tagged w/ transgenic contamination
-
Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be allowed to conduct its own environmental studies as part of a two-year USDA experiment. But there is no good that can possibly come of an experiment where the company behind nearly every genetically modified crop in our daily diets is allowed to decide whether its products are causing any environmental harm. And Monsanto isn't the only biotech company that will be permitted to police itself.
As it stands, the USDA is responsible for assessing environmental impacts of new GMO crops. The agency has been lax about this, to say the least. In 2005, the USDA gave Monsanto the go-ahead to unleash its sugar beets before preparing an Environmental Impact Statement. This decision triggered a judge to rule that Monsanto sugar beet seedlings should be ripped from the ground.
Because the USDA is so bad at doing its job on time, the agency decided to see if anyone else was prepared to do its EIS work instead. And so it looks like the USDA will at least temporarily hand over environmental impact responsibilities to the biotech companies behind GMO crops. The pilot program will allow these companies to conduct their own environmental assessments of crops or outsource the work to contractors.
The USDA won't actually admit that it's bad at performing its duties--instead, the agency claims that the move will make the environmental reporting process more timely, efficient, and cost-effective, according to the Federal Register (PDF). No knock on Monsanto, which is surely made up of great, honest people, but if the company has a vested interest in getting one of its crops deregulated, why wouldn't it try to fudge the numbers on an environmental review? And why wouldn't its hired contractors do the same? If this wasn't so dangerous, it would be funny.
cont.Monsanto, enemy of organic farmers and anti-GMO advocates alike, will likely be... 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
-
-
One year ago we saw a crime of nature unparalled committed by BP. As the Deepwater Horizon exploded sending 11 men to their deaths, a tragedy of immense proportion began to play out on our tv screens, and a twenty four hour feed of the Micondo well was made available for us to witness the killing of the Gulf and the species that live there.
This "accident" by BP in league with Transocean and Halliburton that was so much in our consciousness then has been relegated to unimportant by our media and our government. This crime, unpunished, the criminals, now left free to continue the very behavior that led to this environmental catastrophe as they also repair their image as the stories of illness and death are covered up and ignored is a crime against nature and a betrayal of our future.
And they think we have forgotten. They think we will let it go. They think they have escaped justice. I say, they are wrong.
And just like Jeffrey Smith, I too see the other more insidious spill that will affect generations to come for all time. The spill of an irresponsible science experiment already going horribly wrong. To unleash such a genetic storm upon the world with no idea how it can be reigned in if it goes wrong is not only irresponsible but criminal. But the companies involved and the biotech industry didn't and don't care about that. They knew there was much profit to be made from unleashing this on an unsuspecting global populace, and that even the ill effects could be used to profit from it.
This invasion into our ecosystems, our bodies and the generations to come can no longer go unchecked. It is grievously immoral to allow such a spill to continue especially being aware of the consequences now without knowing just how bad it will get in even ten to twenty years time. And just as with the Gulf disaster, it is government collusion with industry that has seen our futures sold to the highest bidder as our planet is used as a petrie dish!
People reading this, please understand the weight of what is being done to your world and act. We have the power, we have the tools, we have the voices. It's time for them to be heard. Our future depends on it.One year ago we saw a crime of nature unparalled committed by BP. As the Deepwater... 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
-
-
THE HOUSE yesterday voted into law a bill making it compulsory to display genetically-modified (GM) foods on separate shelves in shops and supermarkets.
GM foods and foods containing GM ingredients, will now be sold with a prominent sign stating clearly that these are GM foods, or food containing GM ingredients.
The law provides for GM labelling in three languages (Greek, English and Turkish), and stipulates hefty fines for non-compliance.
It was passed by unanimous vote, despite earlier concerns of opposition from vested interests, such as commercial quarters.
The passage of the law was welcomed by the Green Party, which has been pushing for tighter GM regulation.
“This caps our efforts of nine years,” said Greens MP George Perdikis.
The government bill passed yesterday was largely based on a legislative proposal drafted by Perdikis. He subsequently withdrew the legislative proposal as the government document has precedence.
Under EU legislation each member state is free to display these foods as it sees fit. The bloc also has tough labeling standards.
Earlier in the afternoon, the Greens had organised a gathering outside parliament where they also reiterated calls for Cyprus to be made a GMO-free zone.
Hundreds of administrative districts across the EU have declared themselves GMO-free.
A previous attempt to pass the separation bill was stopped in its tracks in 2005, after pressure from the US government.
cont.THE HOUSE yesterday voted into law a bill making it compulsory to display... more
-
-
On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company challenging the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should their crops ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed.
Monsanto has sued farmers in the United States and Canada, in the past, when there are patented genetic material has inadvertently contaminated their crops.
A copy of the lawsuit can be found at:
(http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf)
The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.
“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed or pollen should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”
Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed can contaminate and destroy organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually impossible to grow as a result of contamination.
Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa also face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops as well.
Monsanto is currently developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.
“Monsanto’s threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto’s genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now,” stated Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association. “Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace – to decide what kind of food they will feed their families.”
“Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts,” said Mark A. Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for The Cornucopia Institute, one of the plaintiffs. “Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington.”
In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT’s Ravicher, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case.
“Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false,” added Ravicher who is also a Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York.
Ravicher continued, “Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that’s not possible, and it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher. “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’s and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”
cont.On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural... more
-
-
A unit of Germany's Bayer AG has been ordered by a court in Arkansas to pay $136.8 million to Riceland Foods over the contamination of U.S. long grain rice stocks with a genetically modified strain from Bayer that decimated exports more than four years ago.
The judgment, handed down by a jury in Stuttgart, Arkansas, includes $125 million in punitive damages to Riceland, a farmers cooperative.
Bayer said it is "disappointed" with the verdict and is considering its legal options. It said the punitive damages exceed what is permitted by Arkansas law and will therefore be limited to the statutory cap of $1 million.
The judgment also includes $16.9 million in compensatory damages, with Bayer CropScience accountable for 70 percent, or $11.8 million, according to the plaintiff's attorney.
"We believe it's the largest punitive award in Arkansas in any case," said attorney Barry Deacon with the Jonesboro, Arkansas law firm Barrett & Deacon.
The award follows several others in U.S. courts where the agricultural biotech firm has repeatedly been found negligent for allowing a strain of genetically modified long grain rice to contaminate U.S. supplies, leading importers like the European Union, to halt purchases.
A spokesman for Riceland did not immediately return a call seeking comment.A unit of Germany's Bayer AG has been ordered by a court in Arkansas to pay... more
-
-
Premier Colin Barnett has rejected the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM) wheat in WA, Australia's largest wheat producing state, due to export market rejection.
Premier Barnett rejected the use of genetic modification in the WA wheat industry during question time on Tuesday. GM technology is patented almost exclusively to multinational chemical company Monsanto.
"I support science and I support research programs, but this Government has not made any decision to support GM wheat, and I do not expect we will," says Barnett.
The Premier points to rejection by Western Australia's major export markets as the reason for the state's rejection of GM wheat.
"We are not contemplating GM wheat and I did note Japanese consumers would not support GM wheat,” said Premier Barnett.
Greenpeace is now calling on Federal Agriculture Minister, Joe Ludwig, and the minister responsible for Australia's Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, Health Minister Nicola Roxon, to make public their position on GM wheat in Australia.
"Ministers Ludwig and Roxon need to follow Premier Barnett's lead and reject GM wheat in Australia, recognising the risks global consumer rejection of Monsanto's patented technology poses for our major grains export,” said Greenpeace Senior Campaigner, Laura Kelly.
"The federal government has approved trials of over 1,300 lines of GM wheat in Australia this year. Given the threat of market loss GM wheat commercialisation poses to Australia's wheat industry, the obvious question is why the Australian government continues to put their hand out for Monsanto's R&D dollars,” says Greenpeace campaigner Laura Kelly.
"What benefit do we get from developing GM wheat if no-one wants to buy it?”
"There is also a well established history of contamination resulting from GM field trails,” says Ms. Kelly.
"Can the federal government guarantee to Australia's wheat farmers that their conventional crop will not be damaged by contamination from GM wheat field trials and the resulting GM-discounting of their crop?" asks Ms. Kelly.
Wheat is Australia's most important food crop. Australia exports about AU$4 billion worth of wheat each year, and accounts for 14 per cent of the world's export demand.
Australia exports 80% of its wheat. The remainder is eaten here, but one of Australia’s biggest domestic wheat users, Goodman Fielder has publicly rejected GM wheat.Premier Colin Barnett has rejected the commercialisation of genetically modified (GM)... 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
-
-
New Zealand's Fonterra - the world's biggest dairy exporter - is under scrutiny over potential GM [genetically modified] contamination in the milk products it sells.
It comes after Greenpeace Australia questioned the controls on dairy farms run by an Australian company in which Fonterra has a controlling stake.
Fonterra refused to answer the environmental group's questions - prompting a red flag in the Greenpeace True Food Guide 2011.
Other food lines to be red flagged include Streets icecream, Continental Soup, Hellmans, Flora and Pro Active, all made by Unilever. Weight Watchers Cereal Bars and Muffin Bars, McCain pizzas and Sara Lee were also flagged.
Fonterra did provide a written statement addressing Herald on Sunday questions. The statement acknowledged that it only limited the presence of unwelcome genetically-modified proteins - it did not always eradicate them entirely.
"We continually strive to minimise unintentional traces of GE content," said Jeremy Hill, Fonterra group director of technology.
He declined to answer questions around where Fonterra's feed is sourced from, and whether the feed is tested for the presence of GM proteins.
True Food Guide co-ordinator Nathaniel Pelle said he had phoned Fonterra's [milk supply] general manager Tim Deane, after not receiving any reply to two written requests for information.
The general manager said the company was not willing to participate in the Greenpeace survey.
Unilever also acknowledged the presence of GM ingredients.
"We cannot claim that all ingredients in our products are GM free," the company said, in a written statement to the newspaper. "Where we cannot be 100 per cent confident on any statement, we will not make it - which is why as a business we don't make 'GM-free' claims in relation to any of our products."
Unilever said its products meet "rigorous safety and quality standards" but the company's complex supply chain made it difficult to avoid GM and GM-derived ingredients.
The products sold by Fonterra, Unilever and the other companies meet the standard, "generally recognised as safe ", as assessed by the transtasman regulatory body, Food Standards Australia New Zealand. The standard allows one per cent of a product to be genetically modified.
In Australia, food containing GM content must be labelled on the packet - but this is not required in New Zealand.
Sara Lee general manager Paul O'Brien issued a statement: "Verification as to the source of ingredients purchased by SLA will be the responsibility of the ingredient supplier."
Weight Watchers said: "The Weight Watchers method ... can be easily followed with or without the use of GM foods. Weight Watchers only uses ingredients which are 'generally recognised as safe'."
McCain, though, rejected its True Food Guide rating, saying the company asked suppliers to certify that the products they supply to McCain Foods did not contain GM ingredients, and conducted spot audits.New Zealand's Fonterra - the world's biggest dairy exporter - is under... more
-
-
The EU's highest court may classify honey containing traces of genetically modified material as "food produced" from modified plants. Such a ruling may enable beekeepers with hives close to GM crops to seek damages.
Beekeepers with hives close to fields of Monsanto genetically modified maize can't sell their honey in the European Union without regulatory approval, an adviser to the European Court of Justice has said.
The presence in honey "even of a minute quantity of pollen" from the maize is reason enough to restrict its sale, Advocate General Yves Bot told the court last week.
Damage claim
"Food containing material from a genetically modified plant, whether that material is included intentionally or not, must always be regarded as 'food produced' from modified plants," said Bot. Acting as an independent adviser to the court, he was tasked with suggesting a ruling, based on previous EU decisions. If the EU tribunal follows Bot's advice, which it is expected to do, the ruling could have consequences across the bloc.
This would be a huge success for "anyone wanting to prevent food and animal feed from being more and more contaminated with genetically modified material," said Achim Willand, a lawyer representing food producers. "Beekeepers are especially susceptible because bees collect the pollen of GM plants within a radius of three to five kilometers," he told Deutsche Welle.
Monsanto's genetically modified corn type MON 810 has not been authorized for sale on the European food market. If new regulations are established, making it impossible for beekeepers to sell their product because it has been contaminated by pollen from MON 810 crops, the beekeepers may be able to claim damages from Monsanto.
Zero tolerance policy
"Yves Bot didn't use the word, but the opinion basically translates into a zero tolerance policy," said Thomas Radetzki, an advocate for German beekeepers against genetic engineering in agriculture. "It would mean that any produce with even the slightest trace of genetically modified crop would become a GM food product, with all the consequences."
cont.The EU's highest court may classify honey containing traces of genetically... more
-
-
My most recent entry for those who requested to be kept current on what I post about.
Thanks.
Excerpt:
I am truly incensed about this as a person who has such a strong sense of what this planet is here for and our role as stewards. To see farmers actually sign this agreement especially if they do indeed read it they must be one of two things... totally desperate and gullible, or greedy. Unless of course, there is also the factor of duress being placed upon them by Monsanto through their goon squad. Who knows. There are stories about that as well... Cars pulling up in front of farms, farmers being threatened and intimidated, etc. Otherwise, I do not see farmers who sign this agreement as real farmers. Real farmers would not enter into such agreements because they cherish the soil, their animals, the biodiversity of this planet and the future much more than these lies they are being sold for profit. These lies for example have led to thousands of suicides in India, illnesses due to pesitice exposure in Argentina, loss of indigenous corn varieties in Mexico and biodiversity loss worldwide.
continued at link.My most recent entry for those who requested to be kept current on what I post about.... 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
-
-
I have read some outrageous lame excuses, but this takes the cake. Labelling GMOs to tell consumers what they have the right to know to protect their health would violate the free speech "rights" of the corporations putting these organisms in our food without our consent. Corporations are not people!
BTW, Forbes is the same magazine that named Monsanto their company of the year a couple years ago.
______
Excerpt from article:
"Put aside the outrageousness of granting corporations individual rights. The Supreme Court has sadly supported that principle time and time again. What really stood out was the precedent Lammi cited: IDFA v. Amestoy -- a 1996 case which struck down a Vermont law requiring mandatory labeling of milk treated with artificial growth hormones, aka rBST.
Talk about picking a losing argument! rBST is just as controversial (even more so in the public's eyes) as GMOs. Further, rBST milk has utterly failed with consumers -- despite the best efforts of industrial producers and Monsanto, the original marketer of rBST -- 60 percent of milk is produced without it (and much of the milk that is, is processed into cheese and ice cream). Even a recent last ditch multi-state attempt by Monsanto to force Americans to drink treated milk by banning rBST labels failed. And in the course of that failure, a federal appeals court effectively undercut the very precedent Lammi cites. In doing so, the court may have offered a legal roadmap for GMO labels.
As I covered in detail at the time, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last October that rBST milk is indeed substantially different -- in fact, unhealthier -- than untreated milk, despite FDA assertions that there is no "compositional difference" between treated and untreated milk. It follows then that there is no free speech issue since consumers have a right to know about compositional differences between products.
While this does not speak directly to corporate free speech rights, it does show that the courts will step in when it perceives corporations or the government to be ignoring scientific evidence indicating risk. The current circle of love between biotech and the federal government is predicated on both of them rejecting any science that contradicts their vision of a genetically engineered (or hormonally treated) future. Thankfully, the courts refuse to drink that particular Kool-Aid -- as we already know from the recent court battles over GMO alfalfa and sugar beets where the courts recognized scientific research that the FDA does not.
In reality, the labeling of genetically engineered food is a no-brainer. 87 percent of Americans want it. Europe has it -- and the world has not ended. The fact that the best the pro-GMO set can muster are warmed over half-truths and outdated court cases should be a powerful indicator that these guys, though with all the power on their side, are simply on the wrong side of history. And perhaps, with writers like Mark Bittman introducing these issues to millions of people, we'll start to see even that power shift."I have read some outrageous lame excuses, but this takes the cake. Labelling GMOs to... more
-
-
On the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from Friends of the Earth International reveals that the cultivation of genetically modified (GM) crops across Europe continues to decline – with an increasing number of national bans, and decreasing numbers of hectares dedicated to GMOs [1].
The report, 'Who Benefits from GM Crops?', reveals that less than 0.06% of European fields are planted with GM crops – a decline of 23% since 2008. Seven member states uphold bans on Monsanto's GM maize due to growing evidence of its negative environmental impacts. Three countries have banned BASFs GM potato due to health concerns, immediately after its authorisation in spring 2010, and for the first time five member states have sued the European Commission over the authorisation of a GM crop [2]. Public opposition to GM food and feed has increased to 61% Europe wide [3].
Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe said: "The widespread opposition to genetically modified crops and foods in Europe continues to rise because consumers and farmers can see that they offer no added value and only additional environmental and health risks.
GM crops will hinder not help our challenge of ensuring we can feed our global population with safe and healthy food."
Globally, the research highlights how even pro-GM Governments in South America have been forced to take steps to mitigate the negative impacts of GMOs on famers, citizens and the environment.
The Brazilian Government has launched a GMO free soy programme to help farmers' access non-GMO soy seeds. In Argentina new research has exposed how the herbicide Glyphosate, used on the majority of GMOs grown worldwide, could have severe negative impacts on human health [4]. This has led to bans on spraying of the herbicide near people's homes. In Uruguay, local areas are declaring themselves GM-free.
Martin Drago, food sovereignty coordinator for Friends of the Earth International said: “Farmers and citizens in South America are bearing the burden of ten years of GM crops with widespread health disasters and rising costs. The myths on which the biotech industry is built are crumbling.
The havoc wreaked across South America shows that this technology is not fit for purpose. It is a wake up call for the rest of the world to move towards more ecological methods of farming.”
'Who Benefits from GM crops? An industry built on myths' also finds that:
- A new generation of GM crops designed to promote the use of hazardous pesticides Dicamba and 2,4 D are set for release in the US. Biotech companies are promoting these as a solution to the failure of existing GM crops to control weeds and reduce pesticide use.
- Biotech companies, aided by the US Government are now looking to new markets in Africa in an attempt to rescue their business. The Gates foundation, which funds billions of dollars worth of agriculture projects in Africa has bought shares in Monsanto, giving it a direct interest in maximising the profits of GM companies rather than protecting the interests of small holders in Africa.
NOTES:
[1] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/who-benefits-from-gm-crops-2011.pdf
[2] http://www.foeeurope.org/GMOs/download/FoEE_Who_benefits_fact_sheet.pdfOn the day of the release of annual industry-sponsored figures, a new report from... more
-
-
Breakfast cereals, including corn flakes, bread and snacks are under threat after the US authorities approved the growing of a new GM maize.
The warning is significant because it comes from the North American Millers' Association, a food industry trade body, rather than green campaigners.
The new maize or corn has been genetically modified to be used to create ethanol, which is being promoted as a substitute for petrol.
However, wheat growers, food companies and millers in America, fear that food crops will become contaminated with the GM maize, which has been developed by biotech company Syngenta.
They say that changes made to the corn would taint any food products that it gets into.
The US Department for Agriculture (USDA) has allowed the growing of Sungenta's 3272 Amylase Corn without water-tight controls to ensure it is kept separate from food crops.
Once the crop is grown on a large scale in the US, there is every chance it will become mixed with food standard corn and be exported around the world, including the UK.
The issue turns the spotlight on the attitude of the British Government and the beleagued Environment Secretary, Caroline Spelman, to GM crops.
Britain is currently lobbying within the EU to allow crops tainted with low levels of non-approved GM varieties to be imported from other parts of the world.
The Millers' Association said it was 'disappointed' the GM corn had been approved without conditions.
It warned: 'Syngenta's own scientific data released last month shows if this corn is co-mingled with other corn, it will have significant adverse impacts on food product quality and performance.'
Association president, Mary Waters, said: 'USDA has failed to provide the public with sufficient scientific data on the economic impacts of contamination on food production.'
The corn contains a powerful enzyme that breaks down the starch inside the plant, which is a cost saving function for ethanol production.
The association said that it if were to enter the food processing stream, the same function that benefits ethanol production will damage the quality of food products like breakfast cereals, snack foods, and battered products.
The concerns are all the more important because the association is a well-known supporter of GM crops and food.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1359109/GM-cornflakes-Fears-U-S-approve-new-engineered-maize.html#ixzz1EeCgSJo1
cont.Breakfast cereals, including corn flakes, bread and snacks are under threat after the... more
-
-
USDA senior scientist sends “emergency” warning to US Secretary of Agriculture
Tom Vilsack on a new plant pathogen in Roundup Ready GM soybean and corn that
may be responsible for high rates of infertility and spontaneous abortions in
livestock. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Please distribute widely and forward to your elected representatives
An open letter appeared on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance founded and run
by Judith McGeary to save family farms in the US [1, 2]. The letter, written
by Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Secretary of
Agriculture Tom Vilsack, warns of a pathogen “new to science” discovered by “a
team of senior plant and animal scientists”. Huber says it should be treated as
an “emergency’’, as it could result in “a collapse of US soy and corn export
markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies.”
The letter appeared to have been written before Vilsack announced his decision
to authorize unrestricted commercial planting of GM alfalfa on 1 February, in
the hope of convincing the Secretary of Agriculture to impose a moratorium
instead on deregulation of Roundup Ready (RR) crops.
The new pathogen appears associated with serious pervasive diseases in plants -
sudden death syndrome in soybean and Goss' wilt in corn – but its suspected
effects on livestock is alarming. Huber refers to “recent reports of
infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in
cattle as high as 45%.”
This could be the worst nightmare of genetic engineering that some scientists
including me have been warning for years [3] (see Genetic Engineering Dream or
Nightmare, ISIS publication): the unintended creation of new pathogens through
assisted horizontal gene transfer and recombination.
Huber writes in closing: “I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years.
We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases
and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving
this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to
avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.”
The complete letter is reproduced at the link.USDA senior scientist sends “emergency” warning to US Secretary of... more
-
-
Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa is the first perennial GMO. It can cross breed with wild alfalfa and provide a rogue GE gene pool, greatly increasing the probability that eventually all alfalfa will become contaminated. Alfalfa is also considered “insectary” due to the large number of insects it attracts, which will also accelerate the genetic contamination. If GMO alfalfa follows the same path as GMO soy and corn, then within 15 years we should expect to see 80-90% of the 21 million acres currently planted in alfalfa to be of a GE variety. This means a serious challenge to producing organic alfalfa, vital for organic dairy. It also means a substantially increased environmental human exposure to the herbicide RoundUp, a known endocrine disrupter.
Plant pathologist Don Huber, PhD, professor emeritus of Purdue University, says the repercussions of introducing Roundup Ready technology to another crop, like alfalfa, could be disastrous. "If indications hold true, we're set up for the greatest disaster that this country or the world has ever seen, that will dwarf any major famine or drought that has ever been recorded," says Huber.
Should consumers choose to take their own action against this assault on human health, we wanted to point out some of the Land O’ Lakes brand names & licensees so that you can contact them and tell them what you think about their grand “little” experiment on mankind. Here are a few of the most well known names:
Land O’ Lakes
- http://www.landolakesinc.com/utility/contact/default.aspx
- http://www.facebook.com/LandOLakes
- (800) 328-9680
Purina Mills (Livestock feeds)
- http://cattle.purinamills.com/ContactUs/default.aspx
- (800) 227-8941
Dean Foods (Owner of Horizon Organics) packaging LOL products under license
- (214) 303-3400
- Dean Foods Consumer Response P.O. Box 961447 El Paso, TX 79996
- media@deanfoods.com
White Wave (Owned by Dean foods) packaging LOL products under license
- Land O’Lakes products: 800-878-9762
- jarod.ballentine@whitewave.com
- http://www.facebook.com/pages/WhiteWave-Foods/108451807072
Alpine Lace (Lowfat cheese products)
- http://www.alpinelace.com/contact/other.cfm
Of course you could also contact Forage Genetics directly at:
- Forage Genetics International, P.O. Box 339 Nampa, ID 83653-0339
- (800) 635-5701 info@foragegenetics.com
- Mark McCaslin, PhD, President - mccaslin@foragegenetics.com
If consumers let these food giants know that they will NOT buy their poisons, they WILL have no choice but to eventually listen
_____________
Time for a massive boycott.Perhaps one of the most significant points in this case is that genetically engineered... more
-
-
A major battle over Roundup Ready (RR) genetically modified alfalfa has emerged because it represents a huge contamination threat to organic and conventional agriculture, and opponents don't believe USDA's proposed plan to allow it to be grown with restrictions will work.
"More problematic"
Alfalfa is grown on 22 million acres in the US, making it the fourth major crop after corn, soybeans, and cotton.
Organic farmers use alfalfa extensively. "Alfalfa is a feed staple for all organic livestock, and the most common legume in organic crop rotations in northern states," says Jim Riddle, organic outreach coordinator at the University of Minnesota.
GM alfalfa is a huge threat because it is pollinated by bees and other insects that travel great distances and grows wild near roads, ditches, and yards. "You don't have that with corn, soybeans, or cotton," says Bill Freese, senior policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety. "Those things make it more problematic."
According to a paper by Geertson Seed Farms, one of the biggest potential problems is that GM alfalfa will cross pollinate with wild alfalfa, which will become the dominant weed variety because it has the Roundup Ready herbicide tolerant trait. Weedy GM alfalfa will in turn become a source of pollen and seed that will contaminate conventional and organic alfalfa fields.
"GM alfalfa will be everywhere," says Dag Falck, organic program manager at Nature's Path Foods.
5-mile buffer
USDA's Environment Impact Statement proposes an option whereby RR alfalfa would be grown with restrictions. The EIS lists production states according to three tiers. In 27 Tier 1 states, which include most eastern and southern states where no commercial alfalfa is grown, there would be no restrictions on RR plantings. RR alfalfa seed production would be limited in 14 Tier II and nine Tier III states where farmers must maintain isolation distances of five miles between GM and non-GMO alfalfa. Tier II states, such as Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri, are primarily in the Midwest and Tier III states, such as Arizona, California, Oregon, and Wyoming, are in the West.
EIS ignores roundup weed resistance, impacts on honey
snip
Freese and others question the need for RR alfalfa. "Only 7% of alfalfa is treated with herbicides. It grows so densely that it crowds out weeds."
Approving RR alfalfa, he says, will make it a "chemical dependent crop."
The EIS also ignores the impact on honey, and the fact that bees will gather nectar from GM alfalfa plants and convert into honey. "This is another entry point for GMOs (into foods)," says Riddle.A major battle over Roundup Ready (RR) genetically modified alfalfa has emerged... more
-
