tagged w/ transgenic contamination
-
Weeds in GM cotton fields in the US have developed resistance to the herbicide glyphosate to such an extent that this could threaten the sustainable use of glyphosate-resistant crop technology, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal. (Items 1 and 2)
This highlights the growing number of cases of GM crops developing resistance to the popular chemical used by numerous GM farmers around the world, most of whom grow Monsanto's GM crops which are developed to resist the company's Roundup herbicide.
In its new report (Item 3), GM Freeze said overuse of Monsanto's best selling product on monocultures employing zero tillage has created the conditions for weeds to evolve resistance very rapidly. It cited three examples of Roundup resistant weeds, namely Johnsongrass in Argentina, Horseweed and Palmer amaranth in the USA, which have infest thousands of acres where GM soya is grown. Weeds have also developed multiple resistance to two or more different types of weed killers, thus farmers are fast running out of herbicides to kill them.
The race to develop more chemical-based herbicides needs to end and a non-chemical method of weed control is the only solution to long-term, sustainable farming, according to the report.
With best wishes,
Third World Network
131 Jalan Macalister,
10400 Penang ,
Malaysia
Website: www.biosafety-info.net and www.twnside.org.sg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Item 1
GM cotton crops in US useless
By Will Ockenden
ABC, 12 January 2010
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/sa/content/2010/01/s2790653.htm
Genetically modified cotton crops in the United States are becoming
useless, as weeds evolve a resistance to the herbicide glyphosate.
In the southern cotton crops, mutant weeds are becoming so bad mechanical harvesters are being damaged, and weed control must be done by hand.
A scientific study has found that the herbicide resistant weed population could threaten GM crop technology.
The study was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.
In this report: Dr Todd Gains, study's lead author, University of Western Australia
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------
Item 2
(http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/12/10/0906649107)
Gene amplification confers glyphosate resistance in Amaranthus palmeri Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010 107:955-956
1. Todd A. Gaines(a), (1)
2. Wenli Zhang(b),
3. Dafu Wang(c),
4. Bekir Bukun(a),
5. Stephen T. Chisholm(a),
6. Dale L. Shaner(d),
7. Scott J. Nissen(a),
8. William L. Patzoldt(e),
9. Patrick J. Tranel(e),
10. A. Stanley Culpepper(f),
11. Timothy L. Grey(f),
12. Theodore M. Webster(g),
13. William K. Vencill(h),
14. R. Douglas Sammons(c),
15. Jiming Jiang(b),
16. Christopher Preston(i),
17. Jan E. Leach(a) and
18. Philip Westra(a),(2)
cont.Weeds in GM cotton fields in the US have developed resistance to the herbicide... more
-
-
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of genetically engineered crops. Named Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the case before the high court will be yet another step in an ongoing battle waged by the Center for Food Safety to protect consumers and the environment from potentially harmful effects of genetically engineered (GE) crops.
The modified alfalfa seed at the heart of the dispute has been engineered to be immune to Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Monsanto intervened in a 2007 federal district court ruling that the Department of Agriculture’s approval of GE alfalfa was illegal. The Center for Food Safety (CFS) filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wished to retain the choice to plant non-GE alfalfa. CFS was victorious in this case – in addition CFS has won two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: in 2008 and again in 2009. Now, upon Monsanto’s insistence, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
“This is truly a ‘David versus Goliath’ struggle, between public interest non-profits and a corporation bent on nothing less than domination of our food system,” said Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety. “That Monsanto has pushed this case all the way to the Supreme Court, even though USDA’s court-ordered analysis is now complete, and the U.S. government actively opposed further litigation in this matter, underscores the great lengths that Monsanto will go to further its mission of patent control of our food system and selling more pesticides.”
The federal district court required the Department of Agriculture to undertake an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) assessing the impacts of the crop on the environment and on farmers; the first time the U.S. government had ever undertaken such analysis for any GE crop. The court permitted farmers that had already planted to continue, but halted any further planting pending the agency’s re-assessment. That the EIS was required is not in dispute; the legal issue is only the scope of relief while USDA analyzed the impacts of the crop for the first time.
In October 2009 Monsanto asked the Supreme Court to hear further arguments. In response, the Center and the U.S. government separately opposed that request the following December. USDA completed the first draft of the EIS in December 2009.
“Although we believe a further hearing is unnecessary, we are confident we will again prevail, as the lower courts have already three times determined,” continued Kimbrell. “We hope that this grand stage will further inform the public, policymakers and the media about the significant risks of genetically engineered crops and the vital need to protect farmers and the environment.”
Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage. It is the first perennial crop to be genetically engineered. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading the patented, foreign DNA to conventional and organic crops. Such biological contamination threatens the livelihood of organic farmers and dairies, since the U.S. Organic standard prohibits genetic engineering, and alfalfa exporters, since most overseas governments also reject GE-contaminated crops.
“We trust the Supreme Court will uphold farmers right to choose their crop of choice and protect us from the constant fear of contamination from GE crops,” said Phil Geertson, an alfalfa farmer based in Idaho.
Related:
To view the recently completed EIS on GE alfalfa, supplementary documents and comment on the EIS, click here
A 2009 study showed that the use of genetically modified crops, the vast majority Monsanto’s “roundup ready” crops, has caused over the last 13 years a dramatic increase in herbicide use, by 383 million pounds, and concomitant harms to the environment and human health.
The U.S. Department of Justice has undertaken an investigation of Monsanto regarding violations of anti-trust and monopoly laws and is set to hold public hearings in spring 2010.
Another 2009 study showed that, despite decades of promises and hype, GE crops do not increase yields.
# # #
The Center for Food Safety is national, non-profit, membership organization, founded in 1997, that works to protect human health and the environment by curbing the use of harmful food production technologies and by promoting organic and other forms of sustainable agriculture. On the web at: http://www.centerforfoodsafety.orgToday, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a first-time case about the risks of... more
-
-
A federal court jury has ordered the German conglomerate Bayer CropScience to pay $1.5 million to farmers in Arkansas and Mississippi whose rice seed was contaminated with a genetically altered strain.
Friday's verdict was the second against Bayer CropScience for losses sustained by farmers when an experimental variety of rice that the company was testing infiltrated crops.
A jury awarded about $2 million to two Missouri farmers in December, and three additional test cases are scheduled for this year involving farmers from Louisiana and Texas as well as a rice exporter. No punitive damages have been awarded in any of the verdicts.
About 6,000 rice producers have filed claims against Bayer since the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in August 2006 that trace amounts of the genetically modified Liberty Link rice were found in U.S. long-grain rice stocks, according to Don Downing, lead attorney for the plaintiffs in the first two cases.
Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing genetically modified rice, bred to resist a Bayer brand of herbicide, at a school-run facility in Crowley, La.
Though the USDA said at the time of the crop contamination that the rice variety posed no health or environmental risk, Japan and the European Union moved to ban U.S. rice, leading to a plunge in rice prices and a drop in U.S. rice exports.
Downing said Bayer's negligence was directly responsible for the loss of the European market.A federal court jury has ordered the German conglomerate Bayer CropScience to pay $1.5... more
-
-
Ever felt that the approval of GM crops and foods by GM 'regulators' across the world has lacked transparency, due democratic process, and scientific rigour?
Then take a look at India for a lesson in how we can begin to take back the power we've given away to corporations and their bought-and-owned politicians and scientists.
Over the past week we've put onto our website (http://www.gmwatch.org/ - Latest News) a stack of documents from independent scientists and other experts submitted to the Indian government, commenting on its Expert Committee's (EC II) recent approval for commercialisation of GM Bt brinjal (aubergine/eggplant).
The approval process appeared to be based on junk science generated by the GM company Mahyco (a subsidiary of Monsanto), who created the GM Bt brinjal in question. Their data was not made fully public or independently evaluated.
When the approval announcement met with public outcry, the Minister for the Environment and Forests, Jairam Ramesh, intervened and launched a public consultation and review process.
In response, a group of citizens, independent scientists, and other experts stepped into the knowledge gap to shine a light on the questions and problems around Bt brinjal that Mahyco and its friends in the Indian government didn't want the public to know about.
For example, Aruna Rodrigues (lead petitioner in the GM Public Interest Lawsuit in the Supreme Court), with members of civil society, has set up an Independent Scientific Peer Review Panel in an extra-governmental process to do the job that the 'regulator' failed to do.
We'll continue to put more documents up as they come in.Ever felt that the approval of GM crops and foods by GM 'regulators' across... more
-
-
I will answer that question with a resounding YES. GMOs are the greatest scam foisted upon the people of this world. It is the most crucial environmental and social issue of this century and encompasses health, economy, environment (climate change), soil health, biodiversity, and our very lives, as well as our freedom. And the word is getting out and more people are fighting back. This year is the year to say NO MORE GMOs and fight for true food freedom and sovereignty! We do have the power to take back our food with our votes, with our voices, and most importantly with our dollars.
Take that Monsanto!
BTW, this is a great informative video explaining it in three minutes.
Too bad the US media is so complicit in keeping people ignorant to the real threats to their health and freedom. Thankfully there are organizations picking up the slack for their irresponsibility.I will answer that question with a resounding YES. GMOs are the greatest scam foisted... more
-
-
In addition to the considerable questions about the safety of GMOs and their effects on mammals, what about other potential side effects to crop producers of GMO crops and their use?
Dust is a common factor that all of us in crop production must deal with. Whether it comes from a country road or a combine harvesting a crop, dust is present in many places in rural America.
A crop farmer in northwest Iowa had some keen observations in regards to dust and decided to do some testing. This gentleman, who we will call John, noticed a significant amount of dust in the hog building where he custom feeds hogs. John gathered a sample of the dust from inside the hog building and placed it in a zip lock bag and identified it as hog dust.
John noticed an unusually large amount of dust around the combine when harvest was in progress in his brother’s Liberty Link corn field. Liberty is an herbicide with the active ingredient of glufosinate which is a nonselective herbicide similar to Roundup, Roundup contains glyphosate as the active ingredient. John collected a sample of the dust from the combine in the Liberty Link corn field and placed it in a zip lock bag and labeled it.
John also noticed a large amount of dust around the combine during harvest in his father’s Roundup Ready corn field so he collected a dust sample from the combine and placed it in a zip lock bag and labeled it. John then sent all of these dust samples to Midwest Labs and had a mold count and identification test conducted on the samples.
The results are as follows:
Hog dust Liberty Link Corn Dust Roundup Ready corn dust
Total mold count 14,000 cfu/g 7,200,000 cfu/g 15,600,000 cfu/g
Aspergillus sp. (other) 10,000 cfu/g 7,000,000 cfu/g 15,600,000 cfu/g
Penicillium sp 3,000 cfu/g 200,000 cfu/g --
When John received the results from Midwest Labs there was a note for him to call the lab. When John called the lab, they were interested in where these samples had been taken from. The concern was due to the health hazards that these molds could pose to people working in the environment where this dust was located. The lab strongly advised that anyone working in the area of this dust should a wear protective breathing apparatus.
After receiving this information from John, I called Dr. Elaine Ingham to discuss this discovery and then sent her the test results. After reviewing the test results, Dr. Ingham told me that if the Aspergillus spores get inside a person’s lungs, there is no antibiotic that is effective to stop the mold from spreading through the lungs. Few cases of Aspergillus lung infections resulting in death have been recorded, but possibly only because pneumonia, asthma or viral infections are assumed to be the cause of death when respiratory failure occurs. A fungus growing in the lungs has not been considered as a cause of death by most physicians. Nor does death always occur, as the Aspergillus niger mold growing in the lungs might just cause a persistent cough and respiratory discomfort.In addition to the considerable questions about the safety of GMOs and their effects... more
-
-
In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA) for its illegal approval of Monsanto’s genetically engineered (GE) Roundup Ready alfalfa. The federal courts sided with CFS and banned GE alfalfa until the USDA fully analyzed the impacts of the plant on the environment, farmers, and the public in a rigorous analysis known as an environmental impact statement (or EIS). USDA released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009. A 60-day comment period is now open until February 16, 2010. This is the first time the USDA has done this type of analysis for any GE crop. Therefore, the final decision will have broad implications for all GE crops.
CFS has begun analyzing the EIS and it is clear that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GE alfalfa farmers, organic dairies, or consumers seriously. USDA’s preliminary determination is to once again deregulate GE alfalfa without any limitations or protections for farmers or the environment. Instead USDA has completely dismissed the fact that contamination will threaten export and domestic markets and organic meat and dairy products. And, incredibly, USDA is claiming that there is no evidence that consumers care about such GE contamination of organic!
USDA also claims that consumers will not reject GE contamination of organic alfalfa if the contamination is unintentional or if the transgenic material is not transmitted to the end milk or meat product, despite the fact that more than 75% of consumers believe that they are purchasing products without GE ingredients when they buy organic.
USDA claims that Monsanto’s seed contracts require measures sufficient to prevent genetic contamination, and that there is no evidence to the contrary. But in the lawsuit requiring this document, the Court found that contamination had already occurred in the fields of several Western states with these same business-as-usual practices in place!
USDA predicts that the approval of GE alfalfa would damage family farms and organic markets, yet doesn’t even consider any limitations or protections against this scenario. Small, family farmers are the backbone and future of American agriculture and must be protected. Organic agriculture provides many benefits to society: healthy foods for consumers, economic opportunities for family farmers and urban and rural communities, and a farming system that improves the quality of the environment. However, the continued vitality of this sector is imperiled by the complete absence of measures to protect organic production systems from GE contamination and subsequent environmental, consumer, and economic losses.
Tell USDA That You DO Care About GE Contamination of Organic Crops and Food!In 2006, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) sued the Department of Agriculture (USDA)... more
-
-
Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide
2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world down the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global resistance.
It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever about not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the viability of the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from which the profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and resources.
The scene had been set in 2008 with the IAASTD report, produced by 400 scientific experts and signed up to by some 60 governments. That made it clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops had done nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, or the reversal of the environmental degradation caused by agriculture.
The IAASTD instead championed as the way forward: agro-ecological farming; and research conducted by the UN Environment Programme also suggested organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields without the accompanying environmental and social damage of industrial farming. The UNEP's analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. In 2009 the contribution of such sustainable approaches to cooling the planet was also widely acknowledged while news of Monsanto's attempts to dress up environmentally destructive GM monocultures as climate friendly earned it a worst lobbying award.
Mainstream criticism
But what was most remarkable in 2009 was the way in which criticism of the biotech industry went mainstream. Alarmingly for the industry, some of the hardest hitting criticism it faced was to be found in editorials and investigative articles that appeared in the likes of Scientific American, the New York Times, the Associated Press and, most astonishingly of all perhaps, the staunchly pro-GM journal Nature Biotechnology.
And in different ways they were all making the same fundamental point - the GM industry has been allowed to gain an unprecedented stranglehold over the use of seeds. An editorial in Scientific American, for instance, complained that 'it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers'.
The editorial went on to note that, 'food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny', and Scientific American called on the industry to 'immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market'.
continuedDespite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly raised the... more
-
-
There have been a series of scientific reports indicating side effects of transgenic Bt corn or potatoes on the animals. To quote a few:
1. In July 2008, Austrian researchers found that feeding rats a diet containing the transgenic corn NK603 x MON810 affected the reproduction of mice that was detected in 3rd and 4th generation in the reproductive assessment by continuous breeding (RACB) study design. Some effects on the kidneys were also observed.1
2. In November, 2008, Italian researchers concluded that “the consumption of Bt MON810 maize … induced alteration in intestinal and peripheral immune response of weaning and old mice.”2
3. In December 2009, Joël Spiroux de Vendômois et al., studied the rats with feeds of three main commercialized genetically modified (GM) maize (NK 603, MON 810, MON 863), which are present in food and feed in the world. They observed that it causes hepatorenal toxicity. Other effects were also noticed in the heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system.3
4. Mice fed potatoes engineered to produce the Bt toxin developed abnormal and damaged cells, as well as proliferative cell growth in the lower part of their small intestines (ileum).4
How can transgenic Bt food be considered “safe” when there are so many studies showing adverse effects of Bt foods? Some studies have shown adverse effects on 3rd generation at the earliest and that too by Reproductive Assessment by Continuous Breeding (RACB) study design. The toxicological studies done by Mahyco do not include studies beyond 90 days of exposure. How can we consider Bt brinjal “safe” without proper, multigeneration studies?
B. Variety of Adverse Effects Due to GM Food in General
Certain studies have shown that the GM food can change the cell structure itself! Two of them:
1. Researchers studied effect of feeding GM soybean on mice and found out that it caused significant modifications in the nuclei (irregularly shaped nuclei) in the hepatocytes of GM fed mice.5
2. Scientists studied pancreatic acinar cell nuclei on the mice fed on genetically Modified soybean. The modifications observed in pancreatic acinar cell nuclei of GM-fed mice could be related to the reduction in digestive enzyme synthesis and secretion and can influence the pancreatic metabolism in mouse.6
Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food consumption including infertility, immune dysregulation, accelerated aging, dysregulation of genes associated with cholesterol synthesis, insulin regulation, cell signalling, and protein formation, and changes in the liver, kidney, spleen and gastrointestinal system. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. Animal studies also show altered structure and function of the liver, including altered lipid and carbohydrate metabolism as well as cellular changes that could lead to accelerated aging and possibly lead to the accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS). One study, done by Kroghsbo et al., has shown that rats fed transgenic Bt rice trended to a dose related response for Bt specific IgA. Also, because of the mounting data, it is biologically plausible for Genetically Modified Foods to cause adverse health effects in humans.23
C. Increase in Allergic reactions
Allergic reactions occur when the immune system interprets something as foreign, different, and offensive, and reacts accordingly. All GM foods, by definition, have something foreign and different. And several studies show that they provoke reactions. To quote a few:
1. Rats fed Monsanto’s GM corn had a significant increase in blood cells related to the immune system.7
2. GM potatoes caused the immune system of rats to respond more slowly.8
3. GM peas provoked an inflammatory response in mice, suggesting that it might cause deadly allergic reactions in people.9
4. Scientists have demonstrated high immunogenicity of Cry1A proteins administered by intragastric route and cautioned the use of transgenic plants for human consumption.10
5. There have been reports of allergic reactions to Bt spray. The reaction was severe enough to cause hospitalisation in some of the cases.11,12,13
6. Bt toxin might also trigger reactions by skin contact. In 2005, a medical team reported that hundreds of agricultural workers in India are developing allergic symptoms when exposed to Bt cotton, but not when exposed to natural varieties.14
Although there may be many causes, it might be difficult to identify whether GM foods were triggering allergic responses in the population. Since our country does not conduct regular studies or keep careful records, we need to do allergic studies in great detail before GM food is permitted for human consumption.
D. GMOs are inherently unpredictable
It has been scientifically proved beyond doubt that genes are not carriers of a single trait. The effect of every gene is determined by the total situation in the cell. Therefore, the transfer of a single gene can not yield intended results and is inevitably unpredictable.
Insertion of transgene can lead to mutation, deletion and alterations of the genomic structure. All this can change RNA, protein, enzymes and other countless natural products in the organism. To cite an example,
The gene of soybean glycinin was transferred into potatoes with the aim to increase their protein content. However, the improvements in protein content or amino acid profile were minimal. In fact, the total protein content of the GM potatoes after the gene transfer became significantly less than that of the control line. Even more unfortunately, the contents of some vitamins were reduced while the amounts of both solanine and chaconine increased in the GM lines. In this light the claimed substantial equivalence of the GM and parent lines was not supported by the published results.15
As some of the changes are unpredictable and it is only possible to compare the known properties and constituents of GM and conventional plants. Unknown components are not looked for and in that case how can we analyse them?
Scientists have opined that just chemical analysis of macro/micronutrients and known toxins is at best inadequate and, at worst, dangerous. More sophisticated analytical methods need to be devised, such as mRNA fingerprinting, proteomics, secondary metabolite profiling and other profiling techniques.
Do we have facilities for this kind of studies? Are they mandatory at present? How are we going to label it safe without detailed investigations?
From Concerned Health Professionals for Biosafety in Food
January 19, 2010
To Shri Jairam Ramesh
Honourable Minister of State (Independent Charge)
Ministry of Environment and Forests
Government of India
Public Consultation on Bt Brinjal at AhmedabadThere have been a series of scientific reports indicating side effects of transgenic... more
-
-
Despite evidence that transgenes (from species other than the "engineered" species) in genetically modified (GM) plants can persist in the soil, little research has been done to determine the extent of such contamination. This is an important issue because environmental contamination by transgenes "hazardous implications for environmental health, including human safety," according to Canadian scientists who recently tested various soil-dwelling animals for the transgene (responsible for resistance to the herbicide glyphosate) present in GM Roundup Ready® corn.
They collected the animals in May, August, and October (macroarthropods and nematodes) or in May and August (microarthropods and earthworms) from a field of Round-up Ready® corn.
The transgene was present in all types of animals on all collection dates, with the exception of nematodes collected in August. About 81% of nematodes collected in October tested positive for the transgene.
More than one-third of microarthropods (thrips, collembolans, and mites) tested positive. And slightly more than 10% of macroarthropods (mostly various insects) and earthworms tested positive.
Concentrations of the transgene tended to decrease in nematodes and earthworms and to increase in arthropods during the growing season. Levels of the transgene in the soil (free of plant tissues) were usually considerably lower than levels in the animals. The scientists who conducted this experiment rather matter-of-factly note: "Whether the presence of transgenes in the soil food web presents a risk for soil animals is not known."
We admit to being quite astounded by this statement, which appears to indicate that GM crops are being used far and wide without a clear understanding of their effects on the environment!
The bottom line is that (for the first time after years of commercial cropping of GM plants) there is "evidence for large concentrations of transgenic DNA in animals from the food web associated with RoundUp Ready® corn.
This indicates that the transgene does not significantly degrade within the food web.
Further, the guts of these animals may provide opportunity for genetic transformation into native soil bacteria." And that last "opportunity" might lead to movement of transgenes into non-GM plants and ultimately pose risks to human health.
It could very well be the case that the commercialization of GM crops will produce animals containing genes that could do great harm to humanity. A perhaps enormously problematic can of worms (and bugs), indeed!
Reference: Miranda M. Hart (Dept. of Integrative Biology, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, CANADA N1G 2W1), et al., "Detection of Transgenic cp4 epsps Genes in the Soil Food Web," Agronomy for Sustainable Development 29(4), October/December 2009, 497-501. (EDP Sciences, 875 Massachusetts Ave., 7th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139.)Despite evidence that transgenes (from species other than the "engineered"... more
-
-
The Kerala Agriculture-Environmental Collective has called for a State-wide Fast on Martyrs Day January 30th 2010, with the message of Remembering the Mahatma, Stopping Bt brinjal and Protecting Food and National Sovereignty.
The Call for the Fast was given today at a Press Conference by the Minister for Agriculture, Sri Mullakara Rathnakaran, Smt Sugathakumari, Poet and Environmentalist and Dr V S Vijayan, Chairman, Kerala State Biodiversity Board. Members of the Collective also attended the meeting. A notice of the fast and a poster was also distributed to the media persons.
The Minister asked "people from all walks of life to join the fast. The main venue will be the Martyrs Square in trivandrum, and there will be venues in other districts as well. But those who cannot make it to the venue should take this call and undertake the fast, wherever they are". He also added that "kerala and many other states, following kerala's position have not decided not to allow Bt Brinjal. This vindicates Kerala's stand.". Welcoming the move by the Agriculture Ministry to join the fast Smt Sugathakumari said "that it is time to re-think on all these technologies that for years have enslaved and poisoned us, now they want to capture all our rights over the food, and keep us poisoned for ever. How can we allow these MNCs to decide the future of our food". Dr V S Vijayan explained in detail how the MNCs are trying to mislead the Governments and the common public by their propaganda. "If Bt Cotton was such a success, then why did farmers in Bt Cotton areas suicide ?" he asked. He also talked about the total genetic diversity loss that can happen when GM crops are introduced.
Sugathakumari, who had earlier talked to Prof M S Swaminathan, before attending the press conference, shared what the Father of Green revolution wanted her to share with the media. He had said that Bt Brinjal should not be introduced for three reasons - that an independent government owned testing facility has not done the tests, and it was based on only privately generated data ( he reminded Sugathakumari of his own recommendations in 2004 of setting up an internationally qualified lab for this purpose), secondly he said that consumption of thoroughly untested Bt Brinjal is like the case of tobacco - a chronic dosage issue, and thirdly, he said this should not be introduced in any agro-biodiversity hotspots, as it will destroy the indigenous varieties. He also shared that he has spoken about this to the Minister of Environment and Forests , Sri Jairam Ramesh on this matter.
Sri Mullakara Rathnakaran finally asked the support of the media to reach out the message to all, so as to ensure wide participation and success. Members of the Collective, S Usha and Sridhar R were also present in the press conference.The Kerala Agriculture-Environmental Collective has called for a State-wide Fast on... more
-
-
As we ring in the New Year, I am writing to give you a quick update about the progress we have made recently with Global Justice Ecology Project's campaign to stop GE trees, and to let you know about our plans for 2010 to prevent the large-scale planting of GE trees in the U.S.
Any day now we expect the U.S. government to issue a ruling to allow the planting of 260,000 GE eucalyptus trees across the U.S. South. With your help, we can stop them through a combination of grassroots organizing, public education and legal avenues.
Your gift will support a tour we are planning throughout the seven states threatened with GE tree plantations to raise awareness about the dangers and organize local grassroots groups to oppose the planting of GE trees.
Please support this critically important campaign with a contribution today. If you have already done so, thank you very much for helping us protect forests, wildlife and forest dependent communities from the devastating release of GE trees into the environment.As we ring in the New Year, I am writing to give you a quick update about the progress... more
-
-
If a cow eats it, and you eat the cow, you eat the GMOS. Where is the labelling? Where is the accountabilty?If a cow eats it, and you eat the cow, you eat the GMOS. Where is the labelling? Where... more
-
-
This next year must be the year we lobby this government to get GMOS out of our food. The risks are simply too great to continue putting the Monsantos of this world before our health and environment!This next year must be the year we lobby this government to get GMOS out of our food.... more
-
-
Agency said to be protecting Monsanto while ignoring concerns of the fastest growing segments of American agriculture.
A draft environmental impact study (EIS) on genetically modified Roundup Ready alfalfa released by the US Department of Agriculture ignores the threat of GMO contamination on organic and non-GMO farming and says organic consumers don’t care about GMO contamination.
Dismisses significance of GMO contamination
USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) released its draft EIS on December 14, 2009, and the Center for Food Safety (CFS) says the document dismisses the significance of widespread contamination of organic and non-GMO alfalfa. A CFS statement says, “It is evident that the USDA has not taken the concerns of non-GMO alfalfa farmers or organic dairy farmers into consideration whatsoever.”
CFS analysis of key findings of the EIS is listed below:
The EIS dismisses the significant adverse economic effects that GMO contamination will have on organic and non-GMO conventional alfalfa seed or hay growers, and organic and conventional dairy producers that rely upon organic and non-GMO alfalfa hay for forage.
The EIS’s economic analysis admits that Roundup Ready GM alfalfa will hurt the organic industry and small farmers but it fails to analyze or suggest any possible protections for organic.The EIS says there is no evidence that organic consumers care about GE contamination.
The last point is especially ludicrous, says George Kimbrell, CFS staff attorney. “When the initial National Organic Program rule was published, the USDA received 275,000 public comments from people demanding that genetic engineering be excluded from organic food. This is evidence that people do care about GE contamination.”
“Business as usual”
In 2006, CFS sued the USDA for its illegal approval of Monsanto Company’s GM Roundup Ready alfalfa because the agency failed to conduct the National Environmental Policy Act-mandated EIS before deregulating the crop. In February 2007, the US District Court for the Northern District of California sided with CFS and banned GM alfalfa. The court ordered USDA to go back and do what it should have done in the first place—evaluate the environmental and economic impacts of GM alfalfa on the environment, farmers, and the public.
APHIS’s draft EIS gives a green light to allow unlimited, nation-wide commercial planting of GM alfalfa. The draft EIS states that GM alfalfa, which is resistant to Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide, is “unlikely to pose plant pest risks and will not result in significant impacts to the human environment.” However, CFS says, “USDA plans to move ahead despite increasing evidence that GM alfalfa will threaten the rights of farmers and consumers, as well as damage the environment.”
“USDA’s announcement is simply business as usual, once again catering to Monsanto’s corporate interests at the expense of farmers and consumers,” stated Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of the Center for Food Safety.
Alfalfa is grown on over 21 million acres, and is worth $8 billion per year (not including the value of final products, such as dairy), making it the country’s third most valuable and fourth most widely grown crop. Alfalfa is primarily used in feed for dairy cows and beef cattle, and also contributes to pork, lamb, sheep, and honey production. Consumers also eat alfalfa sprouts.Agency said to be protecting Monsanto while ignoring concerns of the fastest growing... more
-
-
http;//www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19885.cfm
Facing antitrust scrutiny over its practices in the biotechnology seed business, Monsanto has said it will not stand in the way of farmers eventually using lower cost alternatives to its genetically modified soybeans.
In 2014, the patent for Monsanto's Roundup soybean seeds will expire, the first patent to expire on a widely used bioengineered crop since gene-splicing became a mainstay of crop science.
In letters to seed companies and farm groups this week, Monsanto said that it would allow farmers to continue to grow its hugely popular Roundup Ready 1 soybeans even after the patent protecting the technology expires in 2014.
The letter countered a widespread impression in the agriculture business that Monsanto planned to force farmers and seed companies to migrate to a successor product called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, which will remain under patent and is more expensive.
The issue has potentially broad implications for the agriculture industry because Roundup Ready soybeans will be the first widely grown biotechnology crop to lose patent protection since gene splicing became a mainstay of crop science in the 1990s.
Because farmers and seed companies would no longer have to pay royalties to Monsanto on the gene after 2014, Roundup Ready soybeans would become agricultural biotechnology's equivalent of a generic drug.
Monsanto's statement comes as the Justice Department is investigating possible antitrust concerns in the seed business, looking in particular at Monsanto, which dominates the business of supplying crop traits developed through genetic engineering. Critics, including some competitors, say that Monsanto has great leverage over the seed business and growers through restrictive contracts that must be signed to use Monsanto's genes or to grow the genetically modified crops.
Monsanto calls such criticisms baseless. But it certainly is getting harder for seed companies to avoid using the Roundup Ready bacterial gene, which makes the plants impervious to the widely used herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto sells as Roundup.
That allows farmers to spray their fields to kill weeds without harming the crops. More than 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States contain it. So do about two-thirds of the nation's corn and cotton crops, though those are protected by different patents that expire later than the soybean patent.
Gerald A. Steiner, executive vice president for corporate affairs at Monsanto, said Thursday that Monsanto was not changing its policy on how it would handle the soybean patent expiration, but was merely clarifying its intentions.
"What's different," he said, "is we have made a very comprehensive communication of what we are going to do."
But the widespread impression in the seed business was that Monsanto was backing away from a previous policy.
"The only thing we were told was that as of 2014 you would not be able to sell any more Roundup Ready 1," said Jack Debolt, manager of Advanced Genetics, a coalition of small Ohio seed companies that license the Roundup Ready gene from Monsanto to put in their seeds.
Monsanto's biggest competitor, DuPont's Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company, has also accused Monsanto of antitrust violations including, as it says in a lawsuit, an effort to "remove Roundup Ready from the market prior to the time when competitors will be able to produce a generic product."
Mr. Steiner of Monsanto said one reason for the company's letters this week was to counter statements made by Pioneer, which Monsanto has sued alleging patent infringement.
Roundup Ready seed can cost as much as $75 an acre compared with $30 to $35 for soybean seeds that are not genetically modified, according to James Beuerlein, a soybean specialist at Ohio State University. The difference in price is thought to reflect mainly royalties paid to Monsanto.
While Monsanto sells Roundup Ready seeds itself, it also licenses the technology to other seed companies. Some seed industry executives and academic soybean specialists say that Monsanto was not planning to renew licenses for that Roundup Ready 1 trait that expired before 2014, so that seed companies would have no choice but to move to Roundup Ready 2.
But in its letters this week, Monsanto said it would now extend all contracts for Roundup Ready 1 until the patent's expiration date. It also said it would not enforce language in some contracts that would have required seed companies to destroy or return Roundup Ready seed when the patent expired.
And Monsanto said seed companies could continue to sell seeds containing the Roundup Ready 1 trait without jeopardizing their access to the successor technology.
Monsanto also said that after the patent expired it would allow farmers to save Roundup Ready 1 seeds from one year's crop to plant the next. Monsanto said it would not enforce other patents that might protect those seeds.
Many soybean farmers used to save seeds, but with Roundup Ready seeds they have been contractually obliged to buy new seeds each year. Monsanto has taken legal action against hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers it has accused of saving seed.
"This is a pretty big concession for Monsanto," said Shawn Conley, a soybean specialist at the University of Wisconsin, who said saving seed could save farmers a lot of money.
Still, it is uncertain how long Roundup Ready 1 would survive in generic form. Some nations require licenses for the import of genetically engineered crops to be periodically renewed. Monsanto said it would maintain those licenses through 2017. But if they expired after that, American farmers would not be permitted to export the Roundup Ready 1 generic soybeans to certain countries, which would discourage them from growing those crops.
Monsanto said it was confident that most farmers and seed companies would move to Roundup Ready 2, which uses the same bacterial gene but places it in a different location in the soybean DNA. Monsanto said that Roundup Ready 2 crops would have higher yields, and that other desirable traits would be added to those crops over time.
>>> Read the Full Articlehttp;//www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_19885.cfm
Facing antitrust... 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... more
-
-
Looks like the letters, petitions, and protests will have to get louder on this from those of us who see the dangers of genetic modification. This I suppose would also mean he would oppose labelling of our food to disclose to consumers that they are eating test tube food as well as independent testing being disclosed on the safety of this fake food. This entire world will be polluted with Round Up glyphosate with farmers beholding to multi nationals for their own seeds that are not even theirs, and transgenic contamination will kill biodiversity in this world and agriculture as we have klnown it for centuries will be dead.
I surely hope Obama is not the same as Bush on ag policy. But if he is, he is going to hear it loud and clear from many about how genetic modification of our food is nothing more than a profit making scheme designed to once again subjugate the poor to the whims of the rich few. Very disappointing if you really believed his spiel about change. Even I thought he would at least have enough smarts to realize that there is enough to feed this world if the World Bank, IMF, WTO, and other NWO organizations in league with governments to hold back food to raise prices were taken out of the picture and farmers allowed to cultivate their own crops tradititonally and naturally.
I REFUSE TO LIVE IN A MONSANTO WORLD.Looks like the letters, petitions, and protests will have to get louder on this from... more
-
-
Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh faced angry protests at the consultations on Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) brinjal at the Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture here on Sunday.
The demonstration by activists of farmers’ and non-governmental organisations, opposing introduction of genetically modified crops began with the Minister’s entry at the institute.
The protesters, led by Andhra Pradesh Rythu Sangham president K. Ramakrishna, blocked his entry to the auditorium.
Others, including activists of the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch, raised slogans such as ‘Bt brinjal go back’ and ‘Monsanto agents go back.’ The exercise did not commence for one hour.
Mr. Ramesh lost his cool several times and prompted the police to “push out” the protesters after they did not heed his requests to stop shouting. He asked the protesters not to “bring disrepute to Hyderabad,” as nowhere else were such uncalled-for interruptions marred the public consultations.
After hearing a large number of farmers, social activists, scientists, doctors, representatives of NGOs and farmers and consumer organisations for more than two-and-a-half hours (a majority of them arguing against Bt brinjal and GM crops), Mr. Ramesh said he would announce his decision on the first GM food crop in the country on February 10.
“My decision won’t be influenced by any quarter, including scientists, NGOs, agriculture universities or Monsanto. Neither is there any pressure from the PMO nor the Prime Minister. My decision will be fair and judicious, and will be based purely on the outcome of consultations,” he said.
Mr. Ramesh described as unfortunate the polarisation of the debate from the beginning. It was not correct to dub those supporting Bt brinjal as ‘agents of Monsanto’ and the opponents as ‘anti-technology.’
He appealed to the scientists to educate the people on the facts, and not to add fuel to the fire.Union Minister of State for Environment and Forests Jairam Ramesh faced angry protests... 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
-
