech varieties."
The word "choice" is especially interesting here. Choice is the whole crux of the problem with GMOs. Lack of choice. Consumers don't have the choice to avoid GMO's in conventional products because our food supply has been adulterated with out our permission, and labels aren't required. The only way to avoid GMOs is to eat organic.
Farmers don't have the choice to avoid GMO crops either. Time has proven over and over that it is nearly impossible to contain the modified varieties. Plants reproduce all the time without our permission. It's very difficult to avoid GMO contamination.
The "choice" these industry folks speak of is illusion. Marketing designed to make everyone believe that GM Wheat is a harmless crop with no long term consequences.
Visit OCA's Genetically Modified Wheat Resource Center for more information.]
KANSAS CITY, Oct 14 (Reuters) - A coalition of U.S. wheat industry leaders said on Wednesday that they were pushing ahead to gain acceptance for genetically modified wheat, despite continued concerns and at least a decade of research and development work ahead.
"This is going to be a win-win for everybody," said Daren Coppock, chief executive of the National Association of Wheat Growers.
Coppock was one of a group of wheat industry participants meeting Wednesday in Kansas City to discuss key issues impacting the industry and how to press for acceptance of a genetically modified wheat.
Among the other attendees were representatives from the North American Millers' Association, the National Wheat Improvement Committee and the Grain Growers of Canada.
Officials from the organizations said in a conference call following the meeting that no active research for a specific type of biotech wheat was underway at this point and the industry still needed to gaining widespread market acceptance at home and abroad.
Coppock said food industry and export players have made it clear that they will need to have clear marketing channels that allow for a choice between non-genetically modified wheat and biotech varieties."...food industry and export players have made it clear that they will need to have... more
-
-
"I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study" - Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, who assessed Monsanto-Mahyco's molecular transformation methods
---
---
"Set aside Bt brinjal recommendation"
The Hindu (National edition), October 14 2009
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/10/16/stories/2009101657611300.htm
*No studies for toxicity conducted: Expert
*"Bt brinjal will impact food security, health"
*No gene-flow studies were done
NEW DELHI: It may well go down as the blackest day in Indian history, unless the government reverses the decision of the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (GEAC) to recommend commercial release of Mahyco's Bt brinjal.
Bt brinjal will impact the country's food security, health, farming and environment in perpetuity, says a food safety analyst.
"We who know the details of the appraisal of the Mahyco-Monsanto safety dossier by four world renowned scientists [Seralini, Carman, Heinemann and Gurian-Sherman] cannot imagine the extent of the disaster that will unfold in India," Aruna Rodrigues said from Mhow in Madhya Pradesh.
Quoting Seralini of France, Ms. Rodrigues said no long-term feeding studies for chronic toxicity had been conducted for Bt brinjal. These feeding studies only would help reveal tumours/cancers as they grow slowly. "The inescapable conclusion of these feeding studies is that they have been 'engineered' or designed to throw up 'no significant differences'," she said.
Ms. Rodrigues said Doug Gurian-Sherman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a former scientist of the Environment Protection Agency, speaking about contamination from gene flow from Bt brinjal to wild brinjal relatives and domesticated varieties, reported that no gene-flow studies were done. "The possibility of harm from gene flow has been widely recognised by many scientists. In the United States, this recognition has been a major factor in regulatory action restricting the commercialisation of GE crops (including cotton) with wild relatives. India is a centre of domestication and diversity for brinjal, and this adds additional concern."
She said Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, who assessed Mahyco's molecular transformation methods, asserted that the company had failed at the elementary step of the safety study, analysing the insertion. "I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of molecular data than in this study," he was quoted as saying.
Ms. Rodrigues said the fact that the government accepted the principle that the seed-developing company itself should do safety testing of its own product and "trusted" it to do so invalidated the safety dossier."I have never seen less professionalism in the presentation and quality assurance of... more
-
-
Canadians Join Global Day of Action Against Monsanto: Challenge approval of new eight-trait GM "SmartStax" corn
Today Canadians opposing Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) crops will join the first "International Day of Action Against Multinational Corporations" that has been initiated by the global farmers' movement called La Via Campesina. Canadians will support this year's focus on Monsanto and GM crops by inundating the Minister of Health with letters and calls asking for the immediate withdrawal of approval for Monsanto's GM "SmartStax" corn, authorized without safety assessment from Health Canada.
Canadians are calling and writing the Minister of Health to ask that she immediately halt the introduction of Monsanto’s new eight-trait GM corn called "SmartStax" because it was not assessed for safety by Health Canada. "SmartStax" corn was authorized this summer by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency for planting next year but was not examined by Health Canada for human health safety.
La Via Campesina is calling multinational corporations the "main threat to peasant and indigenous families and humanity" because corporations are privatizing land, biodiversity, water, and seeds. Monsanto is the world's largest seed company and owns almost 90% of all the GM crops sown globally.
"It's extremely significant that La Via Campesina is focusing their World Food Day action on Monsanto and GM crops. It shows us that farmers around the world see GM crops as a major threat to their survival," said Devlin Kuyek, a Montreal-based researcher for the international group GRAIN.
"Monsanto and Dow together own eight patents in 'SmartStax' corn and will charge higher prices and take deeper control over seed," said Benoit Girouard, President of Union Paysanne, a member group of La Via Campesina.
"Health Canada must stop Monsanto's 'SmartStax' corn before farmers start growing a GM crop that was never assessed for human consumption." said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "The Minister of Health is supporting Monsanto ahead of safeguarding the health of Canadians."
"Monsanto is still pushing GM wheat and GM alfalfa regardless of the major environmental risks and despite the fact that consumers and farmers have soundly rejected both," said Arnold Taylor of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate’s Organic Agriculture Protection Fund.
"Contamination by GM crops is causing deep financial harm to Canadian farmers," said Terry Boehm, Vice-President of the National Farmers Union, also a member group of La Via Campesina. "Right now we see that Canadian farmers face the loss of their most important flax market in Europe due to GM contamination."Canadians Join Global Day of Action Against Monsanto: Challenge approval of new... more
-
-
How far reaching does this have to get before it is given proper attention? Will people have to die from eating it? Is it newsworthy then?
___
Contamination of European food threatens Canadian export markets
An unapproved variety of genetically modified flax has been discovered in Canadian exports shipped to Germany and found growing illegally in the German state of Baden-Württemberg. The European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) confirmed the contamination of Canadian flax exports with the GM flax, devastating Canadian flax sales to Europe. The GM flax has been illegal to grow in Canada since 2001 when flax growers forced the government to take the product off the market.
A German company confirmed the GM contamination in its cereals and bakery products and said that it could have been distributed on the market. The German surveillance lab in the state of Baden-Württemberg conducted tests that detected the GM flax. Officials in Baden-Württemberg discovered large quantities of GM flax growing illegally in the state, and it has apparently been unknowingly sold to several EU countries. “We assume that this discovery will affect not only Germany, but rather all of Europe,” said Peter Hauk, the state’s agriculture minister.
The GM flax variety, known as FP967 and “Triffid,” is not authorized for food or feed use in the European Union. Because it is not authorized in the EU, there is zero tolerance for FP967 per EU regulations. This means that any shipment of raw material or flax/linseed derivative that tests positive for FP967 is not marketable in the EU.
“Absolute nightmare”
“This is an absolute nightmare for flax growers and why we worked so hard to have the GM flax removed,” said Terry Boehm, a flax grower and Vice President of the National Farmers Union. “Flax growers forced the GM flax off the market eight years ago to prevent any threat of contamination and protect our export markets. GM flax was never wanted or needed. We knew it would destroy our European markets and now we fear this has happened.”
The GM flax is an herbicide tolerant variety that was developed by the Crop Development Centre of the University of Saskatchewan. It was named “Triffid” after a venomous mutant plant from a British science fiction film called Day of the Triffids. FP967 was approved by Canadian regulators in 1998 but the Flax Council of Canada convinced the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to remove variety registration for the GM flax in 2001, making it illegal to grow. Flax growers took this action to protect their export markets from the threat of GM contamination. In the wake of the 2001 controversy the Centre halted its GM research.
At the beginning of September, cash bids for flaxseed in Western Canada fell dramatically based on rumors of GMO contamination. According to a report in Alberta Farmer, cash bids for flax in Manitoba dropped to as low as $6.78 per bushel after being around $10 per bushel just a few days before the contamination incident became public.
Barry Hall, president of the Flax Council of Canada, said the incident could not have come at a worse time for the Canadian flaxseed industry because flax sales to Europe begin at this time. Approximately 70%, 500,000 to 700,000 tons, of Canada’s flax is exported to Europe.How far reaching does this have to get before it is given proper attention? Will... more
-
-
*We call on the population to demand that all produce we consume on a daily basis is GMO-free.
*We call on international agencies to condemn the Government of Mexico for violating peasant ancestral rights, as well as disrespecting biodiversity and food sovereignty, and ignoring the principle of precaution in the center of origin of basic crops that nowadays nourish the world.
*On 12 October, invite everyone to protest at the [nearest] Mexican Embassy against transgenic maize in Mexico!
Why this Call for Action on 12 October?
Monsanto has just lost 18 of 24 requests for experimental maize open-field testing in the northern regions of Mexico. These regions are Monsanto's most-wanted areas due to their commercial maize farming background: most of the everyday tortillas of the Mexican inhabitants come from there.
Therefore, the risk of having native varieties contaminated is huge and Monsanto is pressing the Government to have its requests attended [granted]. This has not happened yet, but might happen very soon.
In Mexico, October 12 is a national holiday known as Di-a de la Raza, or Day of the Race. It's a day to celebrate Mexican traditions and culture.
Besides this, in recent years, it has also been more and more used as a day for demonstrations, and to protest for social rights or defending indigenous culture. In the present context, the fragile position in which Mexican maize varieties are put, due to the menace of GM maize and GM companies, makes them a very important social and cultural value to be defended and protected.
Via Campesina in Mexico has started a campaign "Fuera Monsanto y No al Maiz Transgenico" in June. From 11 to 16 October they will protest in several regions of the country. The Network in Defense of Maize is supporting Via Campesina and will deliver the collected signatures to the Mexican Government on the 16th October. On that day some press conferences and actions might happen. So, if we do act on 12 October at our Mexican embassies, we should inform the Network in Defense of Maize, so that our international actions get to the Mexican press.
Right now, due to a climate of internal Mexican tension, our actions through Europe and worldwide increase the possibilities of resonance. By doing this, we are giving a great support to Mexico's anti-GMO struggle, and pressuring Mexican Government not to easily accept the requests of Monsanto.
**Act Now!**
Please send all press-releases, photos and other materials of every action you do at the Mexican embassy on 12 October, as well as other actions around that date, to the Network in Defense of Maize contacto@endefensadelmaiz.orgThis e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it so they can diffuse and promote them in Mexico. Thank you! Your support is precious!
The Defense of Maize Network is promoting a Declaration against the GMO maize, which already has about 6500 individual signatures and 1350 signatures from organizations of 74 countries by now. We would like to have your support as well.
Sign the letter now!
http://endefensadelmaiz.org/No-to-transgenic-maize.html*We call on the population to demand that all produce we consume on a daily basis is... more
-
-
28 countries, including more European countries as well as Sri Lanka, Singapore, and Thailand, have now been affected by contamination from genetically modified (GM) flax in Canadian exports since contamination was first reported on September 8.
Mere weeks are left before farmers in Canada finish harvesting their flax and yet farmers still don't know the source or full extent of the GM contamination - and it could be weeks before authorities in Canada confirm any details. Flax prices remain depressed.
GM flax is not approved for human consumption in the following 28 countries where contamination has now reached: Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium, Sweden, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Croatia, Czech Republic, Spain, Denmark, Estonia, Norway, Finland, France, Greece, Romania, Portugal, Iceland, Republic of Korea, Singapore, Thailand, Sri Lanka and Mauritius. Companies are removing products from the market as the GM flax has been found in cereals, bakery products, bakery mixtures and nut/seed products. 9 GM flax contamination notices have been filed so far through the European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed.
European authorities have named the source of contamination as the GM flax "Triffid", which was developed in Canada but was deregistered in 2001 and has been illegal to sell since that time. While there is a test for the Triffid flax available from the company Genetic ID, the Flax Council of Canada is delaying confirmation as it waits for the Plant Biotechnology Institute in Saskatoon to develop a new test for Triffid.
"Its been nearly a month since contamination was first found, but neither the Canadian government nor industry has come forward with any answers," said Stewart Wells, President of the National Farmers Union of Canada. "The continued uncertainty and unanswered questions show the need for more strict regulation of GM crops in Canada.”
"Farmers face the threat of unwanted contamination from GM crops, even when the crops are not supposed to be grown," said Arnold Taylor an organic flax grower and Chair of the Organic Agriculture Protection Fund of the Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. "Someone's going to have to pay for testing our crops for contamination and any required clean-up. Who will be liable?"
"The Canadian government still refuses to consider market harm when they decide to approve GM crops. This obviously has to change immediately," said Lucy Sharratt, Coordinator of the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network. "The entire regulatory system needs urgent reform or we will see even more widespread market chaos."28 countries, including more European countries as well as Sri Lanka, Singapore, and... more
-
-
Dr M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in India, finally stated his views on genetically-modified (GM) crops in an opinion piece published on August 26, 2009, in this newspaper. GM crops are produced by inserting foreign genes, mostly non-plant genes (bacterial, viral and animal genes) for obtaining hitherto non-existent, new characteristics in a crop. For instance, the Bt class of GM crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, have been engineered at the genetic level by the insertion of a bacterial gene so that the plant produces its own poison against chosen pests that feed on the crop.
Dr Swaminathan, who headed a task force on agri-biotechnology which gave its report in 2004 to the ministry of agriculture, began his report by reiterating what many of us believe: That "if agriculture goes wrong, nothing else will have a chance to go right". The report emphasises that the bottomline with regard to any policy on agri-biotechnology is "the safety of the environment, the well-being of farming families, the ecological and economic sustainability of farming systems, the health and nutrition security of consumers, safeguarding of home and external trade and the bio-security of our nation".
After presenting such a comprehensive requirement around any policy-making on GM crops in that report, it was surprising to see this recent article hype up the so-called benefits of GM crops and play down valid concerns.
Let me begin with some fundamental issues that Dr Swaminathan did not touch upon:
l Genetic modification by insertion of new genes is now known to cause mutations all along the genome of an organism and at the site of insertion.
l We have not yet understood the full complexity of the genomic regulation in an organism and, therefore, the changes brought about by genetic modification are unknown and also unpredictable. This is where the primary concern about this technology stems from — scientific evidence exists to show that the changes made are unsafe from an environmental and human health perspective. A fundamental flaw in Dr Swaminathan’s article was to make it appear that what is inherently unsafe can be made safe through regulation!
At another level, Dr Swaminathan talks about various GM crops and their benefits — it is interesting to note that except for the insect-resistance trait that he expands upon, none of the other crops actually exist! In reality, two kinds of GM crops exist — those that produce a pesticide from within the plant, like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal (sought to be introduced in India for the first time in the world, developed mostly by American agencies), and those that assimilate application of more pesticides and confer herbicide-tolerance characteristic to a crop. In fact, herbicide tolerance is the trait in nearly 81 per cent of the GM crop cultivation in the world today. Dr Swaminathan’s report talks about how this should be of low priority given the large number of agricultural labourers in various regions of the country. Today, several field trials of GM crops in India are centered around this trait — does it make sense to destroy existing opportunities of employment in agriculture and then create more and more budgets for National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (NREGA) kind of programmes?
Coming to crops like Bt cotton and Bt brinjal, where pesticide is now inside the plant, the central question is why such solutions are needed when safer ways of pest management are known and practiced. Within the National Agricultural Research System (NARS), from where recommendations to be carried to farmers about various desirable practices emerge, there are numerous examples of successful non-chemical pest management practices. In addition, hundreds of farmers practicing organic/ecological farming have their own successful experiences and innovations to share about non-chemical pest management.
more at the link.Dr M.S. Swaminathan, considered the Father of the Green Revolution in India, finally... more
-
-
Jabalpur: On the eve of Gandhi Jayanti and in protest against the GM Corn open air field trial happening in Jabalpur, more than one thousand five hundred farmers from 20 districts of Madhya Pradesh gathered here today for a peaceful, non-violent demonstration and demanded that the state government declare Madhya Pradesh as a GM-Free state. The activists pointed out that the state government already took the progressive step of declaring that Madhya Pradesh would be made into an organic state. It follows naturally that there should be no GM crop trials or cultivation in the state, they pointed out.
Mr Jayant Verma of Hamara Beej Abhiyan said that companies like Monsanto were notorious for their anti-farmer activities and if GM seeds like Monsanto's GM Corn are allowed, farmers' rights over their seeds and therefore, their agriculture, would be seriously jeopardized. The state government should, as a real solution to the current agrarian distress in the state, should shift farmers towards low-cost, toxic-free ecological farming practices, he said.
The GM Corn trial underway in open air conditions in Jabalpur consists of Monsanto's proprietary technologies centred around herbicide tolerance and insect-resistance and has been sown with the permission of the Central Government. "Both Agriculture and Health are state subjects as per the Indian Constitution. The state government should immediately intervene and exercise its policy of making MP into an organic state", demanded Mr Nilesh Desai of Beej Swaraj Abhiyan.
It is also apparent that the state level apparatus laid down under the Environment Protection Act's 1989 Rules is missing in Madhya Pradesh.
"It is ridiculous to pump in crores of rupees for supporting rural employment in the form of NREGA and then take away existing employment potential in agriculture, especially for women and poor agricultural workers, by bringing in technologies like herbicide tolerance", stated Mr Brij Kishore Chaurasia of Adivasi Sushasan Sangh.
"GM crops do not increase yields as claimed by the industry and pro-GM scientists and it is apparent in the case of Bt Cotton in Madhya Pradesh. This technology, which is irreversible and uncontrollable, will be a bigger trap for farmers than the earlier corporate-driven agricultural technologies. The state government, for the sake of farmers and agricultural workers in Madhya Pradesh, should immediately destroy this trial plot and not allow any more trials in the state like other states like Kerala", said Mr Ishwar Tripathi of Bhartiya Kissan Union. "In this kind of neo-colonialism, agriculture and seeds have become the medium to enslave Indian farmers and we should resist this at all costs".
Mr Sachin Jain from the Right To Food Campaign, MP informed that GM foods are known to cause many adverse health effects and with such unsafe foods, a precautionary approach is the only way forward. He demanded that GM foods should be prohibited through the proposed Right to Food/National Food Security Act.
The protestors burnt the effigy of Monsanto and presented a memorandum in the name of the Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh to the district authorities.
A traditional tribal ritual for banishing evil forces like Monsanto and GM Corn was also enacted by the tribal activists. Further, a funeral procession of GM Corn was taken up in a rally through the city. More than 40 networks, groups and organizations that joined this huge protest included: Coalition for a GM-Free MP, Beej Swaraj Abhiyan, Hamara Beej Abhiyan, Lok Jagriti Manch, Bhartiya Kissan Union, Dalit evam Adivasi Mahapanchayat, Right to Food Campaign, Madhyanchal Forum, Kissan Sangharsh Samiti, Jan Pahal, Nagarik Adhikar Manch, Bargi Bandh Visthapith evam Prabhavit Sangh, Adivasi Sushasan Sangh, etc.Jabalpur: On the eve of Gandhi Jayanti and in protest against the GM Corn open air... more
-
-
Don't fall for their lies.
Excerpt:
The compelling humanitarian goals expressed today at the corporately sponsored Global Harvest Initiative symposium were laudable, as were some of the hunger-relief projects cited. Missing, however, was an honest assessment of the limits of dead-end chemical agriculture to play a leading role in actually feeding people.
Also absent from the high-powered forum was a prominent role for what organic agriculture is already doing to meet the most important goals on the food-hunger-nutrition side of the problem.
The event, despite all the good people presenting and all the calls for curbing the environmental harm of chemical ag, amounted to glitzy green packaging for the same unnecessary gift of chemical dependence for the world's farmers. GHI is sponsored by ADM, DuPont, John Deere and Monsanto. (Yes, the same Monsanto which has promised to double its profits by 2012 with continuing introductions of "high impact technology" seeds.)
In his opening remarks, GHI executive director William Lesher placed the focus firmly on the need for more food, highlighting a projected "productivity gap" that will require a doubling of current world food output by 2050. This thinking follows the outlines of a white paper by GHI in April: "Accelerating Productivity Growth: The 21st Century Global Agriculture Challenge: A White Paper on Agricultural Policy." Yet more food alone won't help starving people until the global agricultural system radically shifts its focus to address the barriers of poverty (the inability to buy food) and distribution (getting food people want to where they are).
By framing global food security in terms of "not enough food," the Global Harvest Initiative seems stuck on doing the same old thing harder and faster. It backers still push expensive seeds and continued dependence on climate-damaging inputs. Organic and near-organic techniques offer robust, biodiverse, productive and regenerative systems that can out-produce chemical approaches in drier and wetter seasons.
The symposium's highlighting of groups seeking environmental and social benefits may do some good -- if the groups can break industrial ag's profit-driven willingness to sacrifice soil vitality, agricultural biodiversity, human endocrine and neurological health, farmer control of seeds and a nation's nutritional well-being. Or it may just be the best agri-greenwashing money can buy.
Sustainable Agriculture Group:
http://current.com/groups/sustainable-agriculture/Don't fall for their lies.
Excerpt:
The compelling humanitarian goals expressed... more
-
-
Japan's government is listening to its people. Hello, Mr. President?
_________
Australia’s canola exports are likely to be significantly impacted by the change of government in Japan. The Democratic Party of Japan has pledged to implement stringent GE labelling laws.The Government's pledge reflects the overwhelming Japanese distrust of genetically engineered (GE) food.
The party has said it will establish a food traceability system and has repeatedly called for more stringent labelling of GE food. Japan already has mandatory labelling of some GE foods and it is expected that new labelling laws will extend to processed foods such as GE canola oil.
Greenpeace GE campaigner Michelle Sheather says the change in government in Japan and the new position on GE food labelling will have major implications for Australia: “This is highly significant, since Japan is a major export market for Australian canola,” Ms Sheather said. “Tighter labelling laws will likely lead to greater demand for GE-free canola products, and lower demand for food products that need to be labelled as containing GE ingredients.”
In Australia, GE canola is grown commercially in small quantities in NSW and Victoria, and Western Australia is currently reviewing the Act concerning its moratorium on GE crops. A number of Japanese groups made submissions to Western Australia’s Review of the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Act 2003. These include the Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Cooperative Union and the Consumers Union of Japan.
Seikatsu - an umbrella group of 29 Seikatsu Club Consumers’ Co-Operatives - and its oil crushers Okamura Oil Mill Ltd and Yonezawa Oil Co. Ltd - all have non-GE canola policies. The groups stopped importing canola from Canada after the introduction of GE canola, when contamination made it impossible to guarantee a non-GE supply.
Seikatsu said in its submission: “[We] are concerned that we may be unable to buy non-GM canola from WA in the future…
“If a GM labelling system similar to Europe’s were implemented in Japan, a huge rejection of GM ingredients is anticipated. According to a poll conducted by the prefectural government of Hokkaido in October 2008, 80% of consumers feel anxious about eating GMOs. It has been claimed that GMOs are well-accepted in Japan, because Japan is the biggest importing country of Canadian GM canola but it is not true. In reality, a lot of Japanese consumers are eating oil derived from GM canola without knowing it.”
A survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project shows that Japanese consumers are overwhelmingly opposed to scientifically altered fruits and vegetables because of health and environmental concerns.'
end of excerptJapan's government is listening to its people. Hello, Mr. President?
_________... more
-
-
For the past dozen years, I’ve been writing editorials opposing the introduction of genetically modified crops. When I began, genetically modified corn and soybeans were still just getting a foothold in American fields. Now, of course, hundreds of millions of acres here and abroad have been planted to these new varieties, which are usually engineered to withstand the application of pesticides — pesticides usually made by the same companies that engineer the seeds. Even wheat and rice producers, latecomers to the genetically modified table, are feeling the pressure to convert.
There has been a frenzy in the grain markets in the past couple of years — a new volatility in futures and in prices on the ground — that seems to favor genetically modified crops. It makes sense. The cost of conventionally-grown grain goes up and up because there is less and less of it. This leaves the world open to the nearly unchecked proliferation of genetically modified varieties.
After a dozen years, I still oppose genetically modified crops. This may sound like sheer truculence on my part — a Luddite reluctance to accept the future. It is certainly dispiriting. Like many people, I feel, as I did a decade ago, that genetically modified crops were introduced with bland assurances of safety based on studies from small test plots, a far different thing from the uncontrolled global experiment we now find ourselves in the midst of.
Scientists are still discovering the extent to which genetic fragments from these new crops can drift into other organisms. There is still no evidence of catastrophic drift, where a genetic shard from a new crop cripples other organisms. But there is plenty of evidence to show that genetically modified fragments are turning up in places they’re not wanted. The worry is not just how widespread the altered versions of familiar crops, like corn and soybeans, are becoming. It’s also that many more conventional crops are being modified and that many more landscapes and ecosystems, yet untouched, will be planted with genetically modified varieties.
These crops close the circle on the farmer’s knowledge, finally eliminating, after 10,000 years, the farmer’s role in the genetics of agriculture. Genetically modified crops are rigorously licensed forms of intellectual property. Every seed is a binding contract with stiff penalties attached. This represents the final transfer of the collective farming wisdom of the human race into corporate hands. Only the minutest fraction of the DNA in a genetically modified crop has been modified. The rest is the result of the infinite elaboration of working farmers choosing their own seeds, season after season, over all those thousands of years.
But the trouble with genetically modified crops isn’t merely the fact that they’re genetically modified. It’s that they embody so completely the troubling logic of modern agriculture. They demonstrate the tendency of commercial seeds to drive out traditional, locally adapted varieties, a pattern that has been intensifying since the introduction of hybrid corn in the 1930s. They exemplify the consistent bias toward expensive high-tech solutions, when, in much of the world, simple low-tech solutions still make much better, and much more affordable sense. They foster the spread of commodity crops, grown for cash, in place of subsistence crops.
more at the linkFor the past dozen years, I’ve been writing editorials opposing the introduction of... more
-
-
For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged agriculture's dependence on chemical inputs, GMOs (genetically modified organisms) have yet to justify their role in a world desperate for more sustainable ways to produce healthier food for more people. In a recent report by the Union of Concerned Scientists entitled "Failure to Yield," a summary of on-farm production levels of genetically modified crops showed less than marginal gains in actual yield. In fact, the review concluded that "no currently available transgenic varieties enhance the intrinsic yield of any crops."
Let's Put GMO Food on the Shelf
Such findings beg the question: Who needs GMO food anyway? If GMOs are developed to increase yields, then they have failed. If they are marketed to reduce costs for farmers, and the price of GMO corn seed is now three times greater than it was just a few years ago, they have failed yet again. If these seeds are engineered to use less herbicides when, according to recent indications, many weeds are becoming Roundup-resistant, requiring a cocktail of herbicide applications in certain farming areas while crop land is just being abandoned in others, they have most certainly failed!
GMO defenders cite net yield increases per acre due to weed and pest management traits, apparently comparing GMO-chemical regimes with non-GMO-chemical regimes in traditional intensive corn-soy production systems. They don't compare the genetically modified pest-management results with non-chemical systems where organic corn tolerates higher weed populations without yield loss, and where insect damage becomes insignificant in most years once basic crop rotations are established and soil health improves. It seems GMO defenders have failed to take the varying approaches of these two systems into account, which leaves us with only a chapter of the whole story.
GMO Food Just Doesn't Make Sense
Despite the failures of GMOs, it is clear that their developers have not failed at making huge profits in a system where farmers are forced to market on volume, and have no market rewards for nutritional quality or penalties for ecological impact.
So what have consumers gained? Perhaps the answer is unclear. But I do know why we in the organic movement are so dead against GMO food. The answer is pretty simple: Genetically engineered seeds just don't make sense. Here's why:
• How can a seed variety that is costly to patent (and legally can't be saved for replanting) help poor farmers around the world?
• How can a seed that needs increased levels of toxins to control weeds be the safest option, ecologically or from a human standpoint?
• How can a seed that is artificially injected with foreign proteins be harmless to eat?
GMO Food and Human Health: The Hidden Consequences
Whether genetically modified foods are safe for human consumption will remain a controversial issue. Yet some scientists who have been quieted or marginalized have found serious concerns about the safety of GMOs in laboratory animal studies. In many investigations involving GMO-fed animals, there have been cases of underdeveloped organs, reproductive problems, accelerated aging and even death.
As the four As (allergies, asthma, autism, and ADD) rapidly increase in U.S. health statistics, we must consider that GMOs could certainly be one of the causes. As a matter of fact, in a recent position paper by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine, physicians across the country called for a moratorium on GMO foods because "there is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects."For a technology that has sucked up billions of research dollars and prolonged... more
-
-
In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the metaphor "food for thought" can also stand for manipulated information and be toxic food for thought. Unfortunately, Dr M.S. Swaminathan's GM: Food for Thought (August 26), is as manipulated as the genetically-modified (GM) foods which were the subject of his article.
Dr Swaminathan's first scientific manipulation was the argument that conventional plant "breeding methods are very time consuming and often not very accurate. However, with the recombinant DNA technology, plants with the desired traits can be produced very rapidly and with greater accuracy". This is scientifically false. Genetic engineering is a crude and blind technology of shooting genes into an organism through a "gene gun". It’s like infecting the organism with a "cancer". It is not known if the transgene is introduced, and that is why antibiotic resistance markers have to be used. Nor is it known where in the genome the transgene gets introduced. This is not "accuracy", it is literally shooting in the dark.
Further, the genetically engineered construct is introduced into existing crops that are bred by conventional breeding methods. Thus Bt Cotton (Bt stands for Bacillus Thuringenesis) is the introduction of Bt genes into existing hybrids in the case of Mahyco (a company that produces and markets a broad range of seeds developed with biotechnology), and into a selection in the case of the Central Cotton Research Institute. GM technology does not substitute conventional breeding, it is dependent on it. Thus the arguments of "speed" as well as "accuracy" are false.
The second scientific inaccuracy in Dr Swaminathan’s article is the claim that through GM technology "we can isolate a gene responsible for conferring drought tolerance, introduce that gene into a plant, and make it drought tolerant".
Drought tolerance is a polygenetic trait. It is, therefore, scientifically flawed to talk of "isolating a gene for drought tolerance". Genetic engineering tools are so far only able to transfer single gene traits. That is why in 20 years only two single gene traits have been commercialised through genetic engineering. One is herbicide resistance and the second is the Bt toxin trait.
Navdanya Trust’s recent report (Biopiracy of Climate Resilient Crops: Gene giants are stealing farmers innovation of drought resistant, flood resistant and salt resistant varieties) shows that farmers have bred corps that are resistant to climate extremes. And it is these traits, a result of a millennia of farmers breeding, that are now being patented and pirated by the genetic engineering industry. Using farmers’ varieties as "genetic material", the biotechnology industry is playing genetic roulette to gamble on which gene complexes are responsible for which trait. This is not done through genetic engineering; it is done through software programs like "Athlete" that uses "vast amounts of available genomic data (mostly public) to rapidly reach a reliable limited list of candidate key genes with high relevance to a target trait of choice. Allegorically, the Athlete platform could be viewed as a "machine" that is able to choose 50-100 lottery tickets from amongst hundreds of thousands
of tickets, with the high likelihood that the winning ticket will be included among them".
Breeding is being replaced by gambling, innovation is giving way to biopiracy, and science is being substituted by propaganda.
more at the link.In times when food is genetically manipulated and chemically contaminated, the... more
-
