Genetically modified food watch's topics - tribe.net

Obama, Monsanto, and Hillary Clinton's redemptive first act as Secretary of State

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 20:53:10 GMT

Monsanto and Hillary Clinton's redemptive first act as Secretary of State

by Linn Cohen-Cole
www.opednews.com

For those who hope Obama will bring something different to the world, we must first see clearly what is happening, and make demands of him that are profound, not show.

Liberals are pleased he may appoint a White House farmer to plant an organic garden. That is empty show.

Meanwhile corporations like Monsanto are moving rapidly to take control of food supplies ... and democracies, including ours. www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/1/192127/2714/736/691835

Obama chose Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. We cannot know what deals were struck to make her stop her destructive campaigning long after it was apparent she had lost. But we do know that Mark Penn, CEO for Burson-Marsteller, one of the world's large PR firms representing Monsanto. www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=392 advised her for years and ran her campaign. And when she showed up again, by Obama's side, suddenly so did a man named Michael Taylor ... also again.

MIchael Taylor is a Monsanto lawyer Bill Clinton once put in charge of the FDA where he approved Monsanto's rBGH. Hillary was back, and Obama was putting Taylor on his transition team. www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15710.cfm

Using the transition team's advice, Obama appointed Tom Vilsack to head the USDA, overriding 20,000 opposing "grassroots" emails. The objection to Vilsack? His deep Monsanto connections. www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

Hillary Clinton's connections to Monsanto go way back the Rose Law Firm where she worked. Rose represents Monsanto, Tyson, and Walmart - the world leaders in genetic engineering, animal production and industrialized food. She received favors there, as did Bill. In office, Bill's USDA immediately and significantly weakened chicken waste and contamination standards, easing Tyson's poultry-factory expansion, www.financialsense.com/ editorials/engdahl/2006/0828.html, and his USDA head, Espy, was indicted for bribes, money laundering, and much more, with Tyson was the largest corporate offender.

What happened specifically with Monsanto?
Bill appointed Michael Taylor head of the FDA and put other Monsanto employees in as US Agricultural Trade Representatives, onto International Biotechnology Consultive Forums, and more ... www.commondreams.org/headlines/072600-03.htm or www.monitor.net/monitor/9904b/monsantofda.html or www.mindfully.org/GE/Revolving-Door.htm.

Bill's Monsanto FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH - the first GMO product every approved. Despite bovine illness and deaths, and despite medical warnings of increased breast cancer risk in humans,
www.preventcancer.com/consumers/general/milk.htm

Bill's Monsanto FDA did not recall it or put warnings on it, www.wafreepress.org/14/Envirowatch.html or even require a label. www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Environment/Gag_Reflex.html www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14131

When activists protested the blatant conflict of interest of Michael Taylor, a Monsanto lawyer running FDA and approving Monsanto's own product, rBGH, Bill Clinton gave him a new job ... as Under-Secretary at the USDA. www.organicconsumers.org/miketaylor.html
What did the Clinton connection to Monsanto bring to us all?

Three profoundly disturbing things predominate:

1. Monsanto's control over our food supply through genetic engineering and its patents.

Bill Clinton not only helped unleash genetic engineering into the world, he pushed it as hard as he could, including sabotaging the international Biosafety Protocol treaty, and more. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20060827&articleId=3082

Genetic engineering has brought Monsanto immense and destructive control over farmers. www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf

2. Infinite and immeasurable public health consequences from genetic engineering (a very limited list).

Mae-Wan Ho, designated expert of the International Cartagena Biosafety Protocol and representing more than 578 scientists around the world said "At the end of the Cold War and as we approach the new millennium the greatest threat to mankind is not nuclear war but genetic engineering." www.heureka.clara.net/books/ho.htm

(The harrowing change to the world from nuclear fission and fusion is the closest parallel, but genetic engineering does not weaken eventually, it grows and spreads and leaks out into nature in infinite and unpredictable but multiplying ways.)

Over 30 scientific publications have shown that increased levels of IGF-1 in milk with rBGH increases risks of breast cancer by up to seven-fold, also increasing colon and prostate cancers risks. Canada, 29 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand, Australia, and South Africa ban U.S. rBGH dairy products. www.sustdev.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2127&Itemid=35

A French study which Monsanto tried to suppress shows a link between Bt-corn and diabetes. www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_776.cfm http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/service217.htm

There is an epidemic of type 2 diabetes in children, a disease not known in children before. Across the country, diabetes is up 90% in ten years. http://www.healthfreedom.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=582&Itemid=

There is a solid link between high fructose (Bt-) corn syrup and diabetes. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070823094819.htm
60% of our corn is GMO, with nearly 100% Monsanto "owned" traits).
2. Anti-democratic control over language and bizarre use of language to hide genetic engineering's presence. Clinton helped close off people's awareness and thus escape from genetic engineering through FDA non-labeling.

Clinton attempted to hide genetic engineering under false "organic labeling," proposing including genetically engineered products within "organic" standards. Massive public protest followed. query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DEED91E31F933A1575AC0A96E958260 Had this gone through, Monsanto could have labeled rBGH milk ... "organic."

Dairy farmers attempting to label their milk "rBGH-free" were threatened that all their dairy products could be confiscated from stores.

Monsanto continues to push laws to stop all labeling of GMOs (this is true at the international level as well). nonais.org/index.php/2008/02/15/monstersanto-in-kansas/

Since Clinton to today, the FDA insists that those who label milk rBGH-free state there is no evidence that milk is different from regular milk though independent studies show it is www.awionline.org/farm/rbgh.htm.

And as late as January 2008, Governor Rendell of Pennsylvania, a very close Clinton friend, tried to banned labeling of rBGH. The document deserves an Orwell award. www.agriculture.state.pa.us/agriculture/lib/agriculture/foodsafetyfiles/labeling/milk_labeling_standards_new.pdf

Today's FDA, also under Monsanto influence, allows a bizarre and profoundly anti-democratic (to the degree democracy is about freedom of speech) commercial by the Corn Refiners which sells nothing but promotes mockery of anyone questioning the safety of high fructose corn syrup at the same time it is strongly associated with diabetes and we have an epidemic of diabetes occurring.

Monsanto claimed it would not use terminator genes which make seeds go dead after one season. www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ENG20060827&articleId=3082

These pictures from India tell another story: video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6063387598655207801 and video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1482107411279204352&hl=en

Bill Clinton sided with Monsanto ... and anti-democratically and corruptly against farmers, against the right to know and freedom of speech, against public health and safety, against American's control of their own food supply.
What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton now?

Hillary Clinton pushed for a centralized food safety department when she ran for president, which would bring together a deeply Monsanto-corrupted USDA and Monsanto-corrupted FDA, giving Monsanto immensely more power over our food supply. She appears to have passed this plan on Vilsack who has now raised the same specter, while making it appear that "critics" were suggesting it. www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSTRE50P4TX20090126?rpc=64

Hillary Clinton, identified as concerned for food safety and for women and children, has never once spoken out
to demand labeling of dairy products associated with a greatly increased risk breast cancer and other cancers, or
against GMOs now proven a threat to fertility www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/ge-threat-to-fertility-11112008, or
against GMOs linked to diabetes, www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_776.cfm http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3329.cfm or against GMOs linked to cancers. www.ethicalinvesting.com/monsanto/bgh.shtml www.purefood.org/rBGH/rach598.htm www.ourbodiesourblog.org/blog/2008/09/breast-cancer-rbgh-and-yoplait-put-a-lid-on-it

She is Secretary of State now.

So, it is important to see how US foreign/trade policy have been at Monsanto's service and to see through a "show" of compassion.
Vilsack spoke on January 30, 2009 of "investing in programs that alleviate hunger and suffering overseas and support long-term agriculture development."

India: 180,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide over the last 10 years following Bill Clinton opening India to our Big Ag corporations, Monsanto leader among them. The suicides continue at the rate on one every half hour. www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/16367

Vilsack spoke on January 30, 2009 of "investing in programs that alleviate hunger and suffering overseas and support long-term agriculture development."

Africa: In Kenyan (where Obama is from) farmers, voice a view held by small farmers across the continent, put out the Thika Declaration.

We believe that God created life, and no one can own it, not even Monsanto, Syngenta or other multinational companies. We therefore reject all GMOs in agriculture, and call upon the Kenyan government to respect our indigenous expertise. Therefore to be able to fully understand the effects of GMOs on our livelihoods, health and environment, we demand a twenty-year moratorium on GMOs in Kenya.
www.grain.org/research/contamination.cfm?id=161

The newly-registered Kenya Small-Scale Farmers Forum yesterday claimed that the Government was being arm-twisted by multinationals to accept genetically modified food whose consumers become infertile as recently proved by German sheepkeepers.
allafrica.com/stories/200408230733.html

Iraq: Most Americans have no idea of the "freedom" we inflicted on farmers in Iraq, using Bremer's Order No. 81. www.alternet.org/waroniraq/62273/?page=entire

"As part of sweeping "economic restructuring" implemented by the Bush Administration in Iraq, Iraqi farmers will no longer be permitted to save their seeds. Instead, they will be forced to buy seeds from US corporations -- which can include seeds the Iraqis themselves developed over hundreds of years. That is because in recent years, transnational corporations have patented and now own many seed varieties originated or developed by indigenous peoples. In a short time, Iraq will be living under the new American credo: Pay Monsanto, or starve." au.messages.yahoo.com/news/localnews-vic/2527?p=last

Kissinger said control food, control people.

Hillary Clinton is Secretary of State. Monsanto is taking over food supplies around the world, using our government to do so. This is more than "agriculture" - this is Monsanto as US foreign policy.

I began this article with material on what Clinton had done through a corrupt connection to Monsanto, forcing genetic engineering on the world against its will and even knowledge and impacting health and democratic control over food. Domestically, Hillary Clinton, closely connected to Monsanto, remained silent about the risks of genetic engineering, its undemocratic non-labeling and its strong links to increased risk of cancers and diabetes.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton needs to get away from power and see the real people whose lives have been destroyed by Monsanto.
Sneeds to go to India and spend time with the widows and children and see what happened because Bill opened India to Monsanto. She needs to go to Africa and hear farmers angry that the US and their own corrupt governments are forcing Monsanto's GMOs and patents on them even though a huge UN studied proved organic farming can feed Africa easily and bring democratic and health benefits. www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/organic-farming-could-feed-africa-968641.html And most of all, since Hillary Clinton needs to go to Iraq and see that farmers and all future generations of Iraqis were robbed of thousands of years of their biologic inheritance by the US, working for Monsanto.

The American people were "sold" the Iraqi war with lies. They were told it was to help innocent people being crushed by tyranny and they wanted to help. Instead, Americans must now carry the moral burden of inflicting on Iraqis one of the most severe totalitarian controls ever devised in human history.

Monsanto is considered the most evil corporation on the face of the earth. articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/07/08/tthe-most-evil-company-on-the-planet-monsanto.aspx?source=nl

Hillary Clinton needs to redeem herself and Bill for what he did and she remained silent about, for Monsanto's benefit, and at the expense of all human beings.

Hilary Clinton's first act as Secretary of State, must be a redemptive act - for herself, for the United States Government, and for badly misled American who only wanted to offer freedom - the removal of the sadistic and fully fascist seed laws in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton must order that the genetic inheritance of Iraq stolen by Monsanto and the US be returned in full and that Iraqi farmers' freedom (something Sadam Hussein never took from them) be restored in whole so the Iraqis can exist and survive as free people, not as what the US and Monsanto have been reduced them to by stealing their seeds - dependent, easily starved slaves.
Vilsack spoke on January 30, 2009 of "investing in programs that alleviate hunger and suffering overseas and support long-term agriculture development."

It is time to see past symbolic shows of "the White House farmer" or empty compassionate words, to the immense threat coming at all of us through Monsanto influence over the USDA and the FDA. Our food supply and those of other countries are being taken over - in Africa as "charity," in India as "knowing better how to farm," in Iraq with all pretense put aside.

Here, Monsanto and other corporations use "food safety" or "public health" or "food security." But away from the show, they have written massively controlling and destructive regulations, www.opednews.com/articles/FOOD-SAFETY-REGULATIONS--by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-090108-947.html are planning to gain more power through a centralization of already corrupted food agencies, and have orchestrated Homeland Security regulations to be handy for military force, warrantless, seizures and destruction of non-corporate farmers' animals and crops, using "diseases" or "bioterrorism" as the excuse.

Hillary Clinton has a profound moral obligation to make up for what happened when she and Bill were at the White House. Acting as Secretary of State she must restoring stolen seeds to the Iraqi people's full and unlimited control - thus restoring democracy we took and which human ownership of seeds depends upon.

Millions of people around the world marched to try to stop Bush's war in Iraq. Bush did not listen. After the catastrophe that has happened there, the world must now ensure the United States stand up for the freedom it promised.

We would all applaud Hillary Clinton's moral courage in making her first act as Secretary of State the full restoration to Iraqis of what is theirs by birthright - the most basic of democratic freedoms and most profound of human rights for all people - the right to own their own seeds and control their own food supply.

This would not be "a show of freedom," with an entire nation stripped of survival necessities and left with servitude to Monsanto and US control as the reality. It would be democratic freedom at its most fundamental, what US citizens believe in and so many have died to bring to Iraq.

This much we owe Iraq, morally. For the Iraqi people and the restoration of their most profound human right to survive, people around the world would march again. It is where we must begin.

A great Secretary of State, working on behalf of a great President, must end the "show" of democracy in Iraq and deliver back to them what is essential for a true one.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

BAN MIND CONTROL/ DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

Native Flower — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:12:26 GMT

I know this sounds like science fiction or a conspiracy theory, but it's not. It is a complete reality and a huge danger to humanity. Please check out the following petition and sign it. As crazy as this may sound but mind control energy weapons is a reality. Millions of people are suffering from the mental abuse and torture of these weapons that are not openely talked about or known, or "declassified." The abuse is largely sexist and racist and targets people who are of certain ethnicities... primarily who are not white. The abuse is deliberate, cruel, and is done by directing energy beams, via satellite or other means, onto the body/person/ brain of the individuals targeting certain centers of the brain to elicit responses or actions. The companies, military, governments who are doing this also use sound weapons to direct sounds, subtle or not, vibrations and energy in the mind or environment of the victims to harrass, abuse, and control the actions of these individuals. Whether they are able to do control the person or not, they definitely abuse and severely mentally and psychologically hurt the victims.

BAN MIND CONTROL/DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

To: the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, see more...your Governor, Members of your State Senate, Members of your State House, the President of the United States, Members of the U.S. Senate and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives

Started by: Soleilmavis L

WE CONCERN ABOUT THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF THE FOLLOWINGS :- DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS; NEUROLOGICAL WEAPONS; MIND CONTROL WEAPONS; BODY AND BRAIN MANIPULATION WEAPONS; PSYCHOTRONIC WEAPONS; SPACE WEAPONS; NON-LETHAL WEAPONS; COINTELPRO; ANDany other unacknowledged or as yet undeveloped means inflicting death or injury on, or damaging or destroying, a person (or the biological life, bodily health, mental health, or physical and economic well-being of a person) through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations or the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.Please help to ban abuses and tortures of above-mentioned weapons.
Yours Sincerely,
Soleilmavis
peacepink.ning.com

"Mailtem" members of THE WORLDWIDE CAMPAIGN AGAINST the (secret) Abuse and Torture That Uses Mind Control, Directed Energy Weapons and Manipulation Weapons on Every Living Being.
peacepink.ning.com/forum/to...m-members

1.

This petition ends on Dec 31.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

The Future of Food

marvindublin — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 13:39:52 GMT

http://www.amazon.com/Future-Food-Deborah-Koons-Garcia/dp/B000BQ5IXM/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1248701760&sr=1-2

Netflix has it too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9pgq0bT8x4 - The Future of Food Part 1 of 10

I cant find all the parts. : (

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qU8XrioF4CE&feature=related

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

an article of warning

Kalonapossessorofpeace — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 05:13:37 GMT

Doctors Warn Avoid
Genetically Modified Food
By Jeffrey M. Smith

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine states,"Genetically Modified foods have not been properly tested and pose a serious health risk. There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation."

Last May the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) called on "Physicians to educate their patients, the medical community, and the public to avoid GM (genetically modified) foods when possible and provide educational materials concerning GM foods and health risks." They called for a moratorium on GM foods, long-term independent studies, and labeling.

AAEM's position paper stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. They conclude, "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation," as defined by recognized scientific criteria. "The strength of association and consistency between GM foods and disease is confirmed in several animal studies."

More and more doctors are already prescribing GM-free diets. Dr. Amy Dean, a Michigan internal medicine specialist, and board member of AAEM says, "I strongly recommend patients eat strictly non-genetically modified foods." Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it.".....

http://www.sentienttimes.com/09/June_July_09/doctors.html
--

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 5 replies

Food, Inc. Trailer

Sinja — Sat, 02 May 2009 15:54:05 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKYyD14d_0

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

No GMO Challenge

Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:16:57 GMT

Earth Day: No GMO Challenge Launches Today

Food Blogosphere Targets GMOs as Top Environmental Threat

Consumers Asked to Buy Eco-Friendly Non-GMO Products

IMMEDIATE RELEASE – (Los Angeles, CA.) This Earth Day, co-sponsors Real Food Media and the Institute for Responsible Technology urge consumers to take the No GMO Challenge to protect themselves from one of history’s greatest man-made health and environmental threats – genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The No GMO Challenge begins with a spring-inspired cupboard cleanout and a 30-day commitment to eating as many non-GMO meals as possible. Organizers of the No GMO Challenge hope U.S. shoppers will flex their considerable spending power during the No GMO Challenge to buy only non-GMO products, starting Earth Day. People who have already signed up for the No GMO Challenge include moms, farmers, chefs, scientists, physicists, biologists, home cooks, retailers and food writers who regularly blog about healthier foods.

Consumer polls show that 9 out of 10 Americans want GM foods labeled so they can avoid buying them. Nearly two-thirds of products on supermarket shelves contain unlabelled genetically modified ingredients. A controversial Food and Drug Administration exception made in the 1990s, permits GMOs to enter the food supply without adequate safety testing, say watchdog groups.

To help get the word out about GM foods, organizers of the No GMO Challenge are asking people to pledge that for 30 days, they will avoid GMO food made from the 5 main GM crops: corn, soy, canola and cottonseed oil, and sugar from sugar beets.

Ann Marie Michaels, the founder the Real Food Media Blog Network says, “We are asking consumers to try to avoid these foods and to blog about it, tweet about it, post about it on Facebook, and get the word out as much as possible. At the No GMO Challenge site http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/, we’ll have videos and news articles you can link to or blog about or tweet, and you can also just write about your experiences going GM-free.”

Bloggers can join a weekly blog carnival every Monday to share stories about GM food, and enter to win prizes every Thursday, from sponsors including US Wellness Meats, Zukay Live Foods and Tropical Traditions who will be giving away prizes like grass-fed meats, GMO-free salad dressings, and organic coconut oil.

The rolling No GMO Challenge, similar to the Eat Local Challenge launches today and will continue until GMOs are driven out the food supply, organizers say. Consumers are asked to organize, educate and build awareness about the dangers of GMOs until that goal is realized.

Jeffrey Smith, a leading expert on the health dangers of GMOs, says that Earth Day is the right time to draw attention to the environmental threat posed by GMOs. “GM crops concentrate corporate control of food, increase herbicide use without increasing average yields, endanger food security, are detrimental to sustainable and organic farming, and trap farmers in a cycle of debt and dependence. They shrink biodiversity, harm beneficial insects, damage soil bacteria, contaminate non-GM varieties, and persist in the environment. The presence of self-propagating genetic pollution might outlast the effects of global warming and nuclear waste.”

Scientists warn that GM foods may set off allergies, increase cancer risks, damage food quality and produce lasting toxins in the environment. GMOs also increase the risk of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria, due the use of antibiotic resistant genes in GM food.

Non-GMO Trend Accelerating

Worldwide concerns about GMOs have been accelerating. Recent government-funded studies in Austria and Italy linked GMOs to infertility, immune responses, and poorer health of new-borns. Other research links increased cancer risk to milk treated with genetically engineered bovine growth hormone has already forced most of the nation’s top dairies, plus Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Yoplait, and Dannon, to commit to stop using it in some or all their products.

Last week, Germany became the sixth European Union nation to ban the planting of Europe’s only approved GM seed—a corn variety by US biotech giant Monsanto, which is engineered to produce its own toxic pesticide. German Agriculture Minister Ilse Aigner concluded that it ”represents a danger for the environment."

Michaels, who is a rising star in the food blogosphere says, “The majority of Americans don’t trust GM foods and want them labeled. The sad thing is there’s so little information about it. Most of us are eating GMOs every day and we don’t even know it.”

No GMO Challenge co-sponsor, the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), wants to remedy that by providing free Non-GMO Shopping Guides for participants. Full of informative charts, tips, and non-GMO brand selections, the Guide makes buying non-GMO easy. . IRT’s executive director Jeffrey Smith says, “We expect the No GMO Challenge to magnify the current trend away from high risk GM foods.”

Blogger Sheri Ross Fogarty of MomsforSafeFood.org says, “The No GMO Challenge is particularly important for mothers, since children are most susceptible to the health risks of GM foods.”

###

Real Food Media is a blog network that publishes stories about food and cooking, food politics, farming and producing food, health and nutrition, and green living.

The Institute for Responsible Technology’s Campaign for Healthier Eating in America mobilizes citizens, organizations, businesses, and the media, to achieve the tipping point of consumer rejection of genetically modified foods....

No GMO Challenge Website: http://realfoodmedia.com/no-gmo-challenge/

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

The Future of Food

skooter — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 19:46:40 GMT

In part two, Dr. Vandana Shiva expresses her strong views about the problems of hunger in the developing world; the struggle of farmers in India; biotechnology, and her prescription for the type of farming model she believes the world needs.

http://cookingupastory.com/show/vandana-shiva-the-future-of-food-part-2/

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Bad News For Big Ag — GMO Crops Don’t Increase Yields

skooter — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 07:44:55 GMT

Food Renegade
Sunday, April 19th, 2009 | Author: KristenM

You’ve heard of GMO crops, haven’t you? GMOs (genetically modified organisms) are crops which have been substantially altered using genetic engineering. They’re unnaturally modified foods whose safety is dubious at best. (Many European countries have banned their use completely.)

And unfortunately, they’re quite pervasive here in America. 90% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are GMOs, as is 63% of the corn. These expensive crops were sold to farmers around the world by a handful of mammoth biotech corporations with promises of radical yield increases.

According to a recent report published by the Union of Concerned Scientists, those were empty promises.

While it’s true that we’ve seen crop yield increases in the fifteen years since the use of GMOs became widespread, the report argues that other factors led to those increases. In fact, when they contrasted yields of genetically engineered soybeans to low-input, organic yields for soybeans, the low-input crop outperformed the GE crop by 13%.

.......

http://ow.ly/3hQq

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Seeding Deep Democracy - Vandana Shiva

skooter — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 04:10:14 GMT

Scientist, activist, author Vandana Shiva talks about the importance of saving non-GMO seeds and her concept of 'Earth Democracy.'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsK3V04LAvw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

A SPIRITUAL C * NSP * R* CY

windwaterclear — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:46:36 GMT

A SPIRITUAL C * NSP * R* CY

We think this is so harmonically tuned to the spirit of Tribe and all of the mankind who are working towards a more peaceful, abundant, natural and consciously emerging planet. We trust you will feel the sentiment of it and pass it on...

with love and blessings

in the spirit of cooperation, family and global community

Sunny and Pierre Soleil

A SPIRITUAL C * NSP * R* CY

On the surface of the world right now there is
war and violence and things seem dark.
But calmly and quietly, at the same time,

something else is happening deep down.

An inner emergence is taking place.

And certain individuals are being called to a higher light.
It is a silent awakening.
From the inside out. From the ground up.

This is a Global operation.
A Spiritual C * nsp * r * cy.
There are 'sleepers' awakening in every nation on the planet.

You won’t see us on the T.V .
You won’t read about us in the newspaper
You won’t hear about us on the radio

We don’t seek any glory
We don’t wear any uniform
We come in all shapes and sizes, colors and styles

Some of us work anonymously
We are quietly working behind the scenes

in every country and culture of the world;
in cities big and small, mountains and valleys;

in farms and villages, tribes and remote islands.

You could pass by one of us on the street
and not even notice

We go undercover
We insinuate into the system

from behind the scenes
It is of no concern to us who takes the final credit
But simply that the work gets done

During the day some of us pretend we have normal jobs
But behind the false storefront and at any hour
is where the real work takes a place

Some might call us the Conscious Warriors
Rainbow Warriors of Light, Spiritual Activists,
Lightworkers, Shamans, Helians [healing beings]

However we know ourselves as,
we are slowly creating a new world

with the power of our minds and hearts
We follow, with passion and joy

Our orders come from from the Central Spiritual Intelligence or The Celestial Concourse Administration...
Whether it's the CSI or the CCA or our own deepest access to global consciousness
We are all dropping soft, secret love b *m b s when no one is looking

Poems * Hugs * Music * Photography * Movies * Gifting * Kind words * Smiles * Inspiration * Meditation & prayer * Compassion * Workshops * Community Gatherings * Dance * Social alternatives * Websites * Blogs * Random acts of kindness and outgoing concern for the whole before self

We each express ourselves in our own unique ways
with our own unique gifts and talents

Be the change you want to see in the world
That is the motto that fills our hearts.

We know it is the only way real transformation takes place
We know that quietly and humbly we have the
power of all the oceans combined.

Our work is slow and meticulous
Like the formation of mountains
It is not even visible at first glance
And yet with it entire tectonic plates
shall be moved ....

Love is the new religion of the 21st century
You don’t have to be a highly educated person
Or have any exceptional knowledge to understand it

It comes from the intelligence of the heart
Embedded in the timeless evolutionary pulse of all human beings..

Be the change you want to see in the world
Nobody else can do it for you

We are now recruiting
Perhaps you will join us
Or already have.

All are welcome
The door is open

author unknown

Welcome H.E.R.E. We love you

SunWaterClear & WindWaterClear

Harmonic Emergence - Return to Earth H.E.R.E.

http://people.tribe.net/windwaterclear H.E.R.E BLOG
http://harmonicemergence.org/ - OUR FOUNDATION SITE
http://www.panoramio.com/user/2861230 A photographic tribute to the hallowed forests we roam
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/justcamping/ SMALL INFORMAL FOREST GATHERINGS. More than just camping
http://www.everytrail.com/
http://tribes.tribe.net/harmonicemergence JOIN OUR TRIBE

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Introducing myself

coco — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:48:31 GMT

Just a quick hello to the group , new to this tribe, alot of interesting information . * WAVES HI *

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Why GMO's are harmful to Humans

Wed, 25 Mar 2009 23:55:26 GMT

Interesting article...population control too...think about that prospect!

http://www.relfe.com/GMOs.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

monsanto on why GM food shouldn't be labled

skooter — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:09:18 GMT

There's also some other tastey tidbits of feces on the "For the Record" press release section of their site. Especially the retort to the "rumors" of Indian farmers killing themselves over GM cotton.

What’s the Problem with Labeling Genetically-Modified (GM/GMO) Foods?
http://tinyurl.com/cvqgv2

food labelSince genetically-modified (GM/GMO) crops came onto the market, there’s been a lot of debate about whether foods containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled. Some people believe it’s a right-to-know issue, and all products containing ingredients from GM crops should be labeled as such. Others believe that since there’s no difference between GM and non-GM ingredients, labeling shouldn’t be required.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees food labeling laws in the United States. The FDA has determined that where genetically-modified crops don’t differ from non-GM crops, that products containing them don’t have to be labeled. FDA does require the product to be labeled if the ingredient is a potential allergen, or somehow changes the nutritional properties of the food. To date, no approved biotech crop is either an allergen, or has any significant nutritional differences from non-GM counterparts.

Some might ask what the harm would be in requiring the labeling of products. U.S. labeling laws are based on health and safety. Requiring labeling for ingredients that don’t pose a health issue would undermine both our labeling laws and consumer confidence. Ensuring that such labeling is accurate would also put a huge burden on regulatory agencies.

A better question might be: What would be the benefits of labeling products containing GM ingredients? Individuals who make a personal decision not to consume food containing GM ingredients can easily avoid such products. In the U.S., they can purchase products that are certified as organic under the National Organic Program. They can also buy products which companies have voluntarily labeled as not containing GM ingredients. The law allows for voluntary labeling so long as the information is accurate, truthful and avoids misleading consumers about the food. Monsanto supports both options.

Mandatory labeling of food containing GM ingredients might seem like a no-brainer. However, once you consider the facts, it becomes clear there is no sense in mandatory GMO labeling.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

who's buying organic?

skooter — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 06:15:42 GMT

This is a real eye opener I highly recommend that you give a once over.

It's a good run down of the creation, incorporation, merger and acquisitions, and distribution of organic products and their companies. It's quite an eye opener. I'm told it came from the Arianna Huffington blog.

http://www.msu.edu/~howardp/organicindustry.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

H.R. 857: Globalists claim dominion over US food supply

sean1234 — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:59:30 GMT

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:S.425

http://www.americanpolicy.org/sledgehammer/civil-liberties.htm

United States Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) has proposed legislation, H.R. 875, which would literally prohibit Americans from raising food for themselves, their families, or even for their animals, without the uber alles national government's permission! Extreme statement? NOT! H.R. 875 makes Americans serfs on their own land! Read on; this one bill could wipe the United States, as a free nation, from the face of the Earth! We urgently need your help to kill this extremely dangerous bill!

H.R. 875, the so-called Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009 (FSMA) sounds innocent enough at first blush, with language purporting to "protect the public health by preventing food-borne illness, ensuring the safety of food, improving research on contaminants leading to food-borne illness, and improving security of food from intentional contamination, and for other purposes." In reality, the FSMA is an extensive and all-controlling abomination that must be stopped!

The FSMA mandates registration of every "food production facility," which the bill defines as "any farm, ranch, orchard, vineyard, aquaculture facility, or confined animal-feeding operation;" and every "food establishment," which the bill defines as "a slaughterhouse..., factory, warehouse, or facility owned or operated by a person located in any State that processes food or a facility that holds, stores, or transports food or food ingredients."

H.R. 875 makes NAIS look tame. This bill will not just sweep up commercial food operations. The fine print of the FSMA will subject hobby gardeners, home canners, anyone with a few chickens, or anyone who "holds, stores, or transports food" - including mushrooms or wild berries gathered in the wild - to registration, extensive management, and inspection by a huge new bureaucracy, the Food Safety Administration (FSA)- even if the food items will only be consumed personally. And registration must be via "an electronic portal," which will be costly and difficult for those without computers.

H.R. 875 exponentially advances the "Foodborne Disease Surveillance Systems" required of member states of the World Health Organization (WHO), which includes the United States. "Food establishments" will be required to adopt preventive process controls, including implementing recordkeeping and labeling of all food and food ingredients to facilitate their identification and traceability, including instructions for handling and preparation for consumption. This might sound rather reasonable... until you remember the definition of a "food establishment" above.

Immensely telling of how seriously this bill does not take "food safety," though, is Section 204(2)(C), which promises the Administrator will identify the "5 most significant (food) contaminants", and "not later than 3 years after a contaminant is so identified, the Administrator shall promulgate a performance standard..." Gee whiz, what's the rush?

Perhaps the Administrator's promulgation timetable has little to do with acting quickly and decisively to protect U.S. citizens (or even "all people in the United States" as required by the FSMA) and much, much more to do with the World Health Organization's stated desire in its 2004 report entitled "FOODBORNE DISEASE MONITORING AND SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS" that "the objectives and strategies (of food borne disease surveillance systems) established by each country should be acceptable to all member countries (www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/006/j2381e.htm)," which doubtless would take time.

Perhaps it is because "studies linking pathogens in food to the disease in humans would help quantify the risk of food borne diseases." In other words, no entity, not the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and not the WHO, can prove a significant problem exists in the United States.

The FSMA will not even quickly implement protections for Americans from contaminated foreign foodstuffs. The bill states, "(n)ot later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act" imported food products shall be certified safe "by the accredited foreign government (think CHINA!) or by an accredited certifying agent..." Again, what's the rush?

Maddeningly, the FSMA expects Congress to again approve a far-reaching bill without knowing the details. In this case, Congress will find out much later:

what federal resources would be dedicated to foodborne illness and food safety research;
what transfer of agencies, personnel, assets, obligations, and consolidation, reorganization, or streamlining of agencies will be involved; and
the details of regulations the new Food Czar (Administrator of the FSA) will promulgate after enactment of the Act.

Among the statutory foundations the FSMA claims for guidance and authority is the National Animal Identification System, which HAS NEVER BEEN ENACTED INTO LAW BY CONGRESS!

But beyond the mandated violations of our civil liberties in the FSMA - registration, traceability, inspections, seizures, etc. (all without court orders or search warrants), - the truly chilling language lays out civil and criminal penalties of up to $1 million per day, per infraction, and imprisonment of five or ten years, or both, depending how serious the violation(s).

Additionally, "(a)n order assessing a civil penalty against a person... shall be a final order unless the person-- (A) not later than 30 days after the effective date of the order, files a petition for judicial review of the order in the United States court of appeals... (and) (t)he findings of the Administrator relating to the order shall be set aside only if found to be unsupported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole." The FSMA is so over-the-top in its overreach that the bill's language states, "(t)he validity and appropriateness of the order of the Administrator assessing the civil penalty shall not be subject to judicial review."

And if you're by now thinking this is about as outrageous as this bill can be, you'd be very wrong. Section 406 clearly states, "(i)n any action to enforce the requirements of the food safety law, the connection with interstate commerce required for jurisdiction SHALL BE PRESUMED TO EXIST."

Now, for those who noticed, and questioned, why "foodborne" is spelled as if we reside "on the Continent," and why the United States government is attempting to implement a "solution" wanting for a "problem" - you guessed it - "Foodborne Disease Monitoring and Surveillance Systems" are a priority with the World Health Organization, to which our national government has committed US through its membership.

The 53rd World Health Assembly (a branch of the WHO) in the year 2000 adopted a resolution to recognize food safety as an essential public health function and called for the development of a Global Strategy for reduction of the burden of food borne diseases. The resolution (WHA 53.15) encouraged member states "to implement and keep national, and when appropriate, regional mechanisms for food borne diseases surveillance." All this, despite the WHO admission in a 2004 report (www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/006/j2381e.htm) that "(t)he true dimension of the burden of food borne diseases is still unknown..."

The FSMA is a "government solution" in seek of a problem! In the year 1900 at least some cases in two of the ten leading causes of death might have been food related (diarrhea/enteritis, liver disease). But the twin leading causes were pneumonia, followed closely by tuberculosis.

In 2002, WHO listed the leading cause of death in the U.S. (www.who.int/whosis/mort/profiles/mort_amro_usa_
unitedstatesofamerica.pdf) as ischaemic heart disease, killing ~ 514,000 people. The second greatest cause was cerebrovascular disease (stroke), killing ~ 163,000. None of the top ten causes bore any relation to foodborne illness.

In apparent support of all this brazen, strong-arm command and control attempt, the CDC reports its estimate that every year in the United States sees approximately 76 million cases of foodborne illness (www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/foodborne.html), with 325,000 hospitalizations and 5,000 deaths (which equates to one death out of every 15,200 who become ill). Admittedly those 5,000 deaths are significant, and devastating to all those involved, but this figure must be put in perspective. We must consider the larger picture long before we even consider such draconian measures as those mandated by the FSMA.

Perhaps too little is known of reports that "iatrogenic events" - medical errors - kill almost 800,000 in the U.S. each year (www.whale.to/a/null9.html#Underreporting_of_Iatrogenic_Events_). That's the equivalent of six jumbo jets falling out the sky each and every day. Those who track these events believe as few as 5% and no more than 20% of these deaths are ever reported.

Clearly deaths resulting from foodborne disease are exponentially lower than these other major causes, which begs an obvious question: If Congress is so very concerned about our health, why haven't they felt inclined to tackle the much more significant incidence of iatrogenic deaths in this nation? Hmmm?

One need only consider the "Healthy People 2010" goals (www.healthypeople.gov/About/goals.htm) to understand the true (A)genda behind this initiative.

ACTION TO TAKE

The FSMA is an extremely dangerous bill. We recommend a multi-prong attack, as the more salvos we throw at the FSMA the better chance we have of killing this abomination.

Contact House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, via phone: (202) 225-0100, or email: http://speaker.house.gov/contact/.

Contact the House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, via phone: 202.225.3130, or email: www.majorityleader.gov/email_and_rss/email_the_leader/.

Contact the House Republican Leader John Boehner, via phone: (202) 225-4000, fax: (202) 225-5117, or email: http://republicanleader.house.gov/Contact/.

On March 11th Congress will hold its first hearing in many years on the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), conducted by the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee. It is vitally important you contact all the committees below.

Contact the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry Subcommittee members listed below. If one of the Subcommittee members is from your state, call that member.

Mike Rogers (R-AL)
Phone: 202-225-3261
Fax: 202-226-8485

Dennis Cardoza (D-CA)
Phone: 202-225-6131
Fax: 202-225-0819

Jim Costa (D-CA)
Phone: 202-225-3341
Fax: 202-225-9308

Joe Baca (D-CA)
Phone: 202-225-6161
Fax: 202-225-8671

Betsy Markey (D-CO)
Phone: 202-225-4676
Fax: 202-225-5870

David Scott (Chair), (D-GA)
Phone: 202-225-2939
Fax: 202-225-4628

Leonard Boswell (D-IA)
Phone: 202-225-3806
Fax: 202-225-5608

Steve King (R-IA)
Phone: 202-225-4426
Fax: 202-225-3193

Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Phone: 202-225-6611
Fax: 202-225-3029

Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
Phone: 202-225-5311
Fax: 202-225-0254

Adrian Smith (R-NE)
Phone: 202-225-6435
Fax: 202-225-0207

Tim Holden (D-PA)
Phone: 202-225-5546
Fax: 202-226-0996

David P. Roe (R-TN)
Phone: 202-225-6356
Fax: 202-225-5714

K. Michael Conaway (R-TX)
Phone: 202-225-3605 or 866-882-381
Fax: 202-225-1783

Randy Neugebauer, Ranking Minority Member (R-TX)
Phone: 202-225-4005 or 888-763-1611
Fax: 202-225-9615

Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Phone: 202-225-5431
Fax: 202-225-9681

Steve Kagen (D-WI)
Phone: 202-225-5665
Fax: 202-225-5729
Contact your own Representative and ask him or her to approach the Subcommittee member to urge them to oppose NAIS.

If you're not sure who represents you, click here: www.congress.org/.

We strongly recommend that you make at least your initial contact by telephone.

Additionally, H.R. 875 has been assigned to the committees on Energy and Commerce, and Agriculture.
Contact members of the Energy and Commerce Committee via phone: (202) 225-2927, or email: http://energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=1313&Itemid=1.
Contact members of the Agriculture Committee via phone: 202-225-2171, fax: 202-225-8510, or email: agriculture@mail.house.gov. Committee members are listed here: http://agriculture.house.gov/inside/members.html.

Make as many contacts as possible. Be polite, but firm.
Tell them Americans will not stand for this unwarranted and unconstitutional abrogation of our liberty!
Tell them THIS BILL NEEDS TO DIE IN COMMITTEE!!!
Visit the American Policy Center website

SEND THIS MESSAGE TO AT LEAST TEN MORE PEOPLE! APC is now offering you a quick and easy way to multiply your efforts and help win more battles! Simply click here to send this APC Action Alert to up to TEN of your friends! It’s fast, it’s easy and most of all, it’s extremely effective in KILLING OPPRESSIVE POLICIES!

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

GMO Compass

Sat, 14 Feb 2009 08:47:58 GMT

Does everyone know about this site? Lots of good info in there.

http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/home/

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Monsanto's "Rural Cleansing"

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:54:33 GMT

TAKE ACTION: Contact your local newspaper in the U.S. or congress people:
Investigate Monsanto's antitrust and criminal activities.
---
Monsanto Investigator in Illinois Laughs
They Are Doing 'Rural Cleansing'
by Linn Cohen-Cole
opednews, Jan 10 2009

As of last night, a US marshall, 2 state police and a county police are all over Mr. Hixon's area, serving notices to farmers that they are being sued by Monsanto. They arrive in pairs, with two cars parked a quarter mile and half mile down the road. They've served 3 so far and said "a bunch more are coming." No telling how many will be served since Hixon has between 200-400 farmers he cleans seeds for and these farmers have been repeatedly threatened by Monsanto thugs for the last two months, getting "visits," letters, and calls daily.

Farmers report that a Monsanto investigator laughed that they were doing "rural cleansing."

Steve Hixon is a seed cleaner in southern Illinois. He has equipment that takes the plant materials and "cleans" it so that the seeds are separated out and can be given back to farmers to save for the next season. It's a mechanized step up from farmers hand picking seeds off their own plants, which, with hundreds of acres - or even 10 - would not be easy to do.

Mr. Hixon has the non-distinction of being attacked by Monsanto. He is far from alone. Monsanto has been picking off seed cleaners across the Midwest, having already done its thuggish thing in Pilot Grove, Missouri, and in Indiana, attacking Maurice Parr, destroying business for all of them.

Mr. Parr reports that when he was sued, the first think out of the judge said was how "honored to have a fine company like Monsanto in my courtroom."

"Shortly after someone broke into Mr. Hixon's office and he found his account book on his truck seat where he would never have left it, evey one of his remotely located and very scattered customers had three men (described as goons with "no necks") arrived at each farm, going out onto it without permission ... Mr. Hixon and state police who were called in, believe a GPS tracking device may have been put on Mr. Hixon's equipment." Click here.

In 2002, when Mr. Hixon was at the state legislature for a meeting, he said he told a Monsanto representative there, "If you guys want to tak over the seed industry so bad, you ought to buy guys like me out." The Monsanto agent is supposed to have responded "We'd rather put you out of business, it's more fun that way."

Mr. Hixon says that when he is cleaning seeds, he is pouring $13,000 a hour into the local economy, which right now is being hit. A fence company has gone out of business and other businesses are in trouble. And in using seeds that have been cleaned, those seeds have carbon footprint, by Mr. Hixon's figures, less than a fraction of 1% of that of GMO seeds delivered over 1000s of miles at 5 miles a gallon that semis require to run.

But Monsanto's GM-soy and other seeds have a much heavier carbon footprint that the absurd transport of seed across the country by semis. Petroleum-based pesticides are the essence of genetic engineering, and Monsanto has a poorly known history of their relation to warfare.

"Huge excesses of nitrogenous compounds that accumulated during World War I provided the basis for the beginnings of the mass production of synthetic nitrate fertilizers. DuPont -- now the sole owner of the world's largest seed company, Pioneer HiBred -- was the largest manufacturer of gunpowder in the United States during the early 19th century and the first World War. Monsanto increased its profits 100 fold during the World War, from $80,000 to well over $9 million per year, supplying the chemical precursors for high explosives such as TNT.

"In the 1930s, chemists working for the German company Bayer discovered the highly poisonous properties of organophosphate compounds. .... As all of German industry became absorbed into the growing Nazi war machine, Bayer's organophosphate compounds were developed simultaneously as agricultural pesticides and as nerve gases for military use. These included such notorious chemical warfare agents as sarin, soman and tabun gases, all of which are still manufactured today. ...

"In the 1930s, scientists at the Swiss J. R. Geigy Company were searching for new compounds to disinfect seeds and prevent moths from feeding on wool. ... These researchers' key discovery was that DDT ... could accomplish both of their desired ends and more. ... DDT was seen as the "atom bomb of insecticides," capable of permanently eliminating various pest species.

"After World War II, DDT became the most widely applied chemical in human history .... The widespread use of DDT -- for both agricultural and household uses -- led to a dramatic shift in the chemical industry's approach to pest control ... was in many ways a direct outgrowth of its wartime origins. ...

"During the 1960s, Monsanto was a leading manufacturer of the herbicide 'Agent Orange,' which was used by U.S. military forces to obliterate the dense jungles of Vietnam. Today Monsanto's Roundup-family herbicides play a central role in the U.S. "drug war" via its widespread use to eradicate coca and poppy plants in Colombia and other countries...."

The shift to genetically engineered food seems a welcome change from such a history. But it appears there has been no change, only a more thorough and disguised means of ensuring its sales.

"Of all of Monsanto, DuPont and Dow's agricultural products, genetically engineered food crops might appear to be the least tainted with immediate wartime origins. But this technology emerged from a period when the future of chemical agriculture appeared very much in doubt. With the rapid expansion of the agrochemical industry during the post-World War II era, these companies and their European counterparts had established a profound degree of control over agricultural practices."

But as public pressure and the weight of scientific evidence curtailed the use of DDT and many other chlorinated pesticides in the 1970s, executives and corporate scientists saw the potential for limitless advances -- and ever-expanding marketing potential -- in the incorporation of technological advances into the genetics of seeds. During the 1990s, Monsanto alone spent nearly $8 billion acquiring leading commercial seed suppliers in the United States and internationally; DuPont and others quickly followed suit, leading to today's widespread proliferation of genetically engineered food crops." Click here.

Today, in Illinois, our federal agents and police, working on behalf of Monsanto, are terrorizing ... whom? Drug dealers? Financiers who have stolen this country blind? The people who took us to war based on lies and have profited while thousands of American and 100s of thousands of Iraqi have died? No. Our tax dollars are being used to turn our marshals and police into Monsanto agents to terrorize our disappearing farmers.

Terror is palpable in rural America. It defines American farming communities now.

Monsanto, with its history of warfare and creating chemicals to "cleanse" both enemies and agricultural pests of any area desired, appears to bring this power and method of thinking to all it touches.

"Rural cleansing" is its stated goal, and our farmers the pests to be eliminated.

Where is the Illinois ACLU? Where is Amnesty?

Mid-West Office
53 West Jackson, Suite #731
Chicago, IL 60604
phone: (312) 427-2060
fax: (312) 427-2589
1-866-A-REGION
aiusamw@aiusa.org

ACLU of Illinois
180 N. Michigan, Ste 2300
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312- 201-9740
Fax: 312-201-9760
Email: acluofillinois@aclu-il.org

Vilsack's nomination nears, a Monsanto appointment

Organic Consumers Association
6771 South Silver Hill Drive
Finland MN 55603
Contact: www.organicconsumers.org/aboutus.cfm#contact
Activist or Media Inquiries: 218-226-4164
Fax: 218-353-7652

***********
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Monsanto and global warming

Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:56:23 GMT

EXTRACT: "The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT's GM wheat and Monsanto's GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years." - the Australian government's Grains Research and Development Corporation
---
Food security and global warming: Monsanto versus organic
Meredith Niles
GRIST, 16 Jan 2009
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/14/23742/0777

*Organic farming beats genetically engineered corn as response to rising global temperatures

This week Science published research detailing the vast, global food-security implications of warming temperatures. The colored graphics are nothing short of terrifying when you realize the blotches of red and orange covering the better part of the globe indicate significantly warmer summers in coming decades.

The implications of the article are clear -- we need to be utilizing agricultural methods and crops that can withstand the potential myriad impacts of global climate change, especially warmer temperatures. The article significantly notes, "The probability exceeds 90 percent that by the end of the century, the summer average temperature will exceed the hottest summer on record throughout the tropics and subtropics. Because these regions are home to about half of the world's population, the human consequences of global climate change could be enormous."

Whether you believe global warming is part of a "natural cycle" or a man-made phenomenon is irrelevant. The bottom line is that our earth is rapidly warming, and this is going to drastically affect our food supply. We must undertake both the enormous task of reducing our carbon emissions now to avert the worst, while at the same time adapting our society to the vast and multitudinous effects of unavoidable global climate change. Failing to do either will, as the Science article indicates, have dire effects on a large portion of our world's population.

Determining the best course of action for ensuring food security in the face of global climate change remains a challenging task. Recognizing that climate change is slated to affect developing countries and small-scale farmers the most is a crucial point. Such understanding enables people to realize that viable solutions must be accessible, affordable, and relevant to the billions of small-scale farmers in the developing world. Unfortunately, it appears that some of the solutions on the table fail to meet these criteria.

Last week, Monsanto made a big public relations splash by filing documents with the FDA regarding a drought-tolerant GM corn variety it is developing with a German company, BASF. Monsanto claims that in field trials, the corn got 6-10 percent higher yields in drought-prone areas last year, but the release is extremely short on details. Regardless of the reality, Monsanto is presenting the corn as a way to help improve on-farm productivity in other parts of the world, notably Africa.

Yet, absent from the media hype were the many technical and social problems with Monsanto's corn.

A little over a year ago, the Australian Centre for Plant Functional Genomics held a conference specific to drought and drought-tolerant crops. As a follow up, the Australian government's Grains Research and Development Corporation published a piece detailing the research shared and lessons learned from the conference. One topic addressed was the potential of GM drought-tolerant varieties. In the analysis stated, "The most notable and problematic (effect) is the tendency of drought-tolerant GM lines to not perform as well under favourable conditions. This appears to be the case for CIMMYT's GM wheat and Monsanto's GM corn. The flaw is a profound one. It amounts to shifting the yield losses experienced in dry seasons onto the good years." In essence, farmers might get a small bump in yield during droughts, but will suffer yield losses when conditions are favorable. Considering that climate scientists continually point to increased erratic weather patterns as a symptom of global warming, this reality is clearly disastrous. Surely there must be better solutions that increase production under all weather conditions

One promising solution appeared in an article published in BioScience in 2005. The authors outlined the Rodale Institute's Farming Systems Trial, a long-term comparison of organic and conventional farming systems conducted between 1981 and 2002. Significantly, the trials found that organic production yielded equivalently to conventional systems after a transition period. Yet even more importantly, Rodale found that in drought conditions in which rainfall was 30 percent less than normal, organic systems yielded 28 to 34 percent higher than conventional systems. Rodale equates the yield gain to increased water retention as a result of higher soil organic carbon. Water volumes percolating through the various systems were 15-20 percent higher in the organic systems as compared with the conventional systems over the 12 year period.

The BioScience article additionally noted that the organic systems used 28 to 32 percent fewer energy inputs, retained soil carbon and soil nitrogen better, and offered a higher profitability over conventional systems. What is so significant about this research is that it demonstrates the ability of organic agriculture to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions with fewer energy inputs and withstand climate change impacts like drought with greater efficacy.

Most importantly, it offers an economical and accessible form of agriculture for billions of small-scale farmers. Scaling up agricultural development in rural areas like Africa can be accomplished with organic methods like manure, compost, and cover crops. Even the United Nations recognized the opportunity presented by organic production in a report late last year. Conventional breeding and improved seeds are also part of the solution. Between 1939 and 2005, conventional breeding contributed significantly to an almost six-fold yield-gain in corn in the U.S.

This point is crucial, since the seeds Monsanto is planning to release will be owned by the company and sold at exorbitant prices. GMO seeds cost from two to over four times as much as conventional seed varieties, and the disparity is increasing. How will small-scale farmers pay for such seeds? How will they pay for the chemicals and synthetic fertilizers necessary for such production? Shouldn't we be looking for solutions that are viable and realistic for those people who are most food insecure? Monsanto does not have the answers here, but organic methods can and should be a big part of the solution.

The future of food security in the face of warming temperatures cannot be based on a system of profits and research that fails to address the needs of food-insecure farmers. We need real solutions that will enable farmers to maintain and increase yields with those materials and techniques already available to them with little extra cost: animal manure, increased irrigation opportunities, cover crops, compost, and integrated pest-management systems. Organic agriculture will reduce, mitigate, and adapt to climate change impacts and still remain accessible and economic to the billions of subsistence farmers around the world. If we really want to fight the food crisis, let's start investing in and promoting organic production today to ensure better climate adaptation in the future.

**************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

Codex - The 5 Minute Tour

bennettandsimone — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 11:44:04 GMT

Codex Alimentarius - health freedom threat number one.

Consumer Protection? Unfortunately Not
The first step to understanding Codex Alimentarius is to realize that it has absolutely nothing to do with “consumer protection”. That’s propaganda for the sake of getting people and Congress to yield to its implementation.

Says Who?
Rima E. Laibow, M.D. is a successful natural medicine physician who graduated from Albert Einstein College of Medicine in 1970. Dr. Laibow has studied more than 16,000 pages of Codex Alimentarius documentation. Her conclusion? Codex Alimentarius is a very serious threat to health freedom. We must take it seriously.

Meaning of Name and History of Organization
“Codex Alimentarius” means “food rules” in Latin. The organization was born in 1962 when the UN established the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) as a “Trade Commission”. It was created to regulate, and thus control, every aspect of how food and nutritional supplements are produced and sold to the consumer. It is solely about trade and the profits of multi-national corporations.

Bolstering Profits of Pharmaceutical Industry
The more natural health products people use, the fewer drugs they use. Millions are turning to natural health. Big Pharma fears this as it would diminish profits. Codex is designed to protect Big Pharma profits by eliminating natural health products and treatments. Health food stores and wellness companies would be hit hard.

Codex Alimentarius is Unscientific
Codex is unscientific because it classifies nutrients as toxins and uses “Risk Assessment” to set ultra low so-called “safe upper limits” for them. Risk Assessment is a branch of Toxicology, the science for assessing toxins. The proper science for assessing nutrients is Biochemistry. Codex does not use Biochemistry.

Based on Tyrannical Napoleonic Legal Code
Codex is based on the Napoleonic Code, dating back to Bonaparte. Under this code, anything not explicitly permitted is automatically forbidden. Under Common Law (our system), something does not have to be explicitly permitted to be legal. The tyrannical Napoleonic Code allows the banning of natural health options by default.

Shrewdly, Slowly Raising Heat
Codex will go into global effect on December 31, 2009, unless we, the People, take action and avert it. Right now, we are like a frog boiled slowly, the heat raised gradually so we won’t jump out of the water. The media is used to make us believe that Codex is about “consumer protection”. Part of the media strategy is to tarnish the image of natural health options, through for-hire studies.

Beware Codex Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing
One-time defenders of supplements and nutritional products, such as the National Nutritional Foods Association (NNFA) and Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), have fallen prey to new pharmaceutical members and are spreading disinformation saying that Codex is “consumer protection”. Their boards used to be run by health freedom fighters.

VMG: Banning Our Supplements
Codex is made up of many standards for every aspect of food. One of these standards was ratified (approved) in July 2005: the destructive Codex Alimentarius Vitamin and Mineral Guideline (VMG). The VMG can ban all high potency and clinically effective vitamins & minerals. For example, Vitamin C would be restricted to only a few milligrams per dose. Other nutrients, such as amino acids, are also under threat.

DSHEA, Our Best Legal Defense
The U.S. has a powerful legal tool for health freedom: the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), passed in 1994 after massive grass-roots action. DSHEA scientifically classifies nutritional supplements as food and prevents dosage restrictions; Codex unscientifically classifies them as toxins and sets ultra-low doses. The VMG violates U.S. law because it violates DSHEA. We must unite to protect DSHEA, our best legal defense against Codex.

Congressional Effort Underway to Undermine DSHEA
The pharmaceutical industry works through irresponsible/corrupt politicians to do their bidding. The path to institute Codex in America is to “influence” Congress to pass laws friendly to drugs and unfriendly to nutritional supplements, so that slowly everyone comes to believe that nutrients are “dangerous”, and drugs are “proper medicine”. Susan Davis (D, CA) and other politicians are helping Big Pharma by supporting bills designed to destroy DSHEA.

U.S. Government Illegally Supports Codex
The U.S. Codex Office (the U.S. Codex “point of contact”) is unfortunately highly supportive of Codex. So is the rest of the government, including the pharmaceutical-friendly FDA. They should not be. DSHEA and other U.S. law means their support is in direct violation of the laws of the U.S.A.! They are breaking our laws and they know it.

Let’s Enter Coordinal Relationships With Congress
Congress has the power to keep America Codex-free. It can defeat bills designed to destroy DSHEA, support health freedom bills, and reprimand the U.S. Codex Office and the FDA. Using the Internet we can reach Congress directly to create a lobby of the people, for the people. Families of Congress would suffer too, if Codex is not averted.

Call to Action
Thanks to the Internet, millions of health conscious Americans can unite to protect health freedom from Codex Alimentarius. We have the power to turn Codex into a blessing if all of us in the natural health community use it to get active, get organized, and stand up for health freedom. Together, we will let Big Pharma know that we see through their deception and will protect our access to natural health care.
Ready to take action now? Click here.
Ready to learn more? Click here.

This information is from www.healthfreedomusa.org

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 4 replies

France suspending the Monsanto 810 maize!

StoryTime — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:15:18 GMT

Yes!
One victory, for now...
http://rawstory.com/news/afp/France_bars_strain_of_genetically_m_01112008.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

The world's top 10 pesticide firms - Who owns nature?‏

Tue, 03 Feb 2009 02:32:11 GMT

NOTE: Further extracts from ETC Group's recently released report, "Who Owns Nature?" These are from the section about the pesticde industry. For the full report:
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/materials/publications.html?pub_id=707

According to the report, the world's six largest agrochemical manufacturers, who control nearly 75% of the global pesticide market, are also seed industry giants.

It's worth breaking this down by company.

Bayer: the world's biggest agrochemical company is also the world's seventh biggest seed company.

Syngenta: the world's second largest agrochemical company is also the world's third largest seed company.

Monsanto: the world's biggest seed company is the world's fifth largest agrochemical company.

And DuPont: the world's second biggest seed company is also the world's sixth largest agrochemical company.

All these companies are gene giants.

Weed killers (herbicides) account for about one-third of the global pesticide market, and around 80% of GM seeds involve herbicide-resistance.

The worldwide market for agrochemicals grew last year by nearly 10%.
---
---
Who Owns Nature?
Report from ETC Group

[Extracts only]

Agrochemical Industry

World's Top 10 Pesticide Firms

Company - Agrochemical Sales 2007 (US$ millions) - % Market Share

1.Bayer (Germany) - $7,458m - 19%
2.Syngenta (Switzerland) - $7,285m - 19%
3.BASF (Germany) - $4,297m - 11%
4.Dow AgroSciences (USA) - $3,779m - 10%
5.Monsanto (USA) - $3,599m - 9%
6.DuPont (USA) - $2,369m - 6%
7.Makhteshim Agan (Israel) - $1,895m - 5%
8.Nufarm (Australia) - $1,470m - 4%
9.Sumitomo Chemical (Japan) - $1,209m - 3%
10.Arysta Lifescience (Japan) - $1,035m - 3%
Total $34,396m - 89%
Source: Agrow World Crop Protection News, August 2008

The top 10 companies control 89% of the global agrochemical market.

The worldwide market for agrochemicals was US$38.6 billion in 2007 - up 8.4% over the previous year. The top 6 companies accounted for $28.8 billion, or 75% of the total market.

Symbiotic Sales: The world's six largest agrochemical manufacturers are also seed industry giants. Despite sky-rocketing fuel and fertilizer costs, high grain prices created soaring demand for commercial seeds and pesticides in 2007. After two decades of sagging sales, the world's largest pesticide companies rebounded last year - in large part due to the subsidy-driven boom in agrofuel crops.

In 2007 the four largest pesticide companies (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, Dow) reported double-digit sales jumps.

Pesticide revenues are up in nearly all regions [particularly South America].

Mind the Gap: Weed killers account for about one-third of the global pesticide market, and agrochemical giants are ratcheting up R&D on new herbicides and herbicide-tolerant genes. Monsanto's glyphosate-resistant (Roundup Ready) crops have reigned supreme on the biotech scene for over a decade - creating a near-monopoly for the company's Roundup Ready herbicide - which is now off patent.

According to Chemical & Engineering News, BASF, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow and DuPont are competing to fill "the glyphosate gap" -
- a gap that's growing fast because at least 14 weed species on five continents have developed resistance due to massive applications of glyphosate. As a result, farmers must employ more toxic chemicals to kill the resistant weeds. Commonly known as the "pesticide treadmill," it's a classic case of chasing a new techno-fix to mop up the mess of an older, failed technology. Agrochemical giants prefer to describe the resistance problem as a business opportunity: In the words of Syngenta's Crop Science CEO, John Atkin: "Resistance is actually quite healthy for our market, because we have to innovate."

***********

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Corn grown for fuel

Wed, 25 Jul 2007 00:17:04 GMT

Folks,
Something that might slip through the back door is crops grown for fuels. They will have less scrunity other them compared to the ones for human consumption. Will they contaminate the other crops through, like live stock that has been genetically manipulated? Salmon farms have had to deal with this within the past several years. The species is made to resist infection and disease, making them a more dominant species, which take over the ones having to work with those natural circumstances. Thus destorying the original one. I'm not sure if the modified one can reproduce.

We are slowly destroying all of the natural cycles by removing plant and animal species for our comfort of life (or "quality of life"), but this could do it in a way that is not repairable.

Just a thought that has been sitting on the back of my mind for a while.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

INTRODUCING THE MUST-HAVE ORGANIC SWEETENER HONEY CRYSTALS BY MAMA HEALTHY® - Free from Genetically Modified foods and Organisms (GMO)

mamahealthy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:07:47 GMT

Mama Healthy Certified Organic Honey Crystals can be used anywhere you want to add honey flavor.
The Honey Crystals are made of certified organic honey, no artificial colors, flavors, or preservatives and free from Genetically Modified foods and Organisms (GMO).

You can use it to add a taste of honey to your favorite cookies, breakfast cereal, cakes, pies, rolls, coatings, dressings, and even to sweeten your coffee or tea! Just replace sugar 1:1 with Mama Healthy Honey Crystals for a delicious sweet honey flavor!

Honey Crystals will enhance your favorite recipe without altering the water content or consistency of your recipe. Traditionally to substitute sugar for honey the texture and taste of your favorite recipe would be compromised, in addition to a less than accurate measurement. Now with Mama Healthy Honey Crystals, simply replace sugar 1:1 with Sweet and Dry free flowing Honey Crystals with no sticky mess to add a taste of honey. Honey Crystals can be stored at room temperature.

Honey Crystals is a must-have organic ingredient for your kitchens, office break rooms, hair salons, doctor's offices... even as an exfoliant for the do-it-yourself spa diva!

For delicious recipes and nutrition facts for Mama Healthy Honey Crystals please visit www.mamahealthy.com.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

Hawaii: Big Island prepares to ban GMO crops‏

Fri, 14 Nov 2008 21:20:59 GMT

Council Chairman Pete Hoffman said he has heard "overwhelming" public testimony in favor of the ban, and he'll likely support it again Thursday.

Big Island prepares to ban GMO crops

The Associated Press, 11 November 2008

http://www.capitalpress.info/main.asp?SectionID=94&SubSectionID=801&ArticleID=46069&TM=85901.23

HILO, Hawaii (AP) - The Big Island may make it illegal this week to grow genetically modified taro and coffee.

The Hawaii County Council on Thursday plans to override a veto of an islandwide ban on testing, introduction and cultivation of genetically modified organisms.

Outgoing Mayor Harry Kim vetoed the measure in October, which passed the council on a 9-0 vote. It only takes six votes to override Kim's veto.

"My position remains unchanged. I think we need to protect our coffee farmers and our taro growers from genetic drift," Councilman Bob Jacobson said. "I'm wholeheartedly in support (of the proposed ban)."

Supporters of the ban claim transgenic crops could contaminate organic and specialty varieties. They've also called for more study of potential health risks caused by eating genetically modified products.

Researchers say science is needed to protect crops from disease and pests.

Kim told lawmakers that police would have trouble enforcing the ban, genetic modification research is needed and Hawaii should fulfill its role in meeting worldwide food production demands.

Councilman Stacy Higa said he's undecided about how he would vote.

"I am torn on the fact that we always need science and laboratory testing going on," said Higa, who had planned to travel to the mainland this week but was reconsidering his trip so he could vote.

Council Chairman Pete Hoffman said he has heard "overwhelming" public testimony in favor of the ban, and he'll likely support it again Thursday.

"I see nothing in the mayor's letter that would change my mind," Hoffman said.

If the ban becomes law, violations could trigger fines of up to $1,000.

************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

USDA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEREGULATION OF GE CORN

Tue, 25 Nov 2008 19:01:20 GMT

Rachel Iadicicco (301) 734-3255
Angela Harless (202) 720-4623

USDA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEREGULATION OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CORN

WASHINGTON, Nov. 24, 2008--The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comment on a petition to deregulate corn genetically engineered (GE) to produce a microbial enzyme that facilitates ethanol production. APHIS has regulated the corn through its notification and permitting process since 2002.

The petition for deregulation, submitted by Syngenta Seeds, Inc., is in accordance with APHIS' regulations concerning the introduction of GE organisms and products and is available for the public's review and comment. As part of the decisionmaking process, APHIS also has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) for review and comment.

Following the comment period, APHIS makes a determination of nonregulated status if it can conclude that the organism does not pose a
plant pest risk. If APHIS grants the Syngenta Seeds, Inc., petition for deregulation, the GE corn and its progeny would no longer be regulated articles. The product could then be freely moved and planted without the requirement of permits or other regulatory oversight by APHIS. The scientific evidence indicates that there are unlikely to be any environmental, human health or food safety concerns associated with the GE corn.

APHIS is responsible for protecting U.S. agriculture and the environment from animal and plant pests. APHIS regulates GE products in cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In compliance with agency policy, Syngenta Seeds, Inc. submitted a food and feed safety and nutritional assessment summary to FDA for this GE corn. EPA is not involved in evaluating this GE corn because it has not been engineered to produce a pesticide or to be tolerant to an herbicide.

APHIS has safely regulated GE organisms since 1986 and has overseen the deregulation of more than 70 products.

This action was published in the Nov. 19, 2008, Federal Register. APHIS is seeking comment on the petition and on the EA.

Consideration will be given to comments received on or before Jan. 20, 2009. Send two copies of postal mail or commercial delivery
comments to Docket No. APHIS-2007-0016, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit
118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Comments can be submitted on the the Federal eRulemaking portal at
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2007-0016. Click on "Add Comments" to view public comments and related materials available electronically.

Comments are posted on the Reglations.gov Web site and also can be reviewed at USDA, Room 1141, South Building, 14th St. and
Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. To facilitate entry into the comment reading room, please call (202) 690-2817.

#

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 4 replies

Obama’s team includes dangerous biotech “Yes Men” (brief history/ myths & lies/ links/ what you can do about it-petition)

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 01:16:19 GMT

Genetically Modified Organisms should never have been given a patent, much less set loose in the environment, as is inevitable with any farming practice. Please inform yourself and sign the petition in support of food labeling of GMOs, so that we can avoid GMO products and make healthier and safer choices for our food consumption and environmental impact.

by Jeffrey Smith
from the Institute for Responsible Technology newsletter
Spilling the Beans, November 2008
(This newsletter is reprinted from Jeffrey Smith's new blog on Huffington Post.)
Posted November 30, 2008 | 10:43 AM (EST)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/obamas-team-includes-dang_b_147188.html?view=print

Obama's Team Includes Dangerous Biotech "Yes Men"

Biotech "Yes Men" on Obama's team threaten to expand the use of dangerous genetically modified (GM) foods in our diets. Instead of giving us change and hope, they may prolong the hypnotic "group think" that has been institutionalized over three previous administrations--where critical analysis was abandoned in favor of irrational devotion to this risky new technology.

Clinton's agriculture secretary Dan Glickman saw it first hand:
http://books.google.com/books?id=kqjaCIT3A2IC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=If+you%E2%80%99re+against+it,+you%E2%80%99re+Luddites,+you%E2%80%99re+stupid.&source=web&ots=ce5uwFODXq&sig=PA5SdPHDdmS_mxQCpPam2tcBF6c&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

"It was almost immoral to say that [biotechnology] wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . If you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. . . You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view"

When Glickman dared to question the lax regulations on GM food, he said he "got slapped around a little bit by not only the industry, but also some of the people even in the administration." http://www.responsibletechnology.org/utility/showArticle/?objectID=2308

By shutting open-minds and slapping dissent, deceptive myths about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) persist.

• The industry boasts that GMOs reduce herbicide use; USDA data show that the opposite is true.
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/GMFree/EducationalMaterials/January2008/index.cfm
• We hear that GMOs increase yield and farmer profit; but USDA and independent studies show an average reduction in yield and no improved bottom line for farmers.
• George H. W. Bush fast-tracked GMOs to increase US exports; now the government spends an additional $3-$5 billion per year to prop up prices of the GM crops no one wants.
• Advocates continue to repeat that GMOs are needed to feed the world; now the prestigious International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development http://www.agassessment.org/ has joined a long list of experts who flatly reject GMOs as the answer to hunger.

Food Safety Lies

Of all the myths about GMOs, the most dangerous is that they are safe. This formed the hollow basis of the FDA's 1992 GMO policy, which stated:

"The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."

The sentence is complete fiction. At the time it was written, there was overwhelming consensus among the FDA's own scientists that GM foods were substantially different, and could create unpredictable, unsafe, and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, diseases, and nutritional problems. They had urged the political appointees in charge to require long-term safety studies, including human studies, to protect the public.

Their concerns stayed hidden until 1999, when 44,000 pages of internal FDA memos and reports were made public due to a lawsuit.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/DocumentFiles/145.pdf According to public interest attorney Stephen Druker, the documents showed how their warnings and "references to the unintended negative effects" of genetic engineering "were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement," in spite of scientists' protests.

"What has happened to the scientific elements of this document?" wrote FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl, after reviewing the latest rewrite of the policy. "It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."

Who flooded the market with dangerous GMOs

Thanks to the FDA's "promote biotech" policy, perilously few safety studies and investigations have been conducted on GMOs. Those that have, including two government studies from Austria and Italy published just last month, demonstrate that the concerns by FDA scientists should have been heeded. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-genetically-modified_b_145320.html
GMOs have been linked to toxic and allergic reactions in humans, sick, sterile, and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ studied in lab animals. GMOs are unsafe.

At the highest level, the responsibility for this disregard of science and consumer safety lies with the first Bush White House, which had ordered the FDA to promote the biotechnology industry and get GM foods on the market quickly. To accomplish this White House directive, the FDA created a position for Michael Taylor. As the FDA's new Deputy Commissioner of Policy, he oversaw the creation of GMO policy.

Taylor was formerly the outside attorney for the biotech giant Monsanto, and later became their vice president. He had also been the counsel for the International Food Biotechnology Council (IFBC), for whom he drafted a model of government policy designed to rush GMOs onto the market with no significant regulations. The final FDA policy that he oversaw, which did not require any safety tests or labeling, closely resembled the model he had drafted for the IFBC.

Michael Taylor is on the Obama transition team.

Genetically engineered bovine growth hormone and unhealthy milk

Taylor was also in charge when the FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST). Dairy products from treated cows contain more pus, more antibiotics, more growth hormone, and more IGF-1--a powerful hormone linked to cancer and increased incidence of fraternal twins (see www.YourMilkonDrugs.com.) The growth hormone is banned in most industrialized nations, including Canada, the EU, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand. But under Michael Taylor, it was approved in the US, without labeling.

As more and more consumers here learn about the health risks of the drug, they shift their purchases to brands that voluntarily label their products as not using rbGH. Consumer rejection of rbGH hit a tipping point a couple of years ago, and since then it has been kicked out of milk from Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Kroger, Subway, and at least 40 of the top 100 dairies. In 2007, Monsanto desperately tried to reverse the trend by asking the FDA and FTC to make it illegal for dairies to label their products as free from rbGH. Both agencies flatly refused the company's request.

But Monsanto turned to an ally, Dennis Wolff, the Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture. Wolff used his position to single-handedly declare rbGH-free labels illegal in his state. Such a policy would make it impossible for national dairy brands to declare their products rbGH-free, since they couldn't change packaging just for Pennsylvania. Wolff's audacious move so infuriated citizens around the nation, the outpouring caused the governor to step in and stop the prohibition before it took effect.

Dennis Wolff, according to unbossed.com, is being considered for Obama's USDA Secretary.
http://www.unbossed.com/index.php?itemid=2409

Although Pennsylvania did not ultimately ban rbGH-free labels, they did decide to require companies who use the labels to also include a disclaimer sentence on the package, stating that the according to the FDA there is no difference between milk from cows treated with rbGH and those not treated. In reality, this sentence contradicts the FDA's own scientists. (Is this sounding all too familiar?) Even according to Monsanto's own studies, milk from treated cows has more pus, antibiotics, bovine growth hormone, and IGF-1. Blatantly ignoring the data, a top FDA bureaucrat wrote a "white paper" urging companies that labeled products as rbGH-free to also use that disclaimer on their packaging. The bureaucrat was Michael Taylor.

Betting on biotech is "Bad-idea virus"

For several years, politicians around the US were offering money and tax-breaks to bring biotech companies into their city or state. But according to Joseph Cortright, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Asian_Economy/FG31Dk01.html an Oregon economist who co-wrote a 2004 report on this trend, "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable. This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials." He said it "remains a money-losing, niche industry." http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2004-08-18-biotech-grant_x.htm

One politician who caught a bad case of the bad-idea virus was Tom Vilsack, Iowa's governor from 1998-2006. He was co-creator and chair of the Governors' Biotechnology Partnership in 2000 and in 2001 the Biotech Industry Organization named him BIO Governor of the Year.

Tom Vilsack was considered a front runner for Obama's USDA secretary. Perhaps the outcry prompted by Vilsack's biotech connections was the reason for his name being withdrawn.

Change, Truth, Hope

I don't know Barack Obama's position on GMOs. According to a November 23rd Des Moines Register article, "Obama, like Bush, may be Ag biotech ally", there are clues that he has not been able to see past the biotech lobbyist's full court spin.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20081123/BUSINESS01/811230309/1029/BUSINESS

- His top scientific advisers during the campaign included Sharon Long, a former board member of the biotech giant Monsanto Co., and Harold Varmus, a Nobel laureate who co-chaired a key study of genetically engineered crops by the National Academy of Sciences back in 2000. - [Obama] said biotech crops "have provided enormous benefits" to farmers and expressed confidence "that we can continue to modify plants safely."

On the other hand, Obama may have a sense how pathetic US GMO regulations are, since he indicated that he wants "stringent tests for environmental and health effects" and "stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice."

There is, however, one unambiguous and clear promise that separates Obama from his Bush and Clinton predecessors.

President Obama will require mandatory labeling of GMOs.

Favored by 9 out of 10 Americans, labeling is long overdue and is certainly cause for celebration.

(I am told that now Michael Taylor also favors both mandatory labeling and testing of GMOs. Good going Michael; but your timing is a bit off.)

Please sign a petition asking President Obama to make his GMO labeling plan comprehensive and meaningful.
http://www.responsibletechnology.org/GMFree/TakeAction/MandatoryLabelingPetitiontoObama/index.cfm

~~~
© copyright Institute For Responsible Technology 2008

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of publication Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, which presents 65 risks in easy-to-read two-page spreads. His first book, Seeds of Deception,
http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/Home/index.cfm
is the top rated and #1 selling book on GM foods in the world. He is the Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. www.responsibletechnology.org, which is spearheading the Campaign for Healthier Eating in America. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com to learn more about how to avoid GM foods.

Spilling the Beans is a monthly column available at www.responsibletechnology.org. The website also offers eater-friendly tips for avoiding GMOs at home and in restaurants. http://www.tccouncil.org/institute_membership/

~~~

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

LAST DAY for public comment: Last Bush Rules before 1/20/09

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:27:25 GMT

Greetings!

In the waning months of the Bush administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has joined the ranks of federal agencies rushing through new regulations that weaken protections for human health and the environment. USDA has released a proposed rule that would significantly weaken oversight of all genetically engineered crops, and which continue to allow companies to grow food crops engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.

The USDA began this process over four years ago by promising stricter oversight. Unfortunately, improvements considered early on have been dismissed, and the proposed rule now has the same gaping holes as the policy it is replacing, and creates a few new ones, as well. For instance:

* USDA has created a huge loophole allowing biotech companies to assess their own crops to determine whether USDA should regulate them. And the criteria are open-ended, very subjective, and will certainly reduce USDA's oversight of GE crops.

* The proposed rules could also allow companies to grow untested GE crops with no oversight whatsoever: "Over time, the range of GE organisms subject to oversight is expected to decrease...," a move which USDA itself admits will make contamination of conventional/organic crops with untested GE material more likely.

* To add insult to injury, USDA has proposed to write into law its "Low Level Presence" policy, which excuses it from taking any action to remove untested GE crops from conventional or organic food, feed and seed. This contamination often occurs through cross-pollination or seed dispersal, and has cost farmers hundreds of millions of dollars in lost sales and lowered profits.

* USDA rejected options that would have banned outdoor cultivation of pharmaceutical-producing GE (food) crops, the only way to ensure that untested drugs don't end up in our food, despite strong support from citizens and the food industry.

* USDA has refused to propose any controls on pesticide-promoting GE crops, despite increasing pesticide use and an epidemic of resistant weeds that have been fostered by these crops.

* Finally, USDA snuck in a last-minute "correction" that bars state or local regulation of GE crops more protective than its own weak rule. CFS strongly opposes such preemptive language that would bar local or state authorities from putting meaningful regulations or restrictions on GE crops in place that best suit their communities. This last-minute change should be cause to extend the public comment period.

The USDA is treading dangerous new ground here. The structure of the new proposal opens loopholes that can be exploited by biotech companies and expose consumers to more untested and unlabeled genetically engineered foods.

After denying requests for an extension to the short comment period given for the proposed rules, USDA's comment period closes on Monday.

Sign our petition to the USDA today and demand stronger-not weaker-regulations for genetically engineered crops!

Please click http://ga3.org/campaign/GMOregs to sign the petition!

Full Petition Text:

Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8
4700 River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.

Re: Docket No. APHIS-2008-0023, Importation, Interstate Movement, and Release into the Environment of Certain Genetically Engineered Organisms.

I am very concerned about the risks genetically engineered crops--especially those engineered to produce drugs and industrial chemicals--pose to human health, family farmers, wildlife, and the environment. I urge USDA to close the gaping loopholes in its proposed rules, and put stronger--not weaker--regulations in place. In particular:

1. Please follow the advice of the National Academy of Sciences and make genetic engineering the trigger for USDA oversight so that ALL experimental GE crops are properly regulated. This approach is scientifically sound, administratively efficient, and more protective of public health, the environment, and the interests of farmers. Eliminate loopholes that exempt any GE crop that has not undergone a determination of non-regulated status from USDA regulatory oversight.

2. Please do NOT incorporate the "Low Level Presence" policy in the final rule. Instead, make zero presence of experimental GE crops in food and feed your management goal, and gear your implementing regulations to achieve it as fully as possible. In particular, make all field trials of experimental GE crops subject to strict gene containment standards at least as stringent as those now applied to pharmaceutical-producing GE crops.

3. Please reconsider your "business as usual" pharma crop policy, and instead adopt one of two alternatives you proposed in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - a simple ban on outdoor cultivation of all pharmaceutical-producing crops, or at least pharmaceutical-producing food crops - to best protect public health and the environment.

4. Please regulate as necessary pesticide-promoting, herbicide-tolerant GE crops in order to address the rise in pesticide use these crops have fostered, and to mitigate the growing threat posed by herbicide-resistant weeds to farmers and the interests of American agriculture.

5. Remove any preemption clause that bars state and local authorities from enacting laws or regulations to control GE crops as they best see fit.

Signed by:
[Your name]

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Overwhelming Opposition to Engineered Papaya‏

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:23:49 GMT

U.S. Groups, Businesses and Organic Farmers Overwhelmingly Oppose Engineered Papaya
For Immediate Release, November 20 2008

Organizations came together with scientists, businesses, organic farmers, bee keepers and others [1] to oppose a U.S. Department of Agriculture proposal to allow the commercialization of genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees in Florida. Over 12,000 people opposed the commercialization while only 17 people submitted statements supporting the commercialization of GE papaya.

The STOP GE Trees Campaign, which initiated the call for opposition, includes 137 organizations across the world that have united in the demand for a global ban on GE trees of all types.

GE papaya trees were previously commercialized in Hawaii where Hawaiian activists and scientists charge they have been a disaster, with one study demonstrating 50% contamination of backyard, wild and organic papayas only a few years after being released on the Big Island of Hawaii. Another study found that GE papaya, engineered to resist the ringspot virus, are increasingly susceptible to black spot fungus, leading to use of fungicides to control the problem. [2]

Dr. Neil Carman, of the Sierra Club's Biotechnology Committee stated: "The use of GE papaya trees in Hawaii caused a rapid contamination of backyard and organic papaya. The USDA admits that release of GE papaya in Florida will also cause contamination, yet they continue to pursue it. They argue such contamination would be beneficial, ignoring the fact that it could wipe out the organic papaya farmers in Florida. In addition, their Environmental Assessment was completely inadequate. It did not assess the potential impacts on human health, pollinating insects like honey bees, or wildlife." [3]

Anne Petermann, Coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign and Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project said: "That the USDA continues to promote destructive genetically engineered trees and foods, despite the documentation of over 140 cases of genetic contamination [4] is disgraceful. The approval of GE papaya trees in Florida would set a very dangerous precedent that could open the door to commercialization of GE forest trees in the U.S. It could help pave the way for huge plantations of non-native and invasive GE eucalyptus trees across the U.S. South that would increase destruction of our native forests and devastate the communities that depend on them."

The STOP GE Trees Campaign teamed up with the Sierra Club, the Center for Food Safety and Florida Organic Growers to publicize the USDA's plans to deregulate GE papaya in Florida and generate comments opposing it.

Contact:
Anne Petermann, Coordinator of the STOP GE Trees Campaign and Co-Director of Global Justice Ecology Project +1.802.482.2689/mobile +1.802.578.0477 email: <globalecology@gmavt.com>Dr. Neil Carman, Sierra Club's Biotechnology Committee +1.512.472.1767 email: <neil_carman@greenbuilder.com>

NOTES:
[1] Organizations and businesses a that submitted comments included Abundant Life Essentials, Bee Heaven Organic Farm, Brooklyn for Peace, Center for Food Safety (petition signed by 7,843 supporters), Community Ecology, Designed for Movement, Dolores Green - Florida organic farmer, Environmental Council of Volusia/Flagler Counties (Florida), Family Farm Defenders (5,000+ members), Florida Certified Organic Growers & Consumers, Inc., Food & Water Watch (petition signed by 3,973 supporters), Global Justice Ecology Project (600+members), Global Organics, Hawaii SEED, Indiana Forest Alliance, Institute of Science in Society, Institute for Social Ecology, Mountain Biscuit (Uses Papaya in their products), Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ, Northwest Resistance Against Genetic Engineering, Oregon Toxics Alliance, Palm Beach County Environmental Coalition, Park Slope Food Coop, PCC Natural Markets (45,000 members), Reserve Technology Institute,
Rising Tide North America, Sierra Club (1.3 million members), Stop GE Trees Campaign (137 organizational members), Sunray Harvesters, The Ecohawk Foundation, The Truth News.Info, Whole Foods Community Coop, Whole Foods Markets, Wildgrace Organic Farm, Youth for Ecology Liberation
[2] http://www.grain.org/research_files/Contamination_Papaya.pdf

[3] USDA Environmental Assessment for GE Papaya and all public comments can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064806cf607

[4] http://www.gmcontaminationregister.org/
--Colette OesterleMedia and Campaigns
Global Justice Ecology Project
P.O. Box 412
Hinesburg, VT 05461
+1-802-482-2689 ph/fax
+1-517-449-3978 mobile<colette@globaljusticeecology.org>

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Monsanto tried to block Austrian research

Mon, 24 Nov 2008 19:22:32 GMT

1.Download the Austrian study
2.Summary of study
3.How Monsanto tried to block Austrian research - Dr. Brian John
4.Will Genetically Modified Foods Make You Sick? - Jeffrey Smith

EXTRACTS: Whenever these studies or reports surface... the funding--to find and expose the cause of the problem--often mysteriously dries up; scientists are transferred, threatened or fired, and the health risk link to GMOs is vehemently denied.

Unless we want to wait until more studies are done, risking allergies and immune dysfunction, infertility, infant mortality, or poorer health inherited by the next generation, we will have to opt out of the GM food experiment. (item 4)
---
---
1.Download the Austrian study

Biological effects of transgenic maize NK603xMON810 fed in long term reproduction studies in mice
http://www.bmgfjgv.at/cms/site/attachments/3/2/9/CH0810/CMS1226492832306/forschungsbericht_3-2008_letztfassung.pdf
---
---
2.Summary of study:
New Study Finds GM Maize Affects Reproduction Rates in Mice
Third World Network, 21 November 2008

A study commissioned by the Austrian Ministry of Health, Family and Youth Affairs and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management has found time related negative reproductive effects in mice fed GM maize.

In one study design where mice were continuously breeding, more mice fed on GM maize NK603 x MON810 had no litters or produced less offspring after the third or fourth litters, than those fed on conventional maize. The differences were statistically significant.

Similar results were obtained in a multi-generational study, where the parental generation was fed with either GM or non-GM maize and successive generations bred. Although the differences did not reach statistical significance in any one generation, the trend was clear - average litter size and weight as well as number of weaned pups were better in mice fed non-GM maize.

The study, one of the few long-term feeding studies that has been conducted to date, was presented by Prof. Dr. Jürgen Zentek, Professor for Veterinary Medicine at the University of Vienna and lead author of the study, at a recent scientific seminar in Vienna, Austria. The seminar was hosted by AGES, the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety.

According to Greenpeace, Monsanto's GM maize NK603 x MON810 has been approved for planting and food use in a variety of countries, including the US, Argentina, Japan, Philippines and South Africa. In Mexico and the European Union, it is approved for food and feed use.
---
---
3.Monsanto tried to block Austrian research
Dr. Brian John
http://www.gmfreecymru.org

It has emerged that Monsanto was asked to provide the GM materials and non-GM comparators for the Austrian study, but declined. This is par for the course. Monsanto (and the other GM corporations) have NEVER provided any help for feeding studies or other research over which they do not have direct control. That is why truly independent studies are almost impossible to conduct. We have documented some of the episodes of blocking / intimidation / corrupt science on our web-site, for example:

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/manipulation.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/gm_health_effects_part1.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/exposed.htm
http://www.gmfreecymru.org/news/Press_Notice10Mar2008.html

In the light of the above, the Monsanto statement in response to the release of the Austrian study is breathtakingly arrogant and complacent. In the full knowledge that it had tried to stop the study from going ahead, it trots out snide comments about the "preliminary" nature of the Report, the fact that it has not been peer-reviewed "by qualified experts", and the fact that it shows "inconsistent results." Then it goes onto the attack and refers to "activist groups" which have made "multiple allegations based on data taken out of context and lacking rigorous scientific review."

As we have said before, it beggars belief that the EU, EFSA, the UK government and the regulatory bodies allow anything at all from Monsanto to cross their desks, given its comprehensive abandonment of scientific ethics. But not only do they accept applications from the corporation, but they accept its dossiers full of non-peer-reviewed and carefully manipulated data, facilitate the approvals process for its GM varieties, and place the support of its commercial ambitions far ahead of the protection of the people of Europe.
---
---
4.Will Genetically Modified Foods Make You Sick?
Jeffrey Smith
Huffington Post, November 20 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-smith/will-genetically-modified_b_145320.html

Two new government studies, published within days of each other, point to disturbing health hazards of genetically modified (GM) foods.

On November 13th, a study by the Italian National Institute of Research on Food and Nutrition showed how GM corn caused significant immune system changes in mice, related to allergic and inflammatory responses. The corn, sold by Monsanto, contains a gene that produces the toxic "Bt" pesticide in every cell--and in every bite. The results raise the question whether this toxin (or some other unpredictable change in the GM corn) might be contributing to the rise in allergies or other immune disorders in North America.

The second study provokes the equally compelling question, are GM foods the missing link to decreasing fertility? The Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety commissioned one of the very few long-term feeding studies on GM corn, released last week. The University of Veterinary Medicine in Vienna fed GM Monsanto's GM corn to mice, which were then mated. In the third and fourth litters, there was a reduction in the number of size of rat pups (statistically significant). Similarly, in mice fed GM corn for four successive generations (from original mice parents to their great grandchildren), the size and number of offspring was less than those compared to non-GM fed mice (trend only, not yet statistically significant).

These studies should strike a major blow to biotech advocates who claim that genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are safe. They should--but similar results in other studies and reports have so far been unable to dislodge the GMO safety myth and get them off our plates.

Consider some of the evidence related to reproductive problems: Offspring of Russian rats fed GM soy showed a five-fold increase in mortality, lower birth weights, and the inability to reproduce. Italian male mice fed GM soy had damaged young sperm cells. The embryo offspring of GM soy-fed mice (also Italian) had altered DNA functioning. Several farmers reported sterility or fertility problems among American pigs and cows fed on GM corn varieties. Additionally, over the last two months, investigators have documented fertility problems among Indian buffaloes, cows, and goats fed GM cottonseed products, including abortions and premature births.

There is also evidence that the Bt crops cause allergic and toxic reactions. The GM cotton engineered to produce the Bt toxin, for example, is linked to thousands of deaths among sheep, buffaloes, and other livestock, and to widespread allergic reactions by Indian farm workers handling the plants. Monsanto's own Bt corn study showed toxic reactions in rats, and their corn is linked to mysterious deaths of cows, and to disease among people breathing the corn's pollen.

Whenever these studies or reports surfaced, scientists should have charged in to conduct intense follow-up research. Instead, the funding--to find and expose the cause of the problem--often mysteriously dries up; scientists are transferred, threatened or fired, and the health risk link to GMOs is vehemently denied.

Take the Russian rat study above, conducted by Irina Ermakova, a senior scientist at the Russian National Academy of Sciences. After we presented GMO health risk info at the EU Parliament in June 2007, she told me about the backlash that occurred after doing her study. Samples were stolen from her lab, documents were burnt on her desk, and her boss, under pressure from his boss, ordered her to cease all future research on GMOs. One of her colleagues tried to comfort her by saying, "Maybe GM soy will solve the human overpopulation problem." She wasn't comforted.

Unless we want to wait until more studies are done, risking allergies and immune dysfunction, infertility, infant mortality, or poorer health inherited by the next generation, we will have to opt out of the GM food experiment. Without required labels, it isn't simple. But our Campaign for Healthier Eating in America offers Non-GMO Shopping Guides that make it much easier, go to www.HealthierEating.org.

You might want to pass it on to those planning to have children, or wanting to stay healthy

***************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Stop GE Papaya in Florida: Comment to USDA by Nov. 3

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:45:28 GMT

Every voice is crucial!

This Action Alert is a cooperative effort of the STOP GE Trees Campaign and its affiiliated groups: http://www.nogetrees.org.

*COMMENTS NEEDED BY NOVEMBER 3 TO STOP GE PAPAYA IN FLORIDA!*

Help stop the /commercial planting/ of genetically engineered papayas in Florida and the mainland US -- the first major cultivated GE tree on the US mainland.

The US Department of Agriculture is accepting public comments between now and November 3, 2008 on a petition that would allow commercial growing and marketing of the first genetically engineered (GE) papaya trees on mainland US soil. If approved, this would remove all regulatory oversight of this GE variety by USDA of a virus-resistant papaya tree known as the Ring Spot Virus Resistant Papaya.

This petition has implications for all other GE tree species, as the USDA and the industry want to gauge what the public's reaction will be.
It is critical that all concerned about the threat of GE foods and GE trees respond to this USDA petition. Several hundred field trials of GE
trees have been conducted already, many for forest trees, such as poplar, loblolly pine, and sweetgum, that grow on millions of acres in
natural environments across the US.

The USDA admits that this GE papaya will contaminate both organic and conventional non-genetically engineered papaya groves if it is approved. Since all commercial papaya trees are cultivars that are relatively cross compatible within the same species, Carica papaya, contamination via GE papaya pollen carried by wind, bees and other insects will infiltrate the papaya groves of organic and conventional growers. The proposed buffer zones between GE papaya and other papayas will not prevent genetic contamination from being spread by pollinating insects.

Approval of this GE papaya tree also further opens the door to the commercialization of GE varieties of other tropical and subtropical tree
species. In Hawaii, a previously approved virus resistant papaya has caused extensive contamination of organic, conventional and wild papaya groves on most of the Hawaiian Islands in just a few years. This contamination has spread far more quickly than the USDA predicted in its initial assessment. Once native and cultivated papaya varieties are contaminated with transgenic pollen and the resulting seeds are planted, there is no calling it back.

[Sample comments to submit below. Please add any additional comments of your own.]

1. Go to
http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocumentDetail&o=09000064806cf607

2. Double click on Docket - APHIS-2008-0054 - at the top of the page.

3. Double click on small yellowish box directly below "ADD COMMENTS" in the right hand column.

4. Enter public commenter information. You may add attachments to document your concerns.

5. Double click on NEXT STEP under ACTION at page bottom to enter your comments into Docket.

The following comments are in reference to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0054. I oppose the deregulation of genetically engineered papaya trees for the following reasons:

1. Genetic contamination is a serious and growing threat. Flowers and seeds in organic and conventional papaya groves will become contaminated with GE papaya genes via pollen transported by bees and other insects that travel many miles in search of pollen. The result is that organic and conventional papaya growers will lose their markets for non-GE papayas as DNA testing confirms the contamination, as it already has with GE papayas in Hawaii. An organic tree might remain organic itself, but the pollen, honey and seeds will be contaminated, and trees planted from the GE papaya seeds will bear contaminated fruit.

2. The approval of perennial GE papaya trees would be a dangerous precedent setting step by USDA, opening the floodgates for more GE trees including fruit, nut, ornamental, and paper-pulp and timber species, as well as trees engineered for soil remediation, and other traits.
Approximately 80 species and varieties of trees are currently undergoing gene splicing research and development for commercial use. Many of these are native species vital to ecosystems in much of the US.

3. There are serious and mounting concerns about a broad range of health effects associated with consumption of GE crops, GE pollen, and GE-produced honey. For example, consumers may suffer allergic reactions due to unexpected toxins in GE foods. The GE papaya pollen may produce unintended effects such as allergic reactions in sensitive individuals and the USDA has not properly evaluated the potential for allergic reactions. The USDA has also failed to consider the potential for allergens or other novel substances in the GE papayas, GE papaya pollen, or GE papaya-produced honey to interfere with pharmaceuticals being used by consumers.

4. The papaya fruit, seeds, latex, and leaves contain carpaine, an anthelmintic alkaloid that could be dangerous in high doses to the heart
(it affects myocardium directly) and the circulatory system. Carpaine is one of the major alkaloid components of papayas, and has been studied for its cardiovascular effects. The USDA has not fully evaluated the health effects of alkaloids such as carpaine and related alkaloids on consumers eating GE papaya, pollen, honey or fruit juices and foods containing GE papaya ingredients. The USDA has not fully studied whether the GE papaya trees produce a different alkaloid chemistry or overall phytochemistry compared to organic, conventional or wild papayas. Other papaya alkaloids and phytochemicals have not been adequately studied for their human health effects. This despite widespread evidence that the genetic engineering of plants can alter expression of genetic traits apparently unrelated to the intentionally inserted trait.

5. There are serious and mounting concerns about the genetic stability of the artificial gene combinations and the artificially inserted genes
used in GE papaya trees. The USDA claims that the papaya ring spot viral resistance gene and other inserted genes are sufficiently genetically stable, but the testing has only been performed for approximately ten years and not the entire, decades-long pollen-producing life span of a papaya tree. Over the long life of a papaya tree, an RNA virus such as papaya ring spot virus is susceptible to many cycles of recombination, leading to the creation of new plant viruses that could infect a wide variety of plants. This can also occur with the viral DNA that has been inserted into these papayas.

6. The deregulatory petition completely ignores potential effects on bees and other pollinator species. Today honey bee colony collapse
disorder known as CCD is a serious and growing problem for apiaries and bee-pollinated crops including in Florida where the GE papaya trees will be grown. Although unintended effects are common in GE crops (and are part of regulatory human health assessments), there is extremely little assessment of possible environmental impacts from unintended effects. There are no studies that would allow us to evaluate the potential hazards of GE tree pollen or GE papaya tree pollen for a variety of insects, or for consumers of honey. We also do not know how animals and insects that browse on papaya leaves might be affected.

7. The USDA's environmental assessment admits that the GE papaya readily hybridizes within its species Carica papaya. Thus, there may be a significant potential for gene flow into native perennial papaya varieties. GE papaya trees will be long lived, and capable of contaminating orchards and native papaya tree populations for several decades. One GE papaya tree will be able to produce thousands of GE seeds and extensive quantities of pollen, and will be capable of spreading fertile GE papaya seeds and pollen into the environment for
many years. The petition did not adequately evaluate the relative fitness of GE papaya varieties as compared to native papayas; it is possible that the GE varieties would become more successful in natural settings, and out-compete non-GE varieties, as they have in parts of Hawaii. We challenge the USDA's spurious claim that contamination would be positive by reducing potential reservoirs for harboring the papaya ring spot virus in the wild; this claim is not supported by any data.

8. There has been no short-term or long-term safety testing or feeding trials for toxicity or other adverse effects of the construct of eight
genes inserted into the GE papaya trees. GE papayas have not been tested on animals, birds or humans for safety. Toxicity tests are necessary since unintended genetic effects are known to occur with gene splicing. USDA has ignored the need for scientific studies of gene splicing and for comprehensive studies of the environmental consequences of GE plantings since the USDA has not adequately consulted with the Food and Drug Administration or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their regulatory input.

Florida Certified Organic Growers & Consumers, Inc.
PO Box 12311
Gainesville, FL 32604
www.foginfo.org <http://www.foginfo.org>
352-377-6345 (t)
352-377-8363 (f)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 4 replies

USDA: New GM rule can preempt state, local laws

Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:15:06 GMT

USDA now says new GM organisms rule can preempt state, local laws

Revising regulations governing importation, eco-release of GMO's is first comprehensive overhaul to rules in 21 years

by Sustainable Food News
November 10, 2008

The U.S. Department of Agriculture on Monday reversed course on a recently proposed rule overhauling regulations governing the importation and environmental release of genetically modified organisms, saying it can preempt state and local laws.

The agency's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register on Oct. 9 that that would be the first comprehensive revision in 21 years of regulations regarding the importation, interstate movement, and environmental release of certain genetically engineered organisms.

In the Oct. 9 notice, the agency said that the proposed rule, if adopted, would not preempt any state or local laws or regulations. But the agency said in a subsequent Federal Register notice on Monday that that information is incorrect.

"We should have stated that, if this proposed rule is adopted, all State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted," the agency said in the notice on Monday.

The revisions would also "update the regulations in response to advances in genetic science and technology and our accumulated experience in implementing the current regulations," the agency said.

*******************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Chile contaminated with GE crops

Fri, 24 Oct 2008 17:12:57 GMT

A report from the Institute for Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA) has detected transgenic contamination of maize in the fields of central Chile.

The presence of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) poses a risk to organic agriculture and the exports of conventional seeds from companies in central Chile. The contaminated corn was illegally sold in the market for human consumption and for seed.

The Institute for Nutrition and Food Technology (INTA) dependent of the University of Chile, has detected the presence of contamination in samples of maize growing nearby fields of transgenic maize for seed export. The samples were collected in the Region of O´Higgins, during the first months of 2008, from 30 different fields.

"This study shows for the first time, that contamination does occur in the fields in Chile. This is a very serious situation as the contaminated corn was grown illegally, was not approved for seeds by the Agriculture and Livestock Service (SAG)", nor for human consumption", says Maria Isabel Manzur from Fundación Sociedades Sustentables.

During 2007, 216 cases of transgenic contamination were registered in 57 countries, which means that contamination is widespread in the world. The Director of the Programa Chile Sustentable, Sara Larraín, demanded the authorities to "reconsider their policies regarding transgenic crops, given the impossibility to control the contamination and the segregation of crops".

More information:
Sara Larrain, Programa Chile Sustentable
slarrain@entelchile.net / 09-3197588 (2097028)

María Isabel Manzur, Fundación Sociedades Sustentables
mimanzur@gmail.com/ 2235459-2771429

Patricio Larrabe - Óscar Letelier, Desarrollo Rural Colchagua
patriciolarrabe@gmail.com/ 08-9054327

**************

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:39:28 GMT

Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin
The Bioscience Resource Project News Service, 21 October 2008
http://www.bioscienceresource.org/news/article.php?id=35

Concerns over bees, especially the European honey bee (Apis mellifera) have rarely been higher. Although there are few hard data there is a general consensus that both solitary and social bee populations are declining and that recently the still-mysterious colony collapse disorder (CCD) has dramatically worsened this situation. No definitive cause for CCD has yet been established but there is widespread agreement that CCD is caused by more than one factor (Calderone, 2008 ; Oldroyd, 2007).

One of the speculated contributors to this decline is transgenic crops and specifically those containing Bt proteins since these are insect-active toxins to which bees are exposed through various routes. In particular, bee larvae are exposed since they consume large quantities of pollen which they sometimes source from maize plants (Sabugosa-Madeira et al. 2007). Up to now however there has been no specific evidence that any Bt toxin has negative effects on bees, but equally such studies have been rare. Particularly lacking are studies on sub-lethal effects of Bt toxins on bees.

In the view of many, there is clear evidence from laboratory settings that Bt toxins can affect non-target organisms. Usually, but not always, affected organisms are closely related to intended targets (reviewed in Lovei and Arpaia 2005 and Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006). Typically, exposure is through the consumption of plant parts such as pollen or plant debris or through Bt ingested by their predatory food choices. Nevertheless, due to significant data gaps, the real-world consequences of Bt transgenics remains unclear.

Thus the lepidopteran-active Cry1Ab is, not unexpectedly, toxic to some butterflies (e.g. Losey et al 1999 and Lang and Vojtech 2006) while more distantly-related organisms affected by Cry1Ab are ladybird larvae, caddisflies and Daphnia Magna (Rosi-Marshall et al 2007; Bøhn et al 2008; Schmidt et al 2008). Other variants of Bt, such as Cry3Bb, are considered coleopteran-active but have been the subject of less research. Nevertheless, these may also affect non-target coleopterans such as ladybird larvae as well as more distantly related organisms such as lacewings (Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006; Schmidt et al 2008).

A recent paper adds to the non-target story by demonstrating that honey bees fed on the active form of purified Cry1Ab protein can be affected in the learning responses necessary to associate nectar sources with odourants (Ramirez-Romero et al 2008). This learning response is important in bee foraging behaviour and it has attracted the attention of CCD researchers since it is known to be inhibited by the insecticide imidacloprid (e.g. Decourtye et al 2004). In this latest study bees consuming artificial nectar containing 5000ppb of Cry1Ab continued to respond positively to a learned odour even in the absence of a food reward, while normal bee behaviour is to become discouraged and seek more abundant food sources.

Left unstudied by the authors however was the likely mode of action of this behavioural effect. This is of considerable interest since the principal means of Bt lethality, which is thought to be a receptor-mediated effect on gut integrity, fails to explain the observed behavioural modification. The new finding is therefore particularly interesting since it lends weight to a previous suggestion that Bt toxins may have other, non-lethal effects which become apparent only when the normal (i.e. lethal) effect is absent (Hilbeck and Schmidt 2006; Schmidt et al. 2008). If there were to be multiple modes of Bt action then many more non-target organisms would likely be at risk from Bt transgenics.

The authors propose that bees are unlikely to be exposed to the quantity of Cry1Ab that led to the defects in behaviour they observed. However, this conclusion seems premature since Bt concentrations in plants are highly variable (Lorch and Then 2007). It is also probable that in real situations bees may be exposed earlier in their development and over longer periods. Bt Researcher Angelika Hilbeck believes that experiments simulating real-world bee experiences are still lacking. "What really needs to be looked at are combinations of both the Bt toxin AND imidacloprid and not Bt toxin OR imidacloprid, and in a form that simulates the exposure routes in the field".

References
Bøhn T., Primicerio R., Hessen D.O., Traavik T. (2008) Reduced Fitness of Daphnia magna Fed a Bt-Transgenic Maize Variety. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 55:584-92

Decourtye A.; Armengaud C., Renouc M.; Devillers J.; Cluzeau S.; Gauthier M. and Pham-Delègue M-H. (2004) Imidacloprid impairs memory and brain metabolism in the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.). Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology 78: 83-92

Hilbeck A. and Schmidt J.E.U. (2006) Another View on Bt Proteins – How Specific are They and What Else Might They Do? Biopestic. Int. 2: 1-50

Lang A. and Vojtech E. (2006) The effects of pollen consumption of transgenic Bt maize on the common swallowtail, Papilio machaon L. (Lepidoptera, Papilioni). Basic and Applied Ecology 7: 296-306

Lövei G.L. and Arpaia S. (2005) The impact of transgenic plants on natural enemies: a critical review of laboratory studies. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 114: 1-14

Lorch A. and Then C. (2007) How much Bt toxin do MON810 plants actually Produce? www.greenpeace.de/fileadmin/gpd/user_upload/themen/gentechnik/greenpeace_bt_maize_engl.pdf

Losey J.E. Rayor L.S.; and Carter M.E. (1999)Transgenic pollen harms monarch larvae Nature 399: 214

Oldroyd B. (2007) What's Killing American Honey Bees? PLoS Biol 5(6)

Ramirez-Romero R.; Desneux N.; Decourtye A.; Chaffiol A.; Pham-Delègue M.H. (2008)Does Cry1Ab protein affect learning performances of the honey bee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae)? Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 70:327-33

Rosi-Marshall, E.J.; J. L. Tank; T. V. Royer; M. R. Whiles; M. Evans-White; C. Chambers; N. A. Griffiths; J. Pokelsek and M. L. Stephen (2007) Toxins in transgenic crop byproducts may affect headwater stream ecosystems. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104: 16204–16208

Sabugosa-Madeira B.; Abreu I.; Ribeiro H. and Cunha M. (2007) Bt transgenic maize pollen and the silent poisoning of the hive Journal of Apicultural Research 46: 57-58

Schmidt J.E.; Braun C.U.; Whitehouse L.P.; Hilbeck A. Effects of Activated Bt Transgene Products (Cry1Ab, Cry3Bb) on Immature Stages of the Ladybird Adalia bipunctata in Laboratory Ecotoxicity Testing. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 2008 Aug 20

***************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Lake County, CA, Board gives anti-GE ordinance OK

Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:30:33 GMT

Board gives anti-GE ordinance OK in first read
Written by Elizabeth Larson
Tuesday, 21 October 2008

LAKEPORT – By a 3-2 vote the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday gave initial approval to an ordinance to ban the use of genetically engineered (GE) crops in Lake County.

The ordinance has been advanced to a final reading next month.

Supervisors Ed Robey – who introduced the ordinance – along with Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing voted to approve the measure, with Jeff Smith and Rob Brown voting no.

With the exception of Rushing, who wasn't yet on the board in 2005, the rest of the board members voted the same as they did when considering a 2005 ordinance that would have placed a 30-month moratorium on GE alfalfa.

That crop has since been re-regulated by a court decision, with the US Department of Agriculture ordered to do a full environmental impact study before it can be released again to the market, as Lake County News has reported.

The board's decision followed three and a half hours of public input and board discussion, which revealed a deep divide in opinion.

Local agricultural leaders and business people said the kind of scientific tools used for genetic engineering are crucial to giving them a competitive advantage.

On the other side of the issue, those against the use of the GE crops said they wanted agriculture to thrive but didn't believe that state and federal governments have done enough to vet the safety of genetically modified organisms.

Robey aid he attempted to find a balance point that would appeal broadly to people on all sides of the issue, although he realized it was a divisive topic.

“I think there is one thing that we can all agree on though, and that is, agriculture is an important part of Lake County's history and our economy, and we want to make sure the agricultural industry in Lake County survives and thrives, and it's going through some tough economic times right now,” said Robey. “That's where I'm coming from with this ordinance.”

He said the ordinance prohibits use of GE crops unless they produce medical products, and also includes a provision where the board can exempt any crop if they make specific findings that the crop is beneficial, such as if it is resistant to disease.

Robey pulled out a box of energy bars purchased at Costco and made in China, which states on its package that it's free of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which he said is an economic advantage.

The issue of economic benefit proved to be a major one throughout the meeting.

Farrington questioned if there was substantiation for that claim, citing a letter from county Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik, who contacted Marin and Mendocino counties, where non-GMO ordinances have been accepted. Hajik reported officials from those counties weren't able to quantify if they were getting higher prices for their produce.

Brown said there's been no proof about economic advantage.

Community members present different viewpoints

Winemaker Jim Fetzer, who has become prominent nationally for his efforts in biodynamic winemaking, said he supported the non-GMO approach because it provides the community with an opportunity to market itself. Local winegrape growers have taken that chance to position the county's grapes on the market.

“We've got the cleanest air in the county, why not the cleanest food?” Fetzer asked.

Victoria Brandon, chair of the Sierra Club Lake Group, said she was concerned that people opposing the ordinance were accusing its supporters of being “anti-scientific,” which she said wasn't the case. Rather, it's a case of “too many uninvestigated dangers.”

“The consequences are not just for agriculture, there's consequences for ecology in general,” she said.

The county is very special, said Brandon, and being able to label it as GMO-free “will be just one tool in a wider toolbox.”

Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March said the group is remaining consistent in its opposition to such an ordinance, reaffirming that stance in a 14-2 vote of its board of directors in May.

He said he knows of no scientific, peer-reviewed document that shows GMO dangers to health. The only concern that has been raised involves a corn that is resistant to the organic compound Bacillus thuringensis (Bt), which has been known to damage the health of livestock.

March went on to say that Mendocino County hasn't seen an economic advantage since going GMO-free in 2004.

Organic labeling, he said, is a suitable recourse to ensuring safety of crops, although there's no certification program that guarantees genetic purity.

March said the big concern was for conventional growers' rights and their ability to grow and protect a legal commodity. All markets should be fully protected and encouraged.

Hajik said he has received an 84-page list of proposed federal regulations relating to GE crops that may offer additional protections.

Rushing read from a letter from California Certified Organic Growers, which supported the measure for a variety of reasons, including impacts of GE crops on insects, development of herbicide-resistant pests, genetic pollution, trading partners' rejection of GE crops, and inadequate testing and research of the effects on human health.

Winegrape and walnut grower Broc Zoller said there has been genetic changes to crops – such as grafting – for thousands of years. “There's some question in some peoples' minds about what's natural and what isn't.”

He said he was concerned about local growers not getting the chance to use some of the new tools that are being developed.

Doug Mosel, who helped draft Mendocino's anti-GMO ordinance, said one of the proposed ordinance's strengths is that is offers the ability to have exceptions on some crops. But he said that the promising technology of GMOs is decades down the road.

He said federal regulations relating to GMOs have been loosened, not strengthened, in recent years. Mosel said a University of Missouri study shows premium prices from GE-free soy.

Businessman Kenny Parlet said government spends a lot of its time trying to catch him doing things wrong. “In order to be in business today it's a real struggle.”

He asked why government should put more impediments in place. He said the customers at his Northshore grocery store won't be able to afford the more expensive GE-free foods.

Parlet, who was so passionate about the subject that the veins were actually bulging out of his neck, said for the supervisors to stay out of local farmers' business. “You need to back off, let business take its course.”

Anna Ravenwoode said she supports the ordinance. “Lake County should be the leader in ensuring public health, environmental safety and protection of our organic, biodynamic and sustainable agriculture.”

Toni Scully of Scully Packing said the majority of commercial growers in the nearly packed room wanted to be able to take advantage of advances in biotechnology. Lake County's pear growers, she added, were pioneers in integrative pest management.

“This would be a real backwards step for the development of agriculture historically,” she said, adding that many other counties have passed ordinances affirming support for GE agriculture.

Scully asked the board to exercise leadership to bring both sides together and “not impose the will of one group over the other.”

Finley resident Phil Murphy said that while a lot was mentioned about the promise of GMOs, the reality is that those which are Bt- or glyphosate-resistant are most commonly used. The optimal way to deal with weeds and bugs is to rotate crops and pesticides, but that's not how GE licensing works.

“The only way that ag is going to make it in Lake County is if we develop marketing niches,” he said.

He pointed to how the local winegrape industry has created a marketing niche for itself and so is thriving.

Murphy asked Brown, who emphasized the importance of property rights, about whose rights got priority if an organic farmer was trying to grow seed but someone down the road wants to grow a GE crop.

Brown said if he believed property rights were in danger, he would have a different opinion.

Lakeport Regional Chamber of Commerce Chief Executive Officer Melissa Fulton suggested the board form a citizens advisory committee to investigate the issue before making a decision. “I sincerely urge you to give that some consideration.”

Smith said there were great points on both sides, but he couldn't support the ordinance as written.

Farrington said he believed that, when health and safety is an issue, government needs to consider taking action. He said he and Parlet have clashed over issues such as the ordinance to place pseudoephedrine – a cold medicine ingredient used to manufacture methamphetamine – behind the counter at stores to prevent easy access to it. But that went through and it's now become federal legislation.

He went on to cite many other materials – from Saccarin to MTBE to Agent Orange – that have been considered safe but, after further study, have been ruled harmful to people.

Farrington suggested a six-month or one-year sunset clause on the ordinance, during which time the suggested advisory committee could work on fine-tuning the document.

Robey said he was open to the sunset clause. Smith said six months was too long and even with that and other changes Farrington suggested he couldn't support the measure.

Rushing said the sunset clause might bring the two sides together. “This is an issue that affects generations.”

However, the sunset clause was a concern for Robey in the case the group didn't reach consensus, and Brown added, “To me there's nothing more permanent than a temporary ordinance.”

Rushing said she would prefer the ordinance without the clause, and Farrington withdrew it.

She moved the ordinance with Farrington offering the second, resulting in the 3-2 vote. The ordinance will come back for its second readind on Nov. 4.

If Lake County gives final approval to the ordinance next month, it would be one of only a handful of counties and cities around the state to adopt definitive, anti-GE legislation.

http://lakeconews.com/content/view/6055/764/

*****************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Order 81: Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia

chycho — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:59:11 GMT

Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia
by Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D.

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m47991&hd=&size=1&l=e

October 15, 2008

One would think that Iraqi farmers, now prospering under "freedom" and "democracy," would be able to plant the seeds of their choosing, but that choice, under little-known Order 81, would be illegal.

But first, it is important to set the context. Most people have never heard of the infamous "100 Orders," but they help explain why the majority of Iraqis remain opposed to foreign occupation. The 100 Orders allow multinational corporations to basically privatize an entire nation, and this degree of foreign and private control has not been witnessed since the days of the British East India Company and its extraterritoriality treaties.

A few examples of the 100 Orders are illuminating:

* Order 39 allows for the tax-free remittance of all corporate profits.
*
Order 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, immunity from Iraq's laws.
*
Orders 57 and 77 ensure the implementation of the orders by placing U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector general in every government ministry, with five-year terms and with sweeping authority over contracts, programs, employees and regulations. (1)

Back to one of the most blatant orders of all: Order 81. Under this mandate, Iraq's commercial farmers must now buy "registered seeds." These are normally imported by Monsanto, Cargill and the World Wide Wheat Company. Unfortunately, these registered seeds are "terminator" seeds, meaning "sterile." Imagine if all human men were infertile, and in order to reproduce women needed to buy sperm cells at a sperm bank. In agricultural terms, terminator seeds represent the same kind of sterility.

Terminator seeds have no agricultural value other than creating corporate monopolies. The Sierra Club, more of a mainstream "conservation" organization than a radical "environmentalist" one, makes the exact same case:

"This technology would protect the intellectual property interests of the seed company by making the seeds from a genetically engineered crop plant sterile, unable to germinate. Terminator would make it impossible for farmers to save seed from a crop for planting the next year, and would force them to buy seed from the supplier. In the third world, this inability to save seed could be a major, perhaps fatal, burden on poor farmers." (2)

What makes this Order 81 even more outrageous is that Iraqi farmers have been saving wheat and barley seeds since at least 4000 BC, when irrigated agriculture first emerged, and probably even to about 8000 BC, when wheat was first domesticated. Mesopotamia's farmers have now been trumped by white-smocked, corporate bio-engineers from Florida who strive to replace hundreds of natural varieties with a handful of genetically scrambled hybrids.

Where does such hubris come from? It comes from the entire mission surrounding the invasion of Iraq, which, upon closer inspection, had been planned years in advance by a faction of "neo-cons" who adopted Leon Trotsky's glorification of the state, his theory "permanent revolution," and his goal of exporting revolution worldwide. The neo-con revolution aims to alter the economic, political and cultural foundations of nations on the other side of the planet (rejecting old-fashioned notions of self-determination, popular sovereignty and even the nation-state system). This mission includes the transformation of agriculture and the establishment of "food control" over local populations.

Order 81 fits into this revolutionary program, and it is quite diabolical upon closer inspection. First, it forces Iraq's commercial farmers to use registered terminator seeds (the "protected variety"). Then it defines natural seeds as illegal (the "infringing variety"), in a classic Orwellian turn of language.

This is so incredible that it must be re-stated: the exotic genetically scrambled seeds are the "protected variety" and the indigenous seeds are the "infringing variety."

As Jeffrey Smith explains, author of Order 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture:

"To qualify for PVP [Plant Variety Protection], seeds have to meet the following criteria: they must be 'new, distinct, uniform and stable'... it is impossible for the seeds developed by the people of Iraq to meet these criteria. Their seeds are not 'new' as they are the product of millennia of development. Nor are they 'distinct'. The free exchange of seeds practiced for centuries ensures that characteristics are spread and shared across local varieties. And they are the opposite of 'uniform' and 'stable' by the very nature of their biodiversity." (3)

Order 81 comes with the Orwellian title of "Plant Variety Protection." Any self-respecting scientist knows, however, that imposing biological standardization accomplishes the exact opposite: It reduces biodiversity and threatens species. So Order 81 comes with an Orwellian title and consists of Orwellian provisions.

Jeffrey Smith peels away the layers of mischief behind Order 81, finding it nonsensical that six varieties of wheat have been developed for Iraq:

"Three will be used for farmers to grow wheat that is made into pasta; three seed strains will be for 'breadmaking.'

Pasta? According to the 2001 World Food Programme report on Iraq, 'Dietary habits and preferences included consumption of large quantities and varieties of meat, as well as chicken, pulses, grains, vegetables, fruits and dairy products.' No mention of lasagna. Likewise, a quick check of the Middle Eastern cookbook on my kitchen shelves, while not exclusively Iraqi, reveals a grand total of no pasta dishes listed within it.

There can be only two reasons why 50 per cent of the grains being developed are for pasta. One, the US intends to have so many American soldiers and businessmen in Iraq that it is orienting the country's agriculture around feeding not 'Starving Iraqis' but 'Overfed Americans'. Or, and more likely, because the food was never meant to be eaten inside Iraq at all…" (4)

Just in case Iraqi farmer can't read, Order 81 enforces the new monopoly on seeds with the jackboot. Order 81 makes this clear in its own text, buried at the bottom of the document, as is most screw-you fine print:

"The court may order the confiscation of the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools substantially used in the infringement of the protected variety. The court may also decide to destroy the infringing variety as well as the materials and tools or to dispose of them in any noncommercial purpose." (5)

Order 81 is about power and profit, but it disguises itself as humanitarian legislation.

Topping it all off, the entire document puts on rather magisterial airs. It was signed by L. Paul Bremer himself, with his own hand, and presumably with his own pen:

"Pursuant to my authority as Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority…"

Like the Roman Proconsuls, Paul Bremer also spent a year in the provinces, governing the so-called barbarians…

-The above is an excerpt from Andrew Bosworth’s new book: Biotech Empire: The Untold Future of Food, Pills, and Sex, available at Amazon.

-Andrew Bosworth, Ph.D. is an assistant professor of Government at the University of Texas at Brownsville.

Notes

1. Uruknet Report, "Have You Ever Heard of Bremer's 100 Orders?" 11 April 2008.

2. Institutional Report, Genetic Engineering at a Historic Crossroads," The Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Report, March 2001.

3. Jeffrey Smith. "ORDER 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture - The Ultimate War Crime: Breaking the Agricultural Cycle." Global Research and The Ecologist, 27 August 2005, Vol 35, No. 1.

4. Jeffrey Smith. "ORDER 81: Re-Engineering Iraqi Agriculture - The Ultimate War Crime: Breaking the Agricultural Cycle." Global Research and The Ecologist, 27 August 2005, Vol 35, No. 1.

5 CPA/ORD/26 April 2004/81, p. 27.

:: Article nr. 47991 sent on 16-oct-2008 04:02 ECT
or

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Hawaii: Council bans GMO taro, coffee

Thu, 16 Oct 2008 03:13:07 GMT

by Jim Quirk
West Hawaii Today

Thursday, October 9, 2008

HILO -- The genetic modification of taro and coffee on the Big Island is now a banned practice.

The Hawaii County Council voted 9-0 Wednesday in favor of a bill from North Kona Councilman Angel Pilago on its second reading to ban genetically modified taro and coffee.

It was a circus-like atmosphere Wednesday in Hilo's Ben Franklin building, where the meeting was held. Children played in the hallways outside of the council chambers waiting for their chance to speak along with their parents. A man standing in the hallway corner sang as he strummed the strings of a guitar.

The council, meanwhile, listened to a different tune, one delivered by the seemingly endless convoy of residents who took turns at the microphone to give their two cents on the proposed ban.

About 70 residents testified in Hilo, while about 30 testified via teleconference from the council offices in Waimea and Kona. There have been no major complaints about banning genetically modified taro, but with coffee it's a different story.

On one side of the debate are those who believe genetic modification of coffee could eventually spell disaster for the island's coffee industry. Off-island buyers would not be interested in Kona coffee that has been purposely or accidentally genetically modified, the proponents believe.

Then there are residents who believe, among other things, without genetic modification of coffee, there will be no scientific answers when disease strikes and destroys Big Island coffee.

A vast majority of residents who spoke Wednesday said they were in favor of the ban.

Dr. Hector Valenzuela, a vegetable crops extension specialist with the University of Hawaii at Manoa, said he -- unlike all of his peers at the college -- supports the bill.

He said the scientific community should be concentrating on aspects of agricultural research, such as teaching farmers how to sustain crops without having to rely on chemicals, rather than genetic modification.

Bill proponent Chuck Moss, a Kona coffee farmer, said one potentiality of genetically modified coffee is that experiments in creating coffee trees without caffeine could spread to other trees. If that happened, it would be hard to market Kona coffee, he said.

"How can you tell the difference from a regular tree from a decaf tree, or a regular bean from a decaf bean?" Moss asked.

Hamakua Councilman Dominic Yagong furnished results of a poll he conducted recently that shows 82 percent of 89 Big Island coffee farmers support the bill.

He said during a separate interview that his office identified isle coffee farmers using the phone book, Internet and personal knowledge.

During a previous meeting, representatives of the Hawaii Coffee Council indicated a majority of island coffee farmers are against the bill, Yagong said, which is why he wanted to conduct a poll to find out for sure.

Hilo Councilman Stacy Higa, who voted against the bill on its first reading, said Yagong's survey changed his mind.

Mayor Harry Kim, who is still not back to work full time because of his recent heart attack, made an appearance early in the meeting and expressed concerns that the bill wouldn't allow genetic testing of coffee in the lab setting.

He requested the council consider developing a system where research at places like the University of Hawaii at Hilo would be able to continue.

Kim could attempt to veto the bill, but it seems unlikely it would succeed because of the unanimous council vote Wednesday.

http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2008/10/09/local/local08.txt

**************

Related:
Council members, islanders prepare for GMO vote
http://www.westhawaiitoday.com/articles/2008/10/07/local/local04.txt

**************
Thanks to TW

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

WORC: GM alfalfa decision upheld

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 00:16:39 GMT

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled for WORC and our fellow-plaintiffs, upholding a nationwide ban on the planting of genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready alfalfa pending a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Court rejected an appeal by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Monsanto of Federal Judge Charles Breyer’s 2007 decision to enjoin further sales and planting of GM alfalfa seed and requiring USDA to prepare a full EIS on any future decision to approve GM alfalfa.

In her opinion for the Court, Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder upheld Judge Breyer’s finding that “the harm to growers and consumers who wanted non-genetically engineered alfalfa outweighed the financial hardships to Monsanto and Forage Genetics and their growers.”

Source: WORC (Western Organization of Resource Councils), http://www.worc.org/index.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Good News on the Codex Front / GMO issues

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:39:32 GMT

Good News on the Codex Front
(This post is an excerpt from the Natural Solutions Foundation newsletter 3.3.08 To learn about the dangerous threat of Codex, see "Codex Alimentarius Summarized in 7 Points" www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

One of the most successful battle fronts in Codex is the adamant determination of much of the rest of the world NOT to allow either any GM food (like Benin, for example) or unlabeld GM food (like Norway, Switzerland, the EU, Japan, Russia and many other countries. The US has been fighting to impose its anti-consumer policies of forbidding any labeling of GM foods because consumers reject it if they know they are eating genetically modified "Franken Foods". So when the African nations laid the ground work for inactivating the mine field the US was setting for them in the wording of a document it was proposing, things were looking quite hopeful, at least on that front.

After the meeting was over we went to Benin, a country with a moratorium on GM foods. We brought advanced technology to see if it would increase the crop yield, increase the nutrient density and decrease the water use in that dry and hungry country as part of the Natural Solutions Foundation's effort to reclaim healthy, sustainable food production. This is part of our International Decade of Nutrition. Of course, we were working with government people as well as private ones to make this happen.

The head of the Beninese food safety and security program is a remarkable veterinarian trained in human nutrition in the US. He has a limited staff but a huge commitment to protecting his country's food. He asked if we could provide information in French giving him reasons that his position opposing GM foods makes scientific sense (which Benin will need to follow the Codex Two Step Process on GM issues) and I said, "Yes!" That's why we started the Natural Solutions Foundation GM Files.
Here are the links to the GM Files I have compiled so far, starting with Dr. Mae Wan Ho's excellent summary:

Making the World GM Free and Sustainable
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

Fundamental Weaknesses in the GM Concept
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

GM, Fish Oil, Protein and Brain Power for Kids
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

Russian Studies Show Rats Fed GM Feed Fail to Thrive, are Infertile
www.healthfreedomusa.org/wp-ad...st.php

GM Contamination Set to Worsen: London Guardian
www.healthfreedomusa.org/wp-ad...st.php

Another Extinction: Public Land Grant Colleges
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

New Zealand Scientists Urge PM to Show Sanity re: GMOs
www.healthfreedomusa.org/wp-ad...st.php

Seeds of Destruction
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

This is a big (and very important) project with huge potential impact and your help is both needed and most welcome! If you can do the research to supply documents that we can add to the GM files in electronic format (or if you can translate these documents into French), please write to Kathy Greene, my assistant, akathy.greene@usa.net to volunteer your help. Just put "GM Files" in the subject line and let her know if you are interested in research or translation (or perhaps both!)

If you already know about the dangers of eating (and growing) GM foods, please pass these data on to others. In case you think that GM foods are tested for safety by the FDA (they are not) or are not part of your food supply (they are found in 60-80% if all US prepared foods unless you eat an all organic diet), please take some time to read these GM Files. The good news is that more and more people at home and abroad are "getting it" about GM foods and don't want to be part of the largest experiment in human history - without benefit of informed consent or insurance.

Good News In Action

The Natural Solutions Foundation is about solutions. Our solutions are natural so they work! And part of our solutions are the action steps that we provide for you to let legislators know what you want (health freedom to make your own health choices) and what you do not want (including compulsory screening, drugging and vaccination.

Here are some good news statistics: 129,101 people support our right to know how nutrients and supplements can benefit us and support Ron Paul's bill HR 2117, the Health Freedom Protection Act which not only guarantees free speech but forces the FDA to allow scientifically based information instead of prohibiting that information as they do now. Click here (salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/56...n.jsp ) to join nearly 139,000 people in urging their Congresspeople to become co-sponsors of this important law.

Another bit of good news: we've finally got the amazing Songhai video posted on the Natural Solutions YouTube Channel. You must see this demonstration of Fr. Godfrey's completely sustainable, beyond organic, natural solutions to integrated farming communities! Go to: youtube.com/naturalsolutions and scroll down to "Videos" to see what can be done to produce food properly, Fr. Godfrey is going to work with us to set us the sustainable zero emissions system in the Santa Clara Project (see below for more on that project).

588,832 people used our website to tell the FDA its CAM Guidance, allowing the FDA to declare nutrients "untested drugs" if they were used for health benefits was unacceptable. Recently the FDA forced two companies to stop making and marketing products for diabetics made from cherry juice because the products turned cherry juice into an untested drug by stating the health benefit derived from using it. More action is clearly needed: half a million voices were not enough to counter Big Pharma. Five million would be more like it. That means you need to get your circle of influence activated. Ask them to go to www.HealthFreedomUSA.org and subscribe to the free Health Freedom eAlerts (www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php ) and get involved in protecting their health and their freedom before there is nothing left to protect.

HEALTH FREEDOM INFORMATION YOU NEED

Make Sure You Receive
Health Freedom eAlerts
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY

SHARE!
Tell Your Friends About www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

ORGANIZE!
Join us in the fight to protect health freedom
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

SIGN CITIZEN'S PETITION
Ask the U.S. government to change its policy on Codex Alimentarius
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

CONTRIBUTE!
Make a contribution and help raise funds for the health freedom fight
www.healthfreedomusa.org/index.php

VOTE!
Register to vote in the US
www.credomobile.com/registertovote/

More than just talk...Our Solutions are Natural So They Work!

Yours in health and freedom,

Dr. Rima
Rima E. Laibow, MD
Medical Director Natural Solutions Foundation
www.HealthFreedomUSA.org

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

California GE Protection Bill Becomes Law

Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:08:44 GMT

CALIFORNIA'S FIRST PROTECTIONS FOR FARMERS FROM THREATS OF GENETIC ENGINEERING BECOME LAW
Monsanto's intimidation tactics no longer legal

Sept. 29, 2008

A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from liability was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger on Sept. 27, 2008. The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), was sponsored by a coalition of agriculture organizations and food businesses, and it is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

AB 541 indemnifies California farmers who have not been able to prevent the inevitable - the drift of GE pollen or seed onto their land and the subsequent contamination of non-GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of harassing lawsuits brought by biotech patent holders, most notoriously Monsanto. Further, if their contaminated crops cause harm to other farmers, the environment or consumers, they have not been protected from that liability. AB 541 provides protections for farmers from such liability. The bill also establishes a mandatory crop sampling protocol to level the playing field when biotech companies investigate alleged patent or contract violations.

AB 541 was sponsored by a thirteen-member coalition including Community Alliance with Family Farmers, Earthbound Farm, California Certified Organic Farmers, and United Natural Foods Inc. It also had the support of the California Farm Bureau Federation which has traditionally opposed any restrictions or regulations for GE crops.

"AB 541 provides much needed protection for farmers who typically lack the resources to fight lawsuits brought by biotech conglomerates," stated Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the coalition sponsoring AB 541. "This is a good first step towards establishing that Monsanto - not farmers - is legally responsible for the economic, environmental and health harms caused by their patented and uncontrollable products."

Contact: Renata Brillinger, (707) 874-0316, info@gepolicyproject.org

# # #

GENETIC ENGINEERING POLICY PROJECT
California Certified Organic Farmers · California Church IMPACT · Center for Food Safety · Center for Environmental Health · Community Alliance with Family Farmers · Earthbound Farm · Ecological Farming Association · Environment California · Good Earth Natural Foods · Occidental Arts & Ecology Center · Oakland Institute · Ocean Beach People's Organic Food Co-op · Pesticide Action Network North America · United Natural Foods, Inc.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

Genetically Engineered Foods Edge Closer To Dinner Plate, FDA To Develop GE Rules

Sinja — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:27:41 GMT

FrankenChicken moved closer to your dinner table after the FDA announced they're going to begin developing the procedures and guidelines that will allow farmers to genetically engineer animals to have more desirable traits and then sell them to you in the supermarket. For instance, featherless chicken or faster-growing fish. They will not require food to be labeled as genetically modified as long as there's no change in the final product, a move Consumers Union called "incomprehensible."

Source: http://consumerist.com/5051927/genetically-engineered-foods-edge-closer-to-dinner-plate-fda-to-develop-ge-rules

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

germany vs. america with GMOs

dax — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 14:41:04 GMT

any germans here or people who know about the differences?

i'm american in germany, and i know america's one of the world's worst when it comes to GMO's, but germans eat a lot of potatoes...XD

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Support AB 541: Protect CA farmers!

Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:47:09 GMT

Last Chance to Support AB 541!

A landmark piece of legislation protecting California's farmers from crippling lawsuits was passed by the State Assembly on August 29, 2008.

The bill, AB 541 (Huffman, D-Marin/Sonoma), has passed both houses of the Legislature with strong bipartisan support and is now awaiting the Governor's signature. The bill is sponsored by diverse organizations, some of whom are traditionally opposed on farm issues. It is the first bill passed by the California legislature that brings much-needed regulation to genetically engineered (GE) crops.

For more information, see the web site for Californians for GE-Free Agriculture. http://www.calgefree.org/

Take Action:
Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to Sign AB541 Into Law

Feel free to use the sample letter below to send to Governor Schwarzenegger

1. Select all text here, then copy and paste into a Word document.
2. Remove all text except the sample letter.
3. Personalize with your own message, and sign your name. Put it on letterhead if you have it.
4. For maximal impact, send it by mail (address on sample letter below), fax (916-558-3160), or make a phone call (916-445-2841). If you only have time to email, use the Governor's online email form.

Sample Letter

[Date]

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
State Capitol
Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: AB 541 (Huffman): REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

I am writing in support of AB 541. [Describe your organization, company, or farm here if applicable].

Currently, California has no laws in place to address the issue of genetic engineering (GE), yet citizens across the state have expressed concerns about the risks the technology presents for farmers, consumers, the economy and the environment.

AB 541 is a good first step towards addressing the many issues related to genetic contamination caused by GE crops and seeds. This bill will enact protections for California farmers against frivolous lawsuits that intimidate and harass those who have not been able to prevent the inevitable drift of GE pollen or seeds. It will level the playing field for farmers by discouraging the practice of Monsanto and other biotech corporations of sampling crops without explicit permission farmers and prosecuting based on unverifiable test results.

AB 541 has no opposition and enjoyed broad bipartisan support in both houses of the Legislature. The bill is supported by diverse organizations, some of which are traditionally opposed on the GE issue.

Given the fact that GE crops continue to be developed for dozens of California specialty crops, it is prudent that California lawmakers get out in front of potential problems to assure that the rights of our farmers are protected. AB 541 will put California in the forefront of efforts in various states to protect farmers from the unintended presence of GE material in their crops.

Please sign AB 541 into law. It represents an important first step on establishing statewide legislation regarding genetically engineered crops. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.

Sincerely,

[Name, title, affiliation]

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Interview with US Secretary of State Science Advisor and AID Administrator on GMOs (scary brainwashing)

Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:09:40 GMT

The New York Times

August 19, 2008
A Conversation With Nina V. Fedoroff
An Advocate for Science Diplomacy
By CLAUDIA DREIFUS

When she was a single mother in the early 1960s, Nina V. Fedoroff, 66, defied odds and conventionality by working her way through college, graduate school and postdoctoral studies. Dr. Fedoroff, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, did fundamental research on plant transposons, or jumping genes, and was among the first to clone plant DNA. She is science adviser to the secretary of state and administrator of the Agency for International Development. We spoke last month in Washington and later on the telephone. An edited version of the conversations follows.

Q. WHEN YOU GAVE A RECENT SPEECH AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY ADVOCATING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS, SOMEONE SITTING NEAR ME SAID, “OH GREAT, OUR STATE DEPARTMENT IS PUSHING G.M. FOOD. SHE’S THE AMBASSADOR FROM MONSANTO.” WHAT’S YOUR RESPONSE?

A. How do I answer him? My answer is: There’s almost no food that isn’t genetically modified. Genetic modification is the basis of all evolution.

Things change because our planet is subjected to a lot of radiation, which causes DNA damage, which gets repaired, but results in mutations, which create a ready mixture of plants that people can choose from to improve agriculture.

In the last century, as we learned more about genes, we were able to devise ways of accelerating evolution.

So a lot of modern plant strains were created by applying chemicals or radiation to cause mutations that improved the crop. That’s how plant breeding was done in the 20th century. The paradox is that now that we’ve invented techniques that introduce just one gene without disturbing the rest, some people think that’s terrible.

Q. WHY DO YOU THINK THERE IS SUCH FIERCE OPPOSITION TO GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS?

A. This is an unintended consequence of our success. We’ve gotten so good at growing food that we’ve gone, in a few generations, from nearly half of Americans living on farms to 2 percent. We no longer think about how the wonderful things in the grocery store got there, and we’d like to go back to what we think is a more natural way.

But I’m afraid we can’t, in part, because there are just too many of us in this world. If everybody switched to organic farming, we couldn’t support the earth’s current population — maybe half.

Q. YOU BELIEVE THAT ENVIRONMENTALISTS SHOULD BE EMBRACING GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOODS. WHAT’S YOUR ARGUMENT?

A. If we put more land under cultivation to feed the world’s growing population, we’re going to pull down the remaining forests.

And if that happens, it will contribute tremendously to desertification. The more we can grow on already cultivated land, the better. Europe, North America, Australia, Japan — we’ve been extremely successful in applying science to agriculture and we can afford to say, “Let’s go natural.” But there’s collateral damage.

When I went to Rwanda, you saw farmers with holdings of less than an acre.

If their population doubles again, we’re looking at more strife. Arguably, Darfur isn’t about politics, it’s about water. Many of the conflicts in the poorest countries are about too many people chasing too few resources. Do we have time to transition something that looks like Rwanda to a more efficient agriculture and to do it wisely enough to absorb the people?

Q. WHY DOES THE SECRETARY OF STATE NEED A SCIENCE ADVISER?

A. Because science and technology are the drivers of the 21st century’s most successful economies.

There are more than six billion of us, and the problems of a crowded planet are everyone’s: food, water, energy, climate change, environmental degradation. Other nations, even those that have lost respect for our culture and politics, still welcome collaboration on scientific and technological issues.

Q. REPRESENTATIVE GEORGE E. BROWN JR., ONCE THE HEAD OF THE HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE, WORRIED THAT BECAUSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AGREEMENTS WITH OTHER COUNTRIES WERE NOT FINANCED, THE UNITED STATES WAS HURTING ITSELF WITH EMPTY GESTURES. WAS HE RIGHT?

A. That’s a great question and a very current one. Yes, the State Department opens doors by negotiating government-to-government S&T agreements. It also takes the first step in fleshing out such agreements by bringing scientists, ministers and agency representatives together to explore mutual interests. But actually supporting collaborative research on problems of mutual interest, that’s just beginning to be recognized as important.

George Brown was right — without the resources to support collaborations, it’s much less than it could be. There are members of Congress who are keenly interested in science diplomacy.

But Congress will have to make a bigger investment for science diplomacy to flourish.

Q. CAN YOU NAME A SITUATION WHERE SCIENCE DIPLOMACY CHANGED HISTORY?

A. History isn’t like a science experiment. You can’t go back and rerun it “without science diplomacy” to see what happens.

Nonetheless, some historians credit ongoing relationships between Soviet and American scientists, particularly physicists, with preventing a flash-over of the cold war.

Today scientific interactions exist between the U.S. and certain countries with which we have no formal diplomatic relations. We’re promoting scientific interactions to address water and health issues among the countries of the Middle East. Our recent interactions with Libya had science and technology as a centerpiece, ranging from a major international astronomical event around a solar eclipse, to addressing issues of health, water desalinization and agriculture.

Another example of science diplomacy is a small group, the Israeli-Palestinian Science Organization. A project they’re doing that I’m enthusiastic about involves genetic assessments. There are some diseases unique to the region that may have a genetic basis. The question is: Which genes and how do you identify them? With that group, I see how science is a real force for bringing people together.

Q. WHY CAN SCIENCE CREATE COOPERATION IN PLACES WHERE EVERYTHING ELSE FAILS?

A. Because science is more collaborative than other types of endeavors. It aspires to more democratic principles than many political systems because we have an external reference.

People can have different theories, but we form an experiment to test it. It’s the evidence that matters. So in science, we can have differences of opinion, but we can’t have two sets of facts.

There is an in-built process that says, “You and I may have different religions, different politics, but we can talk about science across chasms.”

(thanks to tw)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

U.S. Caves Into Lobbyists Over Massive Bee Deaths

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 07:47:02 GMT

U.S. Caves Into Lobbyists Over Massive Bee Deaths

* U.S.D.A. caves into lobbyists over massive bee deaths while Germany takes a major step to keep their pollinators pollinating crops
Sierra Club, via CASFS-Blog and Forum, June 11, 2008
Straight to the Source

from The Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems (CASFS), UC Santa Cruz

In light of the mounting evidence that new seed chemical coatings are deadly to bees and the action of Germany to call for an immediate suspension of these seed treatments, the Sierra Club today reaffirmed its call for a U.S. moratorium on specific chemical treatments to protect our bees and crops, until more study can be done.

Recently Germany's federal agricultural research institute noted, "It can unequivocally be concluded that poisoning of the bees is due to the rub-off of the pesticide ingredient clothianidin from corn seeds."

At issue are the neonicotinoids, including clothianidin, being used in a new way - as seed coatings.

For years, farmers have been spraying neonicotinoids onto their crops to stop insect infestation. Now Bayer and Monsanto have acquired patents to coat their proprietary corn seeds with these neonicotinoids.

"Part of the equation in the U.S. is genetically engineered corn, as more and more corn seeds are being gene spliced with a completely different species - a bacteria," said Walter Haefeker, of the German Beekeepers Association Board of Directors. "Bayer and Monsanto recently entered into agreements to manufacture neonicotinic-coated genetically engineered corn. It's likely that this will worsen the bee die-off problem."

David Hackenburg, former president of the American Beekeeping Federation, has been urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do more study. "Look at what's time based. The massive bee decimation started when regulatory agencies rubber stamped the use of neonicotinoid spraying and coating," he said.

"Sierra Club joins the concern of beekeepers," said Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club Genetic Engineering Committee Chair. "It's unfortunate that regulatory agencies are using double speak. They claim to protect our food supply - yet they aren't doing the proper studies. The loss of honeybees will leave a huge void in the kitchens of the American people and an estimated loss of 14 billion dollars to farmers. We expect the U.S.D.A. to do their job. We call for a precautionary moratorium on these powerful crop treatments to protect our bees and our food."

www.sierraclub.org/biotech/

Contact: Laurel Hopwood, Sierra Club 216-371-9779

lhopwood@roadrunner.com

~~~

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo

Tue, 22 Apr 2008 05:18:45 GMT

Interesting article in today's NY Times re: Genetically modified grain

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/21/business/21crop.html?_r=1&th=&oref=slogin&emc=th&pagewanted=all

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

Switzerland Bans GMOs till 2012

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 02:07:58 GMT

SWITZERLAND BANS GMOs: The Swiss government has voted to extend its ban on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) until 2012. The extension will provide time to assess health implications, biological safety, and coexistence ramifications with organic crops. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_12591.cfm

Switzerland Bans GMOs till 2012

* GM crops banned in Switzerland until 2012 - Agra Europe, 5/29/08
Straight to the Source: http://www.allaboutfeed.net/news/id102-5090 1/gm_crops_banned_in_switzerland_until_2012.html

The Swiss Federal Council (government) has voted to extend the country's moratorium on genetically modified (GM) plants for a further three years beyond the current expiry date of November 2010, Dow Jones reports.

The extension is to allow time for a national research programme into the benefits and risks of GM crops to be completed and the results assessed. Questions over the biological safety of GM plants and the coexistence of GM, conventional and organic crops are being addressed.

The Council imposed a moratorium on the commercial cultivation of GM crops in 2005, on the basis that there was no demand for them in Switzerland at the time and that big gaps remained in scientific knowledge about the risks of this technology.

Shortly after that, the research programme was launched, and this is expected to reach a conclusion around the middle of 2012. However, the Council said last week that it must be allowed to take its course without political pressure.

According to the Council, the moratorium has not caused any obvious problems, either for the farming industry, researchers, or international relations. In fact, it claimed, Swiss farmers have benefited from being able to market their produce on international markets as GM-free.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Pollution in People

Tue, 03 Jun 2008 01:37:12 GMT

Interesting article on the polluting of people!

http://www.nrdc.org/thisgreenlife/0803.asp

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Important petition TV Drug Ads

Leslee — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 08:17:04 GMT

TV Drug Ads Must Not Gloss Over Side Effects

Target: FDA

Sponsored by: Consumers Union

The FDA is currently debating whether to require a toll-free number and web address on all TV drug ads so we can easily report serious side effects to the agency.
But the FDA commissioner wants to study the idea for two more years. That’s too long! Prescription drug ads in magazines and newspapers already have this reporting information. Why not TV?

The benefits of making it easy to report serious drug side effects are clear:

• Better reporting of side effects will help the FDA do a better job of detecting dangerous drugs on the market sooner. Dangers often emerge only after millions of people start taking a drug.
• A recent poll found that only 7 percent knew how to report serious side effects to the FDA.
• The toll-free number and web address is already required in print drug ads; this would only put it on TV ads, so more consumers would see it.
An FDA panel convened recently to hear testimony on this, but now they need to hear from you.

Please take a minute to tell the FDA panel why it’s important they require a toll-free number and web address on all TV drug ads now!

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/898887837?z00m=15342139

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

HOW TO MAKE SAFER BUYING CHOICES: GMO Defensive Shopping List

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Sat, 10 May 2008 02:54:48 GMT

HOW TO MAKE SAFER BUYING CHOICES
GMO Defensive Shopping List

What crops are most often GMOs? Examples of products commonly containing GMOs

SOY (89%)* Chocolates use soy lecithin; Breads use soy flour; Shakes use soy protein concentrate; Baby formulas use soy milk.

CORN (61%)* High fructose corn syrup is found in sodas, cereals, cookies, candy, salad dressings, spaghetti sauces, and 1,000 other products. Baked goods use cornstarch; Vegetable oils use corn oil; Breads use corn flour.

CANOLA (80%)* Fried products use canola oil; Baked goods use canola oil; Many health products use canola oil.

COTTON (83%)* Chips use cottonseed oil; Fried snacks use cottonseed oil.

* Percentage of GM cotton, corn, and soy in the US and GM canola grown in Canada.

TIP #1: BUY ORGANIC
There are three types of organic labels:

* “100% ORGANIC” means all ingredients are organic.
* “ORGANIC” means that at least 95% of the ingredients are organic. The other 5%, however, still have to be non-GMO.
* “MADE WITH ORGANIC _________ (ingredient name, e.g. SOY).” This label means that at least 70% of the ingredients are organic, but the remaining 30% still have to be non-GMO.

If the term organic is ONLY in the list of ingredients and not found anywhere else on the package, then there is no required percentage for organic ingredients in the product, and any non-organic ingredient may be GMO.

TIP #2: LOOK FOR“NON-GMO” LABELS
Companies may voluntarily label products as “non-GMO”. Some labels state “non-GMO” while others spell out “MADE WITHOUT GENETICALLY MODIFIED INGREDIENTS”. Some products limit their claim to only one particular “AT-RISK” ingredient such as soy lecithin, listing it as “non-GMO”.

TIP #3: AVOID AT-RISK INGREDIENTS
The four major GM crops are soy, corn, cottonseed, and canola. Three minor crops are Hawaiian papaya, and a small amount of zucchini and yellow crook neck squash. These 7 crops look just like their non-GMO counterparts. Novel products such as seedless watermelons, pear/apple combos, and tangelos are products of natural breeding and are NOT genetically engineered.

Most GM ingredients are products made from corn and soybeans, used in processed foods. (See chart on page 4.) There is no GM popcorn on the market, nor is there blue or white GM corn.

Help stop the introduction of GM sugar in late 2008. Send a letter to top companies on our website.

TIP #4: USE SHOPPING GUIDES
There are a few non-GMO shoppers’ guides available based on information directly from food producers. The True Food Guide, available online at www.truefoodnow.org, has also been reproduced as an insert in the back of the informative book on GMOs, Your Right To Know by Andrew Kimbrell. Go to www.seedsofdeception.com.

OTHER WAYS TO AVOID GMOs

ANIMAL PRODUCTS
Meats, dairy products, farmed fish, and eggs are usually from animals fed GM feed. To avoid, buy “ORGANIC”, “WILD CAUGHT”, or meat or dairy from “100% GRASS-FED” animals. Avoid dairy products from cows injected with GM bovine growth hormone (called rbGH or rbST). See www.responsibletechnology.org for brands. Honey and bee pollen may have been gathered from GM plants.

PRODUCTS FROM GM MICROORGANISMS
There are many additives, enzymes, flavorings, and processing agents used in foods which are produced by GM bacteria, yeast, or fungi. To avoid them, either buy organic or stick to non-processed foods.

GMO SWEETENER ASPARTAME
Avoid the GMO derivative labeled as the sweetener aspartame. It is also referred to as NutraSweet® and Equal® and is found in over 6,000 products, including soft drinks, gum, candy, desserts, mixes, yogurt, tabletop sweeteners, and some pharmaceuticals such as vitamins and sugar-free cough drops.

AVOID GMOs IN RESTAURANTS
Try to go to restaurants that cook meals from scratch and do not use packaged, processed mixes and sauces which will likely have GM ingredients. At-risk ingredients include corn chips and tortillas, tofu, soy sauce, and sweet corn. Vegetable oil is usually made from GM soy, corn, cottonseed, or canola and is used by most restaurants. Find out if your restaurant uses vegetable oil, and if so, ask if they can cook YOUR meal without oil or with a non-GMO oil, such as olive, sunflower, or safflower.

Buy non-GMO. Help us stop the genetic engineering of our food supply.
Membership in the Institute For Responsible Technology is $25 and includes a free educational gift.

Donations to IRT are tax-deductible. Become a member or make a donation through the website, or mail a check to:

Institute For Responsible Technology
P.O. Box 469 Fairfield, IA 52556
www.responsibletechnology.org
or call (641) 209-1765

INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE TECHNOLOGY
The Institute is a fully tax deductible project of The Coordinating Council, a 501c(3).

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

US Bullies Africa on GM Labeling, Africa's Had Enough

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Sat, 10 May 2008 02:47:01 GMT

U.S. Pressure on South Africa at Codex
Quashes Hopes For Mandatory GM Food Labeling in 2008
According to the Natural Solutions Foundation

http://www.prweb.com/releases/GM_Labeling/Codex/prweb909004.htm

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Engineered seeds can survive in soil for 10 years

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Sat, 10 May 2008 02:25:17 GMT

Engineered seeds can survive in soil for 10 years

Scientists in Sweden found genetically engineered canola plants springing up in a test field 10 years after engineered seeds were originally planted—despite efforts over time to clear the field of transgenic plants. The canola plants were engineered to tolerate the herbicide glufosinate. In the years following the canola planting, the field was plowed and used to grow wheat, barley, and sugar beets, and farm staff routinely searched for and removed canola plants. Yet after a decade canola plants were still sprouting in the field. The persistence and dispersal of genetically engineered plants into the environment is one of the serious problems with this technology, and may contribute to contamination of conventional crops.

Read more about engineered crops,
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/genetic_engineering/

or read the study abstract in Biology Letters.
http://journals.royalsociety.org/content/g62358l733561560/?p=55b079c4e99b4c65a399e04bbb81c13b&pi=0

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/feed/feed-may-2008.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

PLEASE WATCH = "IN LIES WE TRUST" = IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE

Daniel J — Mon, 05 May 2008 09:34:28 GMT

PLEASE WATCH = "IN LIES WE TRUST" = IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE
Join the "TRUTH REVOLUTION"..

http://www.restoretherepublic.com/component/option,com_seyret/task,video\
directlink/Itemid,40/id,559/

TORRENT WITH extras
http://www.mininova.org/tor/1375455

PLEASE READ "A Truth Soldier"
http://danieltowsey.blogspot.com/2008/02/truth-soldier.html

Make copies and share them with people you care about, make some and write
"PORN" and leave copies in malls and other places...

Only the truely informed will have any chance..

Please join "conspiraciesclub' It's loaded with thousands of Articles,links,Videos, Documents and more.. http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/conspiraciesclub/

and for Canadians please go to "canadianconspiraciesclub" to learn about Bill C-51 before it's to late http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/canadianconspiraciesclub/

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Growing Meat in Vats?

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:52:16 GMT

Here's an interesting article from today's NT Y Times about growing our meat. EEEEEWWW~

What do you think about this prospect? Time to become a vegetarian I'd say~grow your own. Makes a good argument for permaculture and food not lawnd!

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/11/can-people-have-meat-and-a-planet-too/

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 02:33:42 GMT

Organic veggies have more nutrients
from the Union of Concerned Scientists Food & Environment newsletter
http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_environment/feed/feed-april-2008.html#4
A review of nearly 100 scientific studies has concluded that, on average, organic fruits and vegetables have more vitamins, minerals, and beneficial antioxidants than their conventionally grown counterparts. In the new report, scientists from The Organic Center (a nonprofit that promotes organic farming), examined carefully matched measurements of selected nutrients in specific organic and conventionally grown foods. The scientists found that the organic produce had higher levels of tested nutrients in 61 percent of the cases. Furthermore, the organic foods tended to have higher levels of antioxidants and polyphenols, nutrients that are often in short supply in U.S. diets. By contrast, conventional produce had higher levels of potassium, phosphorus, and total protein, which most people already have in their diets in sufficient amounts. The Organic Center will update its findings online as new studies comparing organic and conventional foods are published.
Read the report:
"New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods,"
State of Science Review, March 2008
http://www.organic-center.org/science.nutri.php?action=view&report_id=126

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Labels should tell the truth about hormones

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:29:32 GMT

FOOD SLEUTH: Labels should tell the truth about hormones

By MELINDA HEMMELGARN
COLUMBIA TRIBUNE, March 26 2008
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2008/Mar/20080326Food011.asp

Pennsylvania said no. Indiana followed. Now it's Missouri's turn to reject legislation that would place restrictions on dairy labels and limit a consumer’s right to know whether our milk was produced without artificial hormones.

Several months ago I reported on the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture’s attempts to make it illegal for dairy farmers to label their milk as produced without the synthetic [ie genetically engineered] hormones rbST or rbGH. Both the governor and agriculture secretary said such "absence claims" confused consumers.

Hogwash. We consumers consistently say we want more transparency in the food system, not less. And we’re not confused by dairy labels that say "from cows not treated with artificial growth hormones." In fact, according to a poll conducted by Consumer Reports National Research Center last June, 88 percent of consumers surveyed "thought that milk from cows not treated with rbGH should be allowed to be labeled as such."

Thanks to public outcry from consumers, farmers and processors, Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture decided against labeling restrictions. The Midwest and International Dairy Foods Associations also submitted letters opposing legislation in Indiana, the second state to reject label constraints.

Michael Hansen, senior scientist at Consumers Union, calls these decisions "a victory for free speech, free markets, sustainable farming and the consumer’s right to know."

St. Louis-based Monsanto produces the injectable synthetic hormone sold under the brand name Posilac. The corporate giant uses political strategies and public relations campaigns to restrict "absence" labels and protect profits.

But Jerry Slominski, senior vice president of IDFA, says he’s concerned about milk producers’ rights to market and sell a product consumers clearly want.

The FDA and Monsanto both say milk from treated cows is not significantly different from untreated cows. But that statement’s validity depends on what you’re measuring.

For example, according to the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, there is evidence that milk from treated cows contains higher levels of insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-1. Samuel Epstein, professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois-Chicago School of Public Health, believes IGF-1 increases the risk of certain cancers.

Hansen and the IATP's David Wallinga say "it's simply common sense to avoid a higher risk of getting cancer when the source of that risk is completely unnecessary."

Before rbGH received FDA approval, the U.S. General Accounting Office expressed concerns about the drug causing increased infection of cows’ teats. The condition requires treatment with antibiotics, which contributes to the growing crisis of antibiotic-resistant bacteria that threaten human health.

The Posilac package insert says the drug's use is associated with "increases in cystic ovaries," "increased risk for clinical mastitis (visibly abnormal milk)," "digestive disorders," "lesions of the knee" and "disorders of the foot region."

Mark Winne, a Santa Fe-based food systems analyst, followed the horrific story of the "downer cattle" beef recall in California. He noticed the crippled cows appeared to be Holsteins, dairy cows. Winne researched factory dairy farms in New Mexico and says when cows are "pumped up on growth hormones" their productive years are shortened, after which they’re sent off "to the industrial-scale hamburger grinder."

Japan, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand and Canada ban the use of the synthetic hormone because of concerns about the health and welfare of cows and humans.

If you want the freedom to purchase milk from cows not treated with synthetic hormones, speak up. Contact your legislators in Jefferson City and let them know how you feel about House Bill 2283, which would restrict consumers’ rights to make informed decisions in the marketplace. Better yet, attend Family Farm Lobby Day at the Capitol, from 1:30 to 4:00 p.m. March 31 and learn about a variety of issues affecting Missouri’s family farmers, our landscape, economy and food. Call the Missouri Rural Crisis Center for more information at 449-1336.

************

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Monsanto Round up Ready

Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:35:30 GMT

video.google.de/videoplay

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

KAUAI News: Organic corn 'outbreak' reported

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:27:53 GMT

KAUAI News: 'It's a rebellion of sorts'

Organic corn 'outbreak' reported

by Rachel Gehrlein
THE GARDEN ISLAND
http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2008/03/28/news/news02.txt

In an attempt to make a statement about genetically modified corn on Kaua‘i, a loose conglomeration of community members has started to distribute organic corn seeds and corn seedlings island-wide.

According to Lauren Shaw-Meek, a manager at Vim & Vigor in Lihu‘e, the idea of the organic corn “outbreak” is to bring attention to what the group sees as the perils of GMO corn. By poking fun at the possibility of an organic corn “outbreak” the message is a little lighter and may reach a wider audience.

“It’s a rebellion of sorts,” Shaw-Meek said.

The idea that the organic corn can cross-pollinate with GMO corn puts those at risk who do not want to eat the GMO corn, Shaw-Meek added.

“The GMO companies do open-air testing with pesticides and herbicides,” Westside resident Diana LaBedz said. “The ground becomes sterile, destroying the land for future generations.”

LaBedz, a member of the Kaua‘i chapter of the Surfrider Foundation, said she is participating in the corn outbreak to help educate people on what is going on around the world on the GMO front.

“World citizens have lost the right to know if corn bought to feed families has been chemically modified (contains the pesticide in the corn),” LaBedz said in a e-mail. “There is a concern that our corn will be contaminated by the GMO crops that pepper Kaua‘i island, next to schools, rivers and in our neighborhoods. Kaua‘i’s citizens reject the philosophy that we must poison our environment and use the radical genetic engineering of plants and animals to produce enough food for everyone.”

Because of this belief, organic seeds, plants and even organic popcorn have been given out around the island.

During Monday night’s movie night at Small Town Coffee in Kapa‘a, organic popcorn was handed out to moviegoers. The Storybook Theatre in Hanapepe plans to distribute the organic popcorn during their family movie night on April 4.

Free organic corn seeds were given out at the Lotus Root in Kapa‘a, Farsyde Tattoo in Hanapepe, Koloa Natural Foods, Papaya’s in Kapa‘a and Vim & Vigor in Lihu‘e.

Shaw-Meek said the free organic corn seeds “went like hotcakes” at Vim & Vigor.

“They went over amazingly well,” Shaw-Meek said. “I’m not surprised the seeds flew out of here because people are excited about the planting season.”

According to LaBedz, most locations are already “sold out” of seeds.

“We have more seeds, we just need to distribute them,” she said.

Agreeing that the group is within its rights to express its message, one research scientist would like to work with them. According to Sarah Styan, a research scientist with Pioneer Seeds and president of the Hawai‘i Crop Improvement Association, farmers around the world are demanding biotec agriculture.

“The whole basis of our business is selling seeds of genetic purity and maintaining the genetic integrity of agriculture,” Styan said. “And just like any business, we are getting product out as fast as possible.”

Styan added that all types of agriculture, including organic, biotec and conventional, are needed to maintain sustainability.

“We need everybody working together,” Styan said. “If we work together, we can make agriculture stronger and improve sustainability.”

LaBedz said Kaua‘i can’t be sustainable with GMO crops.

"If you can't protect your air, water and land we can't be sustainable," LaBedz said. "What they (GMO companies) are doing is permanent. We can’t roll back and undo it."

• Rachel Gehrlein, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 225) or rgehrlein@kauaipubco.com

***********

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

American Songbirds Are Being Wiped Out by Banned Pesticides

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:43:11 GMT

Globalization: American Songbirds Are Being Wiped Out by Banned Pesticides

By Leonard Doyle

Global Research, April 6, 2008
The Independent

Editor's note

In March, Global Research published an article by Brit Amos on the Decline of Bee Colonies in North America. The author attributes the death of the bees to the extensive use of GMO Crops.

The article posted below considers a related process: The death of the songbirds resulting from the extensive use of toxic pesticides and chemicals in export agriculture (fruits and vegetables) in Latin America.

It should be noted that the toxic chemicals and pesticides are distributed by the same biotech conglomerates which produce the GMO seeds.

Moreover, many of the pesticides and chemicals used in commercial agriculture are applied to sustain the production of specific GMO varieties including the fruits and vegetables exported out of Latin America.

What we are dealing with is the extinction of various forms of animal life, which is directly related to the Worldwide control exerted by the biotech companies over farming.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 6, 2008

****************************************
The number of migratory songbirds returning to North America has gone into sharp decline due to the unregulated use of highly toxic pesticides and other chemicals across Latin America .

Ornithologists blame the demand for out-of-season fruit and vegetables and other crops in North America and Europe for the destruction of tens of millions of passerine birds. By some counts, half of the songbirds that warbled across America ’s skies only 40 years ago have gone, wiped out by pesticides or loss of habitat.

Forty-six years ago, the naturalist Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, a study of the ravages caused to wildlife, especially birds, by DDT. The chemical’s use on American farms almost eradicated entire species, including the peregrine falcon and bald eagle.

The pesticide was banned and bird numbers recovered, but new and highly toxic pesticides banned by the US and European Union are being widely used in Latin America .

Because of changed consumer habits in Europe and the US , export-led agriculture has transformed the wintering grounds of birds into intensive farming operations producing grapes, melons and bananas as well as rice for export.

Ornithologists say another silent spring is dawning across the US as birds are being poisoned by toxic chemicals or killed as pests in their winter refuges across South and Central America as well as the Caribbean . They say that many species of songbird will never recover, and others may even become endangered or extinct if controls are not put in place or consumer habits changed.

More problems await those birds which make it home. Millions of acres of wilderness the birds use as nesting grounds have been ploughed under in the drive to grow corn for ethanol, for bio-fuel.

Some 150 species of songbirds undertake extraordinary migrations up to 12,000 miles every year as they move from the south to nesting grounds in the US and Canada every spring. Ornithologists say that almost all these species are at risk of poisoning.

The migratory songbirds in most trouble include the wood thrush, the Kentucky warbler, the eastern kingbird and the bobolink, celebrated by the 19th century American poet Emily Dickinson as “the rowdy of the meadows”.

Bridget Stutchbury, an ornithologist and professor at York University in Toronto , said: “With spring we take it for granted that the sound of the songbirds will fill the air with their cheerful sounds. But each year, as we continue to demand out-of-season fruits and vegetables, fewer and fewer songbirds will return.”

The bobolink songbird has experienced such a steep decline, it has almost fallen off the charts. The birds migrate in flocks from Argentina, Bolivia and Paraguay to the east coast of the US, feeding on grain and rice, prompting farmers to regard them as a pest. Bobolink numbers have plummeted almost 50 per cent in the past four decades, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey.

Rosalind Renfrew, a biologist who studied bobolinks as they were feeding in rice paddies in Bolivia , found about half of the birds had been exposed to toxic chemicals banned in Europe and the US . Some 40 to 50 species, which include the barn swallow, the wood thrush the dickcissel as well as migratory birds of prey, are starting to disappear.

It is only recently that the decline has been definitively linked to the use of toxic pesticides in the Caribbean and across Latin America . “Everyone who has looked for pesticide poisoning in birds has found it,” Professor Stutchbury said. “When we count birds during our summers we are finding significant population declines in about three dozen species of songbirds.”

She wrote in the comment pages of The New York Times: “They are the modern-day canaries in the coal mine.” She said: “The imported fruits and vegetables found in our shopping carts in winter and early spring are grown with types and amounts of pesticides that would often be illegal in the United States .”

Growers are using high doses of pesticides, which the World Health Organisation calls class I toxins. These are also toxic to humans and are either restricted or banned in the US and EU. But controls in Latin American countries are easily flouted.

“I believe that if we don’t make drastic changes quite literally many birds which are common now are going to become rare,” said Professor Stutchbury.

Testing by individual EU countries and the US Food and Drug Administration reveals that fruits and vegetables imported from Latin America are three and sometimes four times as likely to violate basic standards for pesticide residues.

****************************************
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Leonard Doyle, The Independent, 2008

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8575

© Copyright 2005-2007 GlobalResearch.ca

****************************************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

KAUAI News: Taro at heart of hearing

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:26:53 GMT

KAUAI News: Taro at heart of hearing

Most residents back county resolutions for cultural reasons

By Nathan Eagle
THE GARDEN ISLAND

More than a dozen residents opposed to genetically modified taro hoisted the culturally important plant and flaunted "protect your roots" shirts behind farmers who testified before the Kaua'i County Council, yesterday, at the Historic County Building.

The council has proposed resolutions supporting three bills pending at the state Legislature that would impose a 10-year moratorium on developing or growing genetically engineered taro, create a taro security and purity task force and fund statewide research on the apple snail, an invasive pest threatening the crop.

Supporters, representing the vast majority of speakers who addressed the council during the hours-long hearing, said messing with the genetic make-up of taro disrespects Native Hawaiians who consider the edible plant sacred. They also argued that a lack of information on the effects of genetically altered food, specifically taro, presents real risks to consumers.

Opponents claim genetic engineering research could produce disease-resistant taro, securing its future. They also said there is little chance of cross-contamination between varieties because of the nature of the species.

The council did not take action by press time. Testimony for the hearing, which started at 2:15 p.m., was still flowing hours later.

"Don't fool around with the taro," said John A'ana, a Westside farmer for the past 30 years, who held up a taro plant as he addressed council. "The bottom line is you need to show respect for the Hawaiian culture."

Wendell Rich, the site manager for Monsanto in Hanapepe, opposed the council resolutions but said that the multi-national biotechnology company and leading producer of genetically engineered seeds and herbicides has no plans to do anything with taro.

“The disease argument to me is a fear factor,” Anahola resident Hale Mawae said. “GMO represents control and manipulation of our food crops. Do we give that to these corporate companies?”

A Maui County Council committee and the Big Island County Council have passed similar resolutions supporting the state’s effort to temporarily ban work related to genetically modified taro.

Roy Oyama, representing the Kauai Farm Bureau, voiced opposition to a moratorium on testing genetically engineered taro.

“I don’t care what you tell me, research is needed,” he said, noting concerns over viral threats.

He acknowledged that the bureau did not poll its 360-plus members, saying the decision was based on a policy statement adopted at the group's annual state convention.

“Many of them don’t know what’s going on,” he said, referring to local members. “Agriculture is burning in my heart. I want to see it progress and feed every one of you.”

Senate Bill 958, which would impose the 10-year moratorium, was deferred after a seven-hour hearing March 19 before the House Agriculture Committee. An overwhelming majority of testimony delivered at the Capitol reportedly supported the resolution.

The House referred Senate Bill 2518, which would provide $500,000 in grant funding for taro research, to the Ways and Means Committee.

The House Finance Committee held a hearing yesterday at the Capitol on Senate Bill 2915, which would create the taro task force.

Taro and taro markets are in a state of decline, according to the state legislation. The threats that taro farming families and communities face in cultivating taro are numerous and growing.

Taro lands in Hawai'i represent less than 1 percent of all agricultural lands in cultivation in the state, yet it remains the most important traditional cultural crop in Hawai'i, the state legislation says.

"The way the issue has been handled is ripping the community apart," Kapa'a resident Adam Asquith said, supporting council's proposed resolutions.

County Council members Shaylene Iseri-Carvalho and Mel Rapozo authored the resolutions.

"This bill does not prohibit continued dialogue," Iseri-Carvalho said. "Why not be safe before we proceed?"

See a future edition of The Garden Island for follow-up on yesterday's meeting.

• Nathan Eagle, staff writer, can be reached at 245-3681 (ext. 224) or neagle@kauaipubco.com.

************************************************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Creamery pushes for tougher GMO rules

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:24:12 GMT

Creamery pushes for tougher GMO rules

By Terry McSweeney
ABC, March 27 2008

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local&id=6045363

WEST MARIN, CA (KGO) -- A Bay Area creamery is about to become the first in the United States to certify its products to be free of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs. It may give organic consumers peace of mind, but there's no chance it will end the fierce battle over the safety of food containing GMOs.

The Straus family creamery in West Marin went organic in 1995 and wants to keep that certification. That's why it was so disturbing to find genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, contaminating its organic ingredients.

"GMOs are not natural, they are not allowed by organic law and it's a huge issue for us," said Albert Straus, Straus Creamery owner.

Pollen from genetically modified plants has been contaminating organic crops. It had been turning up in milk and eggs used at the Straus Creamery and feed used at the Straus Dairy. About 75 percent of America's corn and soy are genetically modified. That means scientists have transferred genetic information from one plant to another. Making the recipient plant more like the donor plant; more drought resistant for example, or more tolerant to herbicide. But Straus doesn't think anyone knows what GMOs do to humans.

"I feel that not only am I a guinea pig for their research but all consumers are that we're supplying food for," said Albert Straus.

Which is why, in the next month, you will begin to see a 'No-GMO' certification on Straus yogurt and by September, on the side of all Straus products.

"All organic ingredients and products have a paper trail and a certification that goes along with them. We get a copy of all that, we get a copy of their tests as well as we do verification on our end," said Albert Straus.

Although it's a case of Straus certifying its own products and suppliers, it is still approved by the West Coast Director of the Center for Food Safety, Rebecca Spector.

"At least Straus is taking the effort through the rigorous process to actually go to levels to make sure feed has been tested for GMOs. And what they are saying is that they won't accept shipments that are above a certain threshold," said Rebecca Spector, Center for Food Safety.

Peggy Lemaux is with the Department of Plant and Microbial Biology at U.C. Berkeley. She says, yes, GMOs have only been in the human food chain for 13 years, but they were tested on animals for years before that.

"I've looked at all the safety tests that have been done on the products, that are in the commercial marketplace now, and there is nothing that has been confirmed as being an adverse effect in any of these animal tests that have been done," said Peggy Lemaux, U.C. Berkeley biologist. [Lemaux is a well-known GM proponent and a GM scientist. Her expertise is not in nutritional science.]

Back at the Straus Creamery and Dairy, they're not convinced.

"We're encouraging the rest of the industry to step up and move forward as quickly as possible to get a verification program in place," said Albert Straus.

The GMO controversy in the United States pales in comparison with what's going on in Europe. Thousands of municipalities and tens of thousands of farmers and food producers in Europe have declared themselves GMO free and refuse to allow the use of genetically modified organisms in the agriculture and food in their territories.

********

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Hawaii won't ban genetic coffee

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 22:22:46 GMT

March 27, 2008

Hawaii won't ban genetic coffee

HONOLULU (AP) — Hawaii won't ban genetically altered coffee, a decision that worries growers of the prized Kona coffee brand who want to keep it pure.

State lawmakers shelved a bill Wednesday that would have prohibited growing genetically modified coffee in Hawaii until 2012. Instead, they want to order a study into the science, benefits and dangers of genetically enhanced crops.

Coffee farmers worried that genetically modified coffee could contaminate expensive Kona blends, which are only grown on Hawaii's Big Island and exported worldwide.

"The fact that you're creating a 'frankenfood' is very scary. What will it do to my morning cup of coffee?" asked John Langenstein, sales manager for Koa Coffee Plantation.

Coffee drinkers in Japan and parts of Europe wouldn't buy Kona coffee if it becomes mixed up with genetically changed coffee, causing it to lose its value and uniqueness, Langenstein.

Others argue that genetically modified coffee poses little danger to Kona coffee because it would be grown on a different island and could benefit the economy.

One company plans to begin planting a special kind of modified coffee on Oahu, likely early next year, that grows decaffeinated naturally.

"Our field trials would have absolutely no effect on Kona coffee, so it doesn't really make sense to ban field trials of transgenic coffee across the whole state," said John Stiles, chief executive officer for Integrated Coffee Technologies Inc. "We don't want to be known as the anti-technology state."

Hawaii lawmakers won't even hear the proposal to impose a moratorium on genetically modified coffee.

Instead, they'll form a task force to consider the merits of genetically modified coffee, labeling effectiveness and consumer education, said Sen. Jill Tokuda, chairwoman for the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Hawaiian Affairs.

"We need more time to really examine these issues and understand all of the facts," said Tokuda, D-Kaneohe-Kailua. "When you have a moratorium on research, that sends a negative message out."

A decaffeinated coffee bean could double Hawaii's overall coffee production, invigorate the agriculture industry and create new jobs, Tokuda said.

Even though the genetically altered decaffeinated coffee would be grown on Oahu, far from the Big Island's Kona coffee fields, its seed could spread through human dispersal, said Una Greenaway, whose Kuaiwi Farm Kona Old Style coffee won the top prize at last year's annual Kona Coffee Cultural Festival's cupping contest.

"We really need to protect our industry. If those plants come to Kona, we'd be in serious economic trouble," she said at the state Capitol, where she was joined by a few other coffee growers.

Lisa Gibson, president of the Hawaii Science and Technology Council, said legislators should avoid passing laws limiting scientific study.

"It's a very slippery slope to begin legislating research," Gibson said. "If we're going to diversify out state, it needs to be based on knowledge."

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

**********

thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Wal-Mart Brand Milk Will Be rBST-Free

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:37:10 GMT

Wal-Mart Brand Milk Will Be rBST-Free
As Monsanto Fights Hormone-Free Labeling, Big Retailer Listens to Its Customers

By Dan Shapley
Daily Green, 21 March 2008

http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/milk-hormones-rbst-47032108

At a time when hormone-free milk labeling is under assault by Monsanto and its allies, Wal-Mart has taken a stand in favor of its consumers.

All Great Value-brand milk sold at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club will be free of rBST (recombinant [ie genetically engineered] bovine somatotropin, a growth hormone), the company said this week.

"As many of you know, there is a fair amount of controversy on this topic, but ... Wal-Mart’s customers are telling us that they are very concerned so we listened, and we’ve made a pretty big change," Rand Waddoups wrote in Check Out, a blog by Wal-Mart buyers.

While there are no known health effects from drinking milk produced from cows treated with rBST, and normal milk will contain cow hormones that are nearly indistinguishable, many consumers see the hormone-free label as a window into the operations at farms. Hormones keep cows producing milk at volumes and for durations that are unnatural, and their use often goes hand-in-hand with other "industrial" farming techniques, like keeping large herds in close proximity and whole-herd treatment with antibiotics and pesticides.

Monsanto, which manufactures the artificial growth hormone, has been going state-to-state, urging local agriculture departments to outlaw the use of labels like "rBST-free" on milk. Wal-Mart, which has proved that it knows well what American consumers want, has voted. Wal-Mart made no statement about the Monsanto initiative in its announcement about going hormone-free.

********************
thanks to tw

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Transgenic Potato Not to be Released

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:38:26 GMT

ISIS Press Release 19/03/08
Transgenic Potato Not to be Released
Prof. Joe Cummins

A version of this article was submitted to Advisory Committee on
Releases to the Environment (ACRE) 4 March 2008 on behalf of ISIS.

The University of Leeds Centre for Plant Sciences submitted an
application to release genetically modified (GM) potatoes to the open
environment for a field trial [1]. The transgenic potato plants have
been produced using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. All constructs have the
selectable marker gene for neomycin required only for selection of
transgenic lines for evaluation and according to the application, “known
to be biosafe as used.” The potato will express a cysteine proteinase
inhibitor (cystatin) from rice and/or a repellent of synthetic origin.
Both confer resistance to potato cyst-nematodes. Cystatins limit growth
of the nematode while the repellent prevents the nematodes from entering
the roots of the potato. Their expression will be under the control of
CaMV35S promoter from Cauliflower mosaic virus for constitutive
expression, or promoters that restrict expression to roots. The root
specific promoters used are from a serine threonine kinase (ARSK1) and
the MDK420 gene of Arabidopsis thaliana; they provide expression in
roots and at root tips respectively. A signal sequence from the
Calreticulin gene of Nicotiana plumbaginifoli are used in lines
expressing the repellent to favour its release from root. The nos
terminator sequence from Agrobacterium tumefaciens terminates
transcription of gene sequences. Six strains of GM potatoes are to be
tested: constitutive cysatin, root specific cystatin, root tip
repellent, constitutive repellent, root tip repellent plus root tip
specific cystatin. and constitutive repellent plus root specific cystatin.

Cystatin
The cystatin modified potatoes have been studied extensively according
to the application for consent [1]. The safety of the protease inhibitor
in transgenic potato in the human diet was evaluated in a small rat
feeding study [2]. The inhibitor caused a small but significant decrease
in the weight of the animals’ liver, but there were few other detectable
impacts at the levels of inhibitor studied.

The application for consent failed to mention that that there have been
numerous studies published in the medical literature showing that risk
of heart failure, atherosclerosis and nephropathy were marked by
elevated cystatin blood levels [3-5]. It is presently unclear whether or
not elevated cystatin causes kidney damage, or whether it results from
kidney pathology of another origin. At any rate, it is unwise to ignore
evidence showing that greatly elevating the plant source of cystatin
could be harmful to humans.

Cystatin has been found damaged and reduced in activity upon exposure to
a common fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate (Mancozeb) [6].
Carbamate pesticides are used extensively, which may negate the
effectiveness of the modified potato’s defence against nematodes.

Synthetic Repellent
The gene and the peptide that it produces are not fully or well
described in the consent application [1]. Additional information was
provided [7], which clarified some of the properties of the repellent.
However, neither document gave a clear description of the repellent
synthetic peptide and its synthetic gene. Little actual information was
provided on the organization of the gene and the messenger RNA and the
processing of the peptide in the potato cell. Such information is
necessary. The mode of action of the synthetic peptide was also not
clearly stated in the original application and a brief description was
given in additional information [7].

A publication from the Leeds group described producing a peptide in
potato to disrupt cyst nematodes, and compared the mode of action of the
peptide to an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor aldicarb [8]. Aldicarb is a
toxic pesticide slated for withdrawal from EU. However, the additional
information document [7] compared the synthetic peptide in the
application to the anthelminic levamisole, an inhibitor of the nicotinic
acetylcholinesterase receptor [9]. The synthetic peptide excreted from
the potato root paralyses the nematode preventing it from invading the
potato. Both of the documents of the application for consent [1,7]
measure the peptide in plant and soil by its ability to inhibit an
enzyme. However, the loss in ability to inhibit an enzyme does not
necessarily mean that the remains of the peptide are not toxic to
mammals. Some study of the toxicity of the breakdown products of the
synthetic peptide should have been done because such products may
pollute ground water. The synthetic peptide and its breakdown products
should have should have been studied fuller to determine whether or not
they are toxic to mammals.

General considerations
The application for consent included a discussion justifying the use of
the antibiotic neomycin resistance marker in the proposed open field
releases even though the antibiotic is still used in medicine [1]. It
stated that as the marker was used in food crops released commercially
in the North and South America it must be safe. Such reasoning is unsound.

The application for consent seems to have overlooked the important
question regarding the potential impact of the modified potatoes on
beneficial nematodes that control many insect pests described in two
major reviews [10, 11]. The elimination of a natural population of such
nematodes from the test site would increase the need for extensive
insecticide spraying. It would be wise to carry out an inventory of
these nematodes on the test site prior to commencing the actual
experiments, and to determine from the experiment whether the loss of
beneficial nematodes and the added cost of controlling insect pests
exceed the benefits of decreasing the nematode pests.

In conclusion, Consent should not be considered until the potential
toxicity (including immunogenicity) of the repellent and repellent
breakdown products are fully investigated and reported, and taken into
account.

References
1. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN
MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE RELEASE)
REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTSCentre for Plant Sciences University of
Leeds Control of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental
impact 2008

2. Atkinson HJ, Johnston KA, Robbins M. Prima facie evidence that a
phytocystatin for transgenic plant resistance to nematodes is not a
toxic risk in the human diet. J Nutr. 2004, 134(2), :431-4.

3. Niccoli G, Conte M, Bona RD, Altamura L, Siviglia M, Dato I, Ferrante
G, Leone AM, Porto I, Burzotta F, Brugaletta S, Biasucci LM, Crea F.
Cystatin C is associated with an increased coronary atherosclerotic
burden and a stable plaque phenotype in patients with ischemic heart
disease and normal glomerular filtration rate. Atherosclerosis. 2007 Nov
3 [Epub ]

4. Lee BW, Ihm SH, Choi MG, Yoo HJ. The comparison of cystatin C and
creatinine as an accurate serum marker in the prediction of type 2
diabetic nephropathy. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2007, 78(3), :428-34.

5. Djoussé L, Kurth T, Gaziano JM. Cystatin C and risk of heart failure
in the Physicians' Health Study (PHS). Am Heart J. 2008, 155(1), 82-6.

6. Sharma S, Rashid F, Bano B. Biochemical and biophysical changes
induced by fungicide sodium diethyl dithiocarbamate (SDD), in
phytocystatin purified from Phaseolus mungo (Urd): a commonly used
Indian legume. J Agric Food Chem. 2005, 53(15), 6027-34

7. APPLICATION FOR CONSENT TO RELEASE GMOs (FOR PURPOSES OTHER THAN
MARKETING) UNDER THE GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS (DELIBERATE RELEASE)
REGULATIONS 2002 – HIGHER PLANTS Defra Reference number 07/R31/1 Control
of potato cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact Additional
information requested by DEFRA GM team 2008 regarding potato
cyst-nematodes with minimised environmental impact

8. Liu B, Hibbard JK, Urwin PE, Atkinson HJ. The production of synthetic
chemodisruptive peptides in planta disrupts the establishment of cyst
nematodes. Plant Biotechnol J. 2005, 3(5) 487-96.

9. Martin RJ, Robertson AP Mode of action of levamisole and pyrantel,
anthelmintic resistance, E153 and Q57. Parasitology 2007, Pt 8, 1093-104.

10. Shapiro-Ilan1.D Entomopathogenic nematodes and insect management
Encyclopedia of Entomology 2004, 781-784 DOI 10.1007/0-306-48380-7_1430

11. Klingen I, Haukeland S The soil as a reservoir for natural enemies
of pest insects and mites with emphasis on fungi and nematodes. Progress
in Biological Control An Ecological and Societal Approach to Biological
Control Volume 2 2006 145-211 DOI 10.1007/1-4020-4401-1

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

GMO's linked to HIV

thecosmicdiva — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:15:28 GMT

Google CaMV and HIV... they have exchangable parts...
CaMV is the virus used to inject the genes into our food...
Frightening at best...
J

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

CA State Assembly Approves GMO Bill Protecting Farmers

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:26:08 GMT

State Assembly Approves GMO Bill

February 8, 2008

AB 541, which could become California's first state law protecting farmers from the hazards of genetically engineered crops, passed out of the full Assembly on January 29 with a vote of 49-12. It has the support of the California Farm Bureau as well as California Certified Organic Farmers, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, the National Farmers Union and many food safety and environmental organizations.

Introduced by Assembly Member Jared Huffman (6th AD) early in 2007, the bill was held over in the Agriculture Committee in April. Since then, AB 541 has been scaled back to address two provisions related to farmer protections.

AB 541 will enact protections for California farmers against frivolous lawsuits that intimidate and harass those who have not been able to prevent the inevitable – the drift of genetically engineered pollen or seed. It will level the playing field for farmers accused by agricultural biotechnology companies and other patent holders of contract violations, and discourage the practice of biotech companies sampling crops without explicit permission from farmers and prosecuting based on unverifiable testing results.

Specifically, the newly amended bill would provide for:

* Protection from patent infringement lawsuits for farmers unknowingly contaminated by GE crops. Currently, farmers with crops that become contaminated by patented seeds or pollen have been the target of such lawsuits without clear recourse or defense.

* The establishment of a mandatory crop sampling protocol to be used by patent holders when investigating farmers they believe may have violated patents or seed contracts. This protocol would require the farmer's written permission for sampling, and provide for a state agriculture official to accompany the patent holder during the sampling and collect duplicate samples for independent verification if requested by either party.

"I am very pleased that the stakeholders on this issue have found a way to address one of the issues related to genetic contamination of crops," says Assembly Member Huffman. "While there is still work to do on other issues concerning genetically engineered food, AB 541 would be an important step in establishing basic protections for California's farmers."

The original bill included several other elements, including the establishment of the country's first system of notification for the locations of GE crops; the confinement of experimental pharmaceutical-producing crops to greenhouses to protect the food system from contamination; and, legislative clarity that the GE crop manufacturer is liable in the event of contamination, and not farmers.

"While AB 541 as currently amended represents only a small piece of what our stakeholders identify as issues to be addressed, we think this represents a move in the right direction," says Renata Brillinger, director of the Genetic Engineering Policy Project, the 13-member coalition of organic and conventional farmers, food industry, environmental, and faith organizations sponsoring AB 541.

The bill will now move to the Senate for consideration.

http://californiafarmer.com/index.aspx?ascxid=fpStory&fpsid=32121&fpstid=2

******
Thanks to TW

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

Little Oranges/tangerines - are they GMO's or clean

chycho — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 23:08:03 GMT

could someone let me know if those little oranges/tangerines that have come on the market in the last couple of years are GMO's or are they natural ... i sure hope they are clean because they taste delicious and i love eating them :(

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

An interesting video...

Robert — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:10:42 GMT

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jNezTsrCY0Q

I first saw this video on Dr. Mercola's website...I think both are very good sources of info.
http://articles.mercola.com/
Check out his health blog and newsletter archive...

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

GMO - TEA ??

Rocky — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 20:15:47 GMT

This has probably been discussed here ad nauseam but there are so many posts here. I was wondering if there were any "TEA" tribes. I'm curious about research studies on organic vs. non-organic teas. Plus, GMO Teas...

Here's my post from the Naturopathic Medicine tribe:
http://tribes.tribe.net/naturopathicmedicine/thread/ffbe5bfa-8c42-4b74-bab3-f8ef54db9e82

I would be careful buying tea (or anything) from China. Also be careful getting tea from Japan.

;

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

cloned food? no thank you

Kalonapossessorofpeace — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 02:08:42 GMT

NO I DO NOT TRUST CLONING.

http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-CA&brand=sympatico&vid=5d5a6e7c-d559-4372-a257-0c72458db25d

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

can this be true?

Kalonapossessorofpeace — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 23:51:38 GMT

This is really horrible news. Hope you read it.

As our World continues its entrance to this new century, and as our Global food supply continues to plummet, and as new diseases continue their rampage, it remains to be seen if the Western World will ever awaken to threat they have created, not just to themselves, but to the entire human race.
[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

January 6, 2008

Media Blackout Ordered As UK Begins Mass Burials

By: Sorcha Faal, and as reported to her Western Subscribers

Disturbing reports from Britain today are showing that their government has invoked their dreaded Official Secrets Act as a mysterious pandemic sweeps their Nation leaving an, estimated, 3,000 people dead and leaving ‘no choice’ for British Health Officials but to begin mass burials.

British media sources are reporting on this pandemic as being due to a virus, and as we can read as reported by Guardian News Service in their report titled "Vomiting bug to get worse", and which says:

"Infections from the debilitating Norovirus stomach bug will peak this week as millions return to work after the holidays and spread the germs, the government has warned. The virus, which was responsible for closing more than 100 hospital wards last week and Doctors estimate that more than 100,000 people a week are catching the infection - and the rate may peak this week as the virus takes the opportunity to spread in the workplace and classrooms.

Reported cases of the illness from early December are at a five-year-high, but the real figure is likely to be much greater as most sufferers do not seek medical attention. People struck down have been urged by GPs not to go back to work until the symptoms have fully disappeared."

Russian scientists, however, though noting that the Norovirus is indeed a highly contagious disease, are in disagreement with their British counterparts and are stating that the symptoms being reported by the British victims being attacked by this disease are more consistent with a variant of the H5N1 Avian Influenza virus which the United Kingdom has been reporting numerous outbreaks of this past year.

Russian Health Authorities were, also, highly critical of the British Governments decision in mid-December to lift their remaining restrictions following an outbreak of the deadly Avian Flu in southeastern England, but even more strongly condemned Britain’s decision to allow the continued sale to their citizens of poultry for their Christmas season.

To the fullest truth of this mysterious disease affecting millions of British citizens, and which has now been reported in Ireland, it is not in our knowing, but what is a matter of record is Britain’s Health Authorities engaging in cover-ups to hide from their people the true and catastrophic deaths attributed to disease, and as we can read as reported by London’s Daily Mail News Service:

"Edwin died on April 12 last year aged 82. He had been in hospital for just a fortnight after complaining of feeling frail while on holiday. Although Edwin had suffered from rectal cancer in the past, the disease was in remission and Joan says that he was expected to make a full recovery at the hospital - until he caught C. diff.

His death, and thousands of others, lie at the heart of a growing scandal over NHS superbugs. Yesterday Tory leader David Cameron said hospitals should be fined for every patient who catches an infection on their wards. But would such a crackdown just lead to more secrecy about superbugs?

In 2006 almost 56,000 elderly hospital patients caught C. diff, which is spread by poor hygiene, dirty hands and soiled bedding. Amazingly, we still don't know how many of these people died because the figures have not yet been released by the NHS. In 2005, the latest year that death statistics for C. diff were available, 3,807 hospital patients died, a rise of almost 70 per cent over the previous 12 months.

But the truth is that this figure may be utterly meaningless because many people, including Joan, believe there is a cover-up over the figures.

As this investigation has discovered, when a person dies from a hospital superbug the details are often left off the death certificate. The practice has become so widespread that last autumn the Government's chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, wrote to hospitals and doctors warning them that any dishonesty has to stop."

Of the greatest concern, however, of these events are the British peoples following the dangerous path of their American counterparts by consuming vast quantities of genetically modified (GM) foods, and which scientific reports have proven allow new viruses to enter the human body leading to weakened immune systems.

It is interesting to note, too, that while the death toll mounts in Britain from this mysterious pandemic, the French government, and seeing the disaster unfolding in their European neighbor, is contemplating the total ban of all genetically modified crops in their country.

As our World continues its entrance to this new century, and as our Global food supply continues to plummet, and as new diseases continue their rampage, it remains to be seen if the Western World will ever awaken to threat they have created, not just to themselves, but to the entire human race.

© January 6, 2008 EU and US all rights reserved.

[Ed. Note: The United States government actively seeks to find, and silence, any and all opinions about the United States except those coming from authorized government and/or affiliated sources, of which we are not one. No interviews are granted and very little personal information is given about our contributors, or their sources, to protect their safety.]

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 4 replies

Hi please come join dansconspiraciesclub

Daniel J — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:01:39 GMT

http://ca.groups.yahoo.com/group/dansconspiraciesclub/
Here you will find huge resources of articles on the hidden truths of the situation on all topics pertaining to health, the environment, and enery. There is a huge collection of resources stored in the files. thousands of articles, links, videos and more. I have been collecting this information for years..

Have you ever heard of the drug "Laeterile"?......It is a hundred percent successful in completely curing cancer within 30 days of first use.. This cure and many others have been known since the sixties and earlier.The FDA and the cancer industry has blocked it because it would hurt the huge cancer industries profits..anyway there is so much information on this site..you could study it all for years...

Join "The Truth Revolution" now. It's easy you just have to be very brave to go where few will go. And learn the hidden truths,then you can become a soldier of truth by going out and spreading the truth...

We can not be free without truth...

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

France suspends commercial GMO seed use, studies safety

chycho — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 08:05:45 GMT

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0688753120071206?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

France suspends commercial GMO seed use, studies safety
Thu Dec 6, 2007 1:35pm EST

By Tamora Vidaillet and Valerie Parent

PARIS (Reuters) - France formally suspended on Thursday the commercial use of genetically modified (GMO) seeds in the country until early February and ordered a biotech safety study.

The future of GMOs has long been the subject of heated debate in France -- Europe's top grain producer -- and the country's reluctance to use GMO crops compares starkly with the United States, which is far more tolerant of the technology.

The French agriculture ministry said it had charged a newly set-up committee with assessing the environmental and health implications of using GMO seeds reliant on the MON 810 technology developed by U.S. biotech giant Monsanto.

"As a result, there is a need to suspend the end-use of MON 810 maize seeds and related sales while awaiting the results of this mission," it said in a circular.

Thursday's formal suspension until February 9 at the latest, when parliament is slated to vote on a new biotech law, only concerns MON 810 maize, as it is the sole GMO technology permitted for cultivation in France and the European Union.

Stressing that the suspension was temporary, Monsanto slammed France's action.

"While remembering its desire to respect French law, Monsanto thinks that such a decision is a scandal bereft of scientific foundation and incoherent with the environmental benefits of this technology," the company said.

Seed makers also decried the move in a statement, echoing Monsanto's complaint that there was no scientific justification.

NO IMMEDIATE IMPACT

France's move came as Germany announced it had lifted a temporary sales ban on MON 810 technology after Monsanto agreed to additional monitoring of its cultivation in Germany.

France's suspension will have no immediate impact on farmers using the pest resistant GMO seeds given that the country's maize harvest is in its final stages and new sowings will not take place until April, 2008.

Pro-GMO farmers have urged Paris to speed up plans to create a higher GMO authority and pass a biotech law well before April in the hope that the dispute can be settled and MON 810 seeds can be bought well in time for the next sowings.

Those harboring fears over the potential impact of GMO crops on peoples' health and the country's bio-diversity hope a new authority will find ways to counter European Union decisions on GMO and permanently ban their use in France.

(Additional reporting by Mathilde Cru; Editing by Sybille de La Hamaide and Peter Blackburn)

© Reuters 2007. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
Reuters journalists are subject to the Reuters Editorial Handbook which requires fair presentation and disclosure of relevant interests.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

The Implications of Monsanto’s Patent Losses

chycho — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:01:56 GMT

i just made the following post on my blog http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/858 ... someone please tell me that i'm over reacting :(

chycho

I’ve been considering the implications of the recent lose of four key patents by Monsanto, and I have only been able to come up with one unequivocal conclusion: This is a disaster.

What if Monsanto was protecting us from their creation? What if they know something that we don’t?

Farmers will now be able to save seeds in surplus and sell them to their neighbors or anyone else in the world thanks to the Internet. They will be able to do this at a fraction of the cost of Monsanto, creating a huge demand for these Genetically Modified Organisms. This means that Genetically Engineered Crops will now be grown around the world decades earlier then what was predicted by its creators.

The damage done to the environment from these organisms can no longer be contained, on the contrary it will be accelerated beyond our worst scientific predictions. If the disappearance of the bees, dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder", is any indication, we are about to change the whole ecosystem.

There is no way to prevent farmers from selling contaminated seeds, and it is very unlikely that Monsanto will open their data basis and release any results from their own scientific experiments that refute the safety of Genetically Modified Foods.

Unfortunately, it appears that we just jumped from the frying pan into a blazing inferno.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

Chinese Organics

Michelle — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:12:47 GMT

The place I usually buy my bulk organics from has started selling almost all Chinese imported bulk foods. Given all the dangerous foods that have come from there I am not very comfortable with eating it or giving it to my children. Have any of you found yourselves in this situation recently? What do you all think of organics from China?

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 6 replies

Corn

Elo Devi — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:16:38 GMT

The Omnivore's Dilemma, by Michael Pollen

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

The Food Bully

Thu, 24 May 2007 20:07:11 GMT

GM WATCH daily list
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
---
GM Watch comment: With Paul Wolfowitz on the way out at the World Bank, Robert Zoellick, the former U.S. trade representative, has emerged as the frontrunner to succeed him as the Bank's president.

Zoellick was, of course, the man who drove the U.S.'s WTO case against the E.U. on GM food - a policy brilliantly picked apart in the article below by political analyst Conn Hallinan, provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz.

Hallinan's analysis should ring alarm bells given that it makes clear that the policy Zoellick was ruthlessly pursuing was ultimately about strong-arming developing countries to toe the Bush line.
---
---
Food Bully
By Conn Hallinan
July 29 2003
http://www.gmwatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=1225

The decision by the Bush administration to sue the European Union (EU) over its five-year moratorium on genetically modified (GM) foods has all the earmarks of a "shock and awe" campaign targeted at prying open a major potential market. But the suit before the World Trade Organization (WTO) may be aimed less at the EU than at developing nations, which are far more vulnerable to strong-arm tactics.

Take the case of the reluctant Egyptians.

Egypt had originally joined the suit, along with Argentina and Canada, but, in the face of a domestic backlash over the safety of
GM food crops, withdrew. However, it filed a separate complaint on an EU ban against its GM drought-resistant cotton, joining, at least in spirit, the U.S. action.

Besides responding to popular sentiment, the Egyptians were also nervous over the confrontational tone of the U.S. suit. "The way (the complaint) was announced was like a war with the EU," one Egyptian trade official told the Financial Times, "We can't go to war with the EU. It is 40% of our trade."

Avoiding war with the EU, however, landed them in a shootout with the Americans. Reacting with fury, the U.S. accused the Egyptians of breaking their word and cancelled free trade talks.

According to the Financial Times, Egyptian officials were "stunned" by the U.S. reaction, particularly after U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick recently described their country as a "linchpin" for a Middle East free trade agreement and "the heart of the Arab world."

The White House was banking on Egypt to represent the need for GM crops in "developing countries," in particular, Africa. GM crops as a solution to the African famine is one of the major arguments the Bush administration has used against the EU ban.

The Bush administration seems to be applying its "for us or against us" anti-terrorism formula to trade policy, particularly if the country is a developing one like Egypt. Similarly, when Croatia and Thailand raised health objections to GM crops, the U.S. threatened trade sanctions and both countries backed down

The White House has been more circuitous with big countries, like India and Brazil. In the case of Brazil, U.S. corporations--underwritten by taxpayers--bring politicians and scientists to the U.S. and South Africa to study GM crops. And reaction to India's ban on U.S. GM crops has been muted.

There is much at stake in this fight over biotechnology, and it has nothing to do with alleviating hunger or overcoming famine. The"Big Five" biotech companies--Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, Dow Chemical, and Aventis--have invested billions of dollars in research and development. Out of 1085 biotech patents, the Big Five control 937.

The U.S. argues that GM crops represent the new "green revolution" that will allow countries to feed the growing world population. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture's own Economic Research Service found that crop yields were no higher for GM crops than they are for regular crops, and GM crops can be tricky to grow. They were created for huge, American super-farms, not the small-scale agriculture that characterizes most of the developing world. Plus GM seeds cost more, and few poor farmers have access to cash.

The Bush administration presents its GM-friendly policies as a solution to hunger. During his recent tour of Africa, Bush said, "For the sake of a continent threatened by famine, I urge the European governments to end their opposition to biotechnology."

But many Africans are suspicious and see the spread of GM crops as creating a kind of "bioserfdom" with farmers in thrall to huge biotech companies. Amadou Kanoute, research director of African Office of Consumers International, says the spread of GM crops, "will plunge Africa into greater food dependency."

American agricultural policy has always had a strong self-interest streak in it. According to a policy statement by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the main vehicle for foreign food aid, "The principal beneficiary of America's foreign assistance programs has always been the United States."

Hunger is a product of access and distribution, not production, as the cases of India and Uganda make clear.

India produces more than 48 million tons of surplus food, yet most is never distributed to the more than 320 million Indians who go to bed hungry each night. In Orissa's Kalahandi Province there is actual starvation, even though the area is rich and fertile and produces 50,000 tons of surplus rice annually.

In Uganda, the problem is transport, not food production. The wet and fertile west of the country produces plenty of surplus, but poor roads and inadequate rail systems make shipping the food to the dry east expensive. Yet few international organizations or lenders will pony up money for improving things like infrastructure.

The administration's charge that EU policies are encouraging famine in Africa has deeply angered Europeans. As EU officials point out, Europe gives Africa seven times as much aid as the U.S. does, and further, that most of that aid is delivered in cash, which bolsters local economies. The U.S., on the other hand, delivers its aid in the form of agricultural surplus, which allows the U.S. to dump its overproduction.

The European Parliament has already decided to phase out the moratorium against GM crops, although it will demand strict labeling. Any product containing more than 0.9% GM products will be flagged, and GM food will have to be segregated from non-GM food in production and harvesting.

The U.S., however, refuses to accept labeling. Zoellick says, while he supports consumer choice, "this information should be non-prejudicial in presentation and feasible for producers to provide," adding that the labeling plan "does not meet this standard."

The "feasible" in Zoellick's statement refers to the expense involved in segregating GM products from non-GM products. But the administration is also nervous that that if Europeans get labeling, Americans might demand the same. Three-fourths of the food on U.S. shelves contain GM products, and a recent study by the biotech firm Novartis found that 92% of Americans approve of labeling.

The EU is unlikely to be intimidated by fines imposed by the WTO, and if the Americans manage to block labeling, European consumers will probably just boycott all American food imports. The only real casualties in that trade war will be American farmers.

The prize in this fight is not the EU, which in any case only absorbs some 10% of American agricultural exports. The prize is the developing world, where regulations are lax, profits higher, and resistance may carry a very high price.

Conn Hallinan is a provost at the University of California at Santa Cruz and a political analyst for Foreign Policy In Focus

********

Thanks to TW

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Save Wild Rice from Genetic Engineering

Mon, 19 Nov 2007 03:56:22 GMT

www.savewildrice.org/

There is a big push on to save wild rice from genetic engineering~please read!

Also check out White Earth Land Recovery Project.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

TRUTH IS FREE; so is my RETREAT --Vermont

Bald Mountain Retreat, — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 17:48:31 GMT

I'm looking to network with folks, to extend an invitation to visit Bald Mountain Retreat (www.baldmountainretreat.com) as my guest. Like-minded people who appreciate rustic accommodations are welcome to come up at no charge. (Those who require a private room can inquire about those accommodations as well.)
Basically, I'm offering people the opportunity to come stay with a retired naturopathic doctor in a truly amazing natural setting, secluded, idyllic, peaceful...
Also, if you might like to lead a retreat, please contact me.
Thank you and you are welcome,
Dr David

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

USDA seeks public feedback on pharma/industrial crop regulations (Union of Concerned Scientists )

Phoenix_Fire_Nectar — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 01:02:40 GMT

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is revising the regulations governing the release of genetically engineered (GE) crops into the environment, including GE crops that produce pharmaceutical (pharma) and industrial substances. The USDA is proposing to maintain essentially the same oversight system currently used, despite the department's demonstrated inability to adequately protect the food supply from pharma/industrial crop contamination. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) believes that the combination of past oversight failures, recent steep increases in the acreage of pharma/industrial food crops, and virtual impossibility of keeping these crops separate from crops destined for the food supply calls for a new, stronger approach. Help UCS persuade the USDA to protect our food by banning outdoor use of food and feed crops to produce drugs and industrial chemicals.

Union of Concerned Scientists
http://ucsaction.org/campaign/8_24_07_pharma_crops?rk=C1s87OK1vWd0E

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Monsanto Loses patents

chycho — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:09:15 GMT

MONSANTO PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST AMERICAN FARMERS REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE: PUBPAT Initiated Review Leads PTO to Find All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid
http://www.pubpat.org/monsantorejections.htm

MONSANTO PATENTS ASSERTED AGAINST AMERICAN FARMERS REJECTED BY PATENT OFFICE: PUBPAT Initiated Review Leads PTO to Find All Claims of All Four Patents Invalid

NEW YORK – July 24, 2007 -- The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) announced today that the United States Patent and Trademark Office has rejected four key Monsanto patents related to genetically modified crops that PUBPAT challenged last year because the agricultural giant is using them to harass, intimidate, sue - and in some cases literally bankrupt - American farmers. In its Office Actions rejecting each of the patents, the USPTO held that evidence submitted by PUBPAT, in addition to other prior art located by the Patent Office's Examiners, showed that Monsanto was not entitled to any of the patents.

Monsanto has filed dozens of patent infringement lawsuits asserting the four challenged patents against American farmers, many of whom are unable to hire adequate representation to defend themselves in court. The crime these farmers are accused of is nothing more than saving seed from one year's crop to replant the following year, something farmers have done since the beginning of time.

One study of the matter found that, "Monsanto has used heavy-handed investigations and ruthless prosecutions that have fundamentally changed the way many American farmers farm. The result has been nothing less than an assault on the foundations of farming practices and traditions that have endured for centuries in this country and millennia around the world, including one of the oldest, the right to save and replant crop seed." The lawsuits filed by Monsanto against American farmers include Monsanto Company v. Mitchell Scruggs, et al, 459 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006), Monsanto Company v. Kem Ralph individually, et al, 382 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and Monsanto Company v. Homan McFarling, 363 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Although Monsanto has the opportunity to respond to the Patent Office's rejections of the patents (U.S. Patents Nos. 5,164,316, 5,196,525, 5,322,938 and 5,352,605), third party requests for re-examination, like the ones filed by PUBPAT against the four Monsanto patents, are successful in having the reviewed patents either changed or completely revoked more than two-thirds of the time.

"We are extremely pleased that the Patent Office has agreed with us that Monsanto does not deserve these patents that it has used to unfairly bully American farmers," said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director. "Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end of the harm being caused to the public by Monsanto's aggressive assertion of these patents, which threatens family farms and a diverse American food supply."

More information, including copies of the Office Actions issued by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office rejecting the four Monsanto patents, can be found at PUBPAT > Monsanto Anti-Farmers Patents.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

The GMO Trilogy DVD and CD set

Rocky — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 03:43:42 GMT

The GMO Trilogy DVD and CD set

"A new DVD and CD set produced by bestselling author Jeffrey Smith, which shows how genetically modified organisms (GMOs) put our health and environment at risk, may impact consumer perceptions and buying habits.

The GMO Trilogy's was released in April 2006 in conjunction with Earth Day (April 22) and International GMOpposition Day (April 8)-a coordinated 30-nation campaign to raise awareness about genetically modified (GM) food.

US organizations will ask hundreds of thousands of their members to buy the Trilogy to show at house parties, and several manufacturers have sponsored the 3-disc set to keep it affordable. See below for information about the GMO Trilogy and its sponsors."

http://www.seedsofdeception.com/Public/TheGMOTrilogy/index.cfm

" Alex talks to Jeffery M. Smith about his book, Seeds of Deception. The book documents significant health dangers of genetically modified ... Alle » (GM) foods and the intense industry influence and political corruption that allow them on the market. Hailed as the best book on the topic, many believe that the revelations in this book can topple an industry. "

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2017114126248697214&q=Seeds+of+Deception&total=54&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

;

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Colony Collapse Disorer/GM crops?

Stefene — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 21:40:06 GMT

Was really upset earlier this week to read about all of these empty hives that beekeepers are finding - more here:
http://www.tulareadvanceregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070302/NEWS01/703020310/1002

& by some weird coincidence watched "The Future of Food" a night or two after the news came out. I had no idea that it would go into such detail on Monsanto or GM crops - or that there would be any link with insects, though the doc did touch on how GM crops' pollen negatively affected Monarch caterpillars. I am just following a gut feeling here, but does anyone have any info on the effects of GM crops on honeybees? The most substantial info I found was here:
http://www.biotech-info.net/bee_j_editorial.html
Which dates back to 2000. It could be that the stress of being trucked all over the country is enough stress on these hives to cause this, but I can't shake the feeling there is some conection & was wondering if anyone had any information. I did note that there had been some research into effects on honeybees by GM companies but that they refuse to release the studies.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 7 replies

Urgent Action Today May 24 - States' rights trampled!

Thu, 24 May 2007 19:33:46 GMT

House to Consider Language TODAY, MAY 24th to Deny State's Rights to Protect
Citizens from GE Food Crops:

SEC. 123. EFFECT OF USDA INSPECTION AND DETERMINATION OF NON-REGULATED
STATUS.
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no State or locality shall make
any law prohibiting the use in commerce of an article that the Secretary of
Agriculture has-
(1) inspected and passed; or
(2) determined to be of non-regulated status.

Take Action Now!

That means no state or locality can ban risky products when the federal
government has failed to act to protect our health or the environment. The
primary intent of this passage is to deny local or state rights to regulate
genetically engineered crops or food. This would wipe out the restrictions
passed by voters in four California counties and two cities, and the
California Rice Certification Act, which prohibits the introduction of GE
rice varieties without state approval. Local and state laws pertaining to GE
crops have also been passed in Colorado, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine,
Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,
Washington and Wisconsin. All of these democratically enacted laws are
threatened by this language.

The biotech industry and big agribusiness have been trying to push similar
bills in dozens of states across the country, and also at the Federal level
with last year's so-called "Food Uniformity" bill. Now they want to sneak it
into a committee hearing and hide it in the Farm Bill.

The members of the committee need to hear from all of us NOW! The hearing
starts at 10am EST THURSDAY, MAY 24TH so we need to contact our
Representatives immediately and tell them we oppose ANY language in the Farm
Bill that would pre- empt local or state regulations on food or agricultural
production!

Contact your representatives:

Leonard Boswell, Chairman, Iowa - Phone: (202) 225-3806 Fax: (202) 225-5608
Kirsten Gillibrand, New York - P (202) 225-5614 F (202) 225-1168
Steve Kagen, Wisconsin - P (202) 225-5665 F (202) 225-5729
Tim Holden, Pennsylvania - P (202) 225-5546 F (202) 226-0996
Joe Baca, California - None Listed
Dennis Cardoza, California - P (202) 225-6131 F (202) 225-0819
Nick Lampson, Texas - P (202) 225-5951 F (202) 225- 5241
Joe Donnelly, Indiana - P (202) 225-3916 F (202) 225- 5241
Jim Costa, California - P (202) 225-3341 F (202) 225- 9308
Tim Mahoney, Florida - P (202) 225-5792 F (202) 225- 3132
Robin Hayes, North Carolina - P (202) 225-3715 F (202) 225-4036
Mike Rogers, Alabama - P (202) 225-3261 F (202) 226- 8485
Steve King, Iowa - P (202) 225-4426 F (202) 225- 3193
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina - P (202) 225-2071 F (202) 225-2995
K. Michael Conaway, Texas - P (202) 225-3605 F (202) 225-1713
Jean Schmidt, Ohio - P (202) 225-3164 F (202) 226- 1992
Adrian Smith, Nebraska - P (202) 225-6435 F (202) 225-0207
Tim Walberg, Michigan - P (202) 225-6276 F (202) 225-6281

Thank You! Your action will help protect the future of our families, fields,
environment and economy from the devastating effects of genetic engineering.

****

thanks to CCOF and TW

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

V, K Parve, KSA, CRC, KCL, ARK, ORB, KU, OU, U, D

Wed, 09 May 2007 11:04:56 GMT

Hmmmmmm You know, I've been thinkin with this little marketing brain of mine. And I came up with this wild scheme that if only we could get organizations like the Rabbinical Board and Muslim counterparts to declare GMO as unclean, I'm thinking it would be one major giant step forward.

what ya think?

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

Concerning NAIS: expensive & unnecessary government regulation

aleksonder — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 04:31:32 GMT

The National Animal Identification System ("NAIS") poses a serious threat to all farmers, ranchers, livestock owners, and companion-animal owners, whether they are organic or conventional, small or large, involved with animals for business or for pleasure. If it is made mandatory, every person with even one horse, cow, chicken, pig, goat, sheep, or virtually any other livestock animal on their premises will be required to register their homes and property into a database and subject their property and animals to government surveillance.

LOOK DEEPLY AT THIS WEB SITE...too much to just keep posting....unless encouragement is needed. ;-)

www.farmandranchfreedom.org

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Irradiated food labels

Rev. B — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:09:51 GMT

Tell FDA Not to Weaken Labeling for Irradiated Foods

What if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed a rule that would intentionally hide information you rely on to make decisions about what to feed yourself and your family? Or if FDA proposed changing food labeling information to something the agency knows to be misleading to consumers?

Well, FDA has announced just such a rule to weaken labeling of irradiated foods.

Currently, irradiated food must be labeled as Treated with irradiation or Treated by radiation and have on them the irradiated symbol. But now, in yet another attempt to appease industry at the expense of the public, the FDA has proposed a new rule that would allow irradiated food to be marketed in some cases without any labeling at all. In other cases, the rule would allow the terms electronically pasteurized or cold pasteurized to replace the use of irradiated on labels. These terms are not used by scientists, but rather are designed to fool consumers about whats been done to their food.

Pasteurization involves heating liquids for the purpose of destroying harmful bacteria and other pathogens, and has been used safely for decades. Irradiation is a completely different process, using high-energy gamma rays, electron beams, or X-rays on meat, grains, and other foods.

Labeling irradiated foods as pasteurized is simply untruthful and misleading. Allowing the marketing of irradiated food without any labeling is equally misleading. Consumers have demanded irradiation labeling because they know that irradiation can create potentially dangerous chemical byproducts and reduce their foods' nutritional value.

In fact, FDAs own research found that the proposed change would confuse consumers, stating "Research indicates that many consumers regard substitute terms for irradiation to be misleading."

What is the FDA hiding? A lot...

Consumers have a right to truthful labeling in order to make informed choices for themselves and their families. A public comment period is open until July 3, 2007.

Protect Your Right to Know: Tell the FDA Not to Weaken the Rules for Labeling Irradiated Food! Take action here.
http://ga3.org/campaign/Irradiation

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Genes from GM crops spreading to Humans: Why the Bees are Dying

chycho — Sun, 13 May 2007 20:45:29 GMT

See http://www.chycho.com/?q=node/458 for links

News and Video: Are GM Crops Killing Bees? - “Since last November, the US has seen a decline in bee populations so dramatic that it eclipses all previous incidences of mass mortality. Beekeepers on the east coast of the United States complain that they have lost more than 70 percent of their stock since late last year, while the west coast has seen a decline of up to 60 percent.”

The disappearance of the bees has been dubbed "Colony Collapse Disorder" (CCD), and it is now being revealed that one of the main culprits of this international catastrophe, aside from cell phones, is genetically modified (GM) crops. More information on this issue at: "GM Genes 'Can Spread To People and Animals’".

Detailed information about the economic, health, and environmental consequences of producing genetically modified foods is presented in the following documentary: The Future of Food (1:28:56)

An interesting phenomenon is that the organic beekeeping world is not being effected significantly by CCD. Further information at: No Organic Bee Losses.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 8 replies

Being healthy.

Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:24:15 GMT

Being vegetarian is to be health. You may chat and make vegetarian friends and exchange idea with them at
http://hunger4love.bravehost.com/index.html

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

FDA to extend comment period on cloning to May 3, 07

Tue, 03 Apr 2007 17:47:45 GMT

FDA to extend comment period on cloning

By Lorraine Heller

http://ga3.org/campaign/Cloning

4/2/2007- The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has agreed to extend
its comment period on a proposal to allow meat and milk products from
cloned animals into the American food supply.

The regulatory agency said the public will have an extra thirty days to
review and comment on its draft risk assessment of animal cloning, which
was due to close on April 3, 2007.

FDA said it decided to grant the extra month as a result of receiving a
number of requests for an extension to the comment period, which certain
groups felt was not long enough for a thorough consideration of the
extensive information provided by the agency.

The regulatory body told FoodNavigator-USA.com it felt it was
"appropriate" to allow the extra time for comments to come in, adding
that the new deadline of May 3 2007 should allow sufficient time for the
public to review the risk assessment, which was released in January.

Earlier this month, a number of trade and consumer groups sent a letter
to the FDA calling for an extension to the comment period.

"As FDA is not facing any statutory requirement to proceed within a
specific timetable, we respectfully request that FDA extend the comment
period - commensurate with the scope and complexity of the documents
being commented on and the time it took FDA to prepare them - to allow
adequate time to analyze the information necessary to prepare a thorough
response to the request for comments and to participate fully in the
rulemaking process," said the organizations in their letter to the
Commissioner of the FDA.

The letter, which said it is "in the public interest of the agency to
take the time needed to 'get it right'", was sent by groups including
the Center for Food Safety, the American Bakers Association, the
American Frozen Food Institute, the Food Marketing Institute, GMA/FPA,
the International Dairy Foods Association, the National Milk Producers
Federation, the National Restaurant Association and the Snack Food
Association.

The concerns of these groups are part of a general backlash in response
to FDA's controversial decision to approve cloning for food production,
announced earlier this year.

Because the introduction of cloned food into the US food supply is such
groundbreaking action, the industry has added its voice to the usual and
expected clamor from public health groups.

A number of food firms have publicly made a stance against cloned
products, including leading US dairy Dean Foods. Additionally, in a
January 23 letter to its co-op members, California's largest dairy
processor, California Dairies, stated that it "will not accept milk from
cloned cows, effective immediately." Another California dairy, Clover
Stornetta announced its ban on milk from clones early in January.

According to a statement published by Dean Foods, its decision to reject
cloned products is based on the desire and expectations of its customers.

"We see no consumer benefit from this technology," said the firm.

"If the FDA does approve the sale of milk from cloned cows, we will work
with our dairy farmers to implement protocols to ensure that the milk
they supply Dean Foods does not comes from cloned cows."

Last Chance To Tell FDA To Ban Cloned Animals in Food!

We know you've heard about animal cloning, but if you haven't yet sent your
letter telling FDA to ban animal clones in food production, please do so today.
The comment period closes 2 April!

FDA stands poised to approve cloned animals and their products in food,
unless an outpouring of public opposition convinces the Agency to do otherwise.
Scientists say that cloned animals may be inherently unhealthy and that even
slight imbalances in a cloneâ€™s hormone, protein, or fat levels can compromise
the safety of its milk or meat. The Agency's impending action ignores the
troubling animal cruelty and ethical concerns that the cloning process brings,
and flies in the face of widespread scientific concern about the risks of food from
animal clones. Equally as troubling is FDA's declaration that it will not
require labeling of dairy or meat products from clones, so consumers will have
no way to avoid these experimental foods.

Please take a moment to send your comments Now! It takes only a minute and
your comments could change FDA's decision to approve this cruel and risky
technology! Take action at: _http://ga3.org/campaign/Cloning_
(http://ga3.org/campaign/Cloning)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 3 replies

CA bill would hold makers of engineered crops liable for contamination

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:51:29 GMT

Bill would hold makers of engineered crops liable for contamination
Associated Press, Feb 27 2007
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/business/technology/16796114.htm

SACRAMENTO (AP) - Stepping into the middle of a growing debate, a freshman assemblyman has introduced legislation that would make companies developing genetically engineered crops liable for damages if their work results in contamination of other fields.

The bill by Assemblyman Jared Huffman also would ban open-field production of genetically engineered crops used in the development of medications. And it would require growers to give county agriculture commissioners at least 30 days notice before engaging in open-field development of other genetically modified plants.

Huffman, D-San Rafael, said the measure is needed to protect California farmers against significant losses if their conventional or organic crops are contaminated by genetically engineered plants, seeds or pollen.

His bill would cover cases in which a grower claimed annual losses of at least $3,500.

He said an incident last year in which an experimental form of rice being developed by a German company showed up in grain elevators in Arkansas and Missouri should serve as a wake-up call for California.

Hundreds of rice farmers in Arkansas, Missouri and Louisiana have filed lawsuits claiming losses because of that contamination.

"It certainly underscores the urgency of taking action before things like that happen here,'' Huffman said.

The bill would clarify who would be responsible for damages if there was contamination. With some limited exceptions, it would be the seed producer, chemical company or other manufacturer paying for the genetically altered crop rather than the farmer growing it under contract.

"I'm not interested in farmers suing farmers...,'' Huffman said. "The kind of damage that can occur when cross-contamination does happen can be of a scale where you're not going to be able to make farmers whole unless they can hold the manufacturer responsible.''

The measure also would identify who was involved in genetically modified crop production. Right now, no one seems to have a clear idea of how much of that activity is taking place in California.

The bill would prevent the mixing of pharmaceutical plants with other crops by preventing those projects from being conducted in open fields.

"We're seeing food crops being engineered to grow chemicals as an alternative way of producing things like vaccines and antibiotics,'' Huffman said. "That is fascinating stuff, but obviously you don't want those crops getting into the food supply.''

Huffman's bill might go too far for some segments of California's agriculture industry and not far enough for others.

Greg Massa, co-chairman of the Rice Producers of California, said he welcomes Huffman's bill but added, "I don't really know if it's enough.''

His group of 200 farmers wants a moratorium on genetically modified rice experimentation and production. A study it commissioned found that California growers could lose about 40 percent of their rice market if Japan, China and several other nations imposed trade embargoes to keep out genetically modified crops.

"We can't take the risk,'' Massa said. "The report we just put out said pretty clearly that our customers don't want (genetically engineered crops) and that contamination in California would be much more severe than in the South.''

A California law adopted in 2000 might give farmers enough protection already, said Tim Johnson, president and chief executive officer of the California Rice Commission, which represents growers and marketers.

That statute, the California Rice Certification Act, provides for a committee representing growers, handlers, warehouses and researchers to suggest regulations designed to prevent the intermingling of different varieties of rice.

"That really has provided us, at least up to this point, the tools we need to manage customers' response to genetically modified crops,'' Johnson said. "That said, the industry will take as deliberative a review of Mr. Huffman's legislation as we did in developing the California Rice Certification Act of 2000.''

The California Farm Bureau Federation opposes the bill "as it stands now,'' said Cynthia Cory, the bureau's director of environmental affairs.

But she said her group of 91,000 farmers and others in the agriculture industry, including companies engaged in genetic engineering, is willing to work with Huffman.

"Biotechnology across the board is very important to this state,'' she said. "I don't think the bill acknowledges that.''

The bill's ban on open-field production of corn and other crops for use in medications could curtail "a cheap and effective way to produce the drugs,'' Cory said.

Huffman's bill may be unnecessary because legal remedies already exist, said Richard Matteis, executive vice president of the California Seed Association, which also represents some companies involved in genetic engineering.

"In California, I'm not aware of any growers being damaged because of the presence of biological crops in their crops,'' he said. "I think the system is working.''

Huffman's bill is similar to legislation introduced in 2005 by Assemblyman John Laird. That measure passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee but died in the Assembly Agriculture Committee.

Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said his bill ran into ``big fears that (it) would get in the way of certain agriculture production.''

"I think those fears are misplaced,'' he said. "I think it's an issue of markets. There are potentially markets that will close themselves to American crops if they believe there is (a genetically modified crop) involved.''

Huffman's bill might have a better chance of passing because of increased concern about the potential threat posed by the inadvertent spread of genetically modified grasses and crops since his bill failed, Laird said.

Several federal court rulings in the last six months have found that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has been lax in enforcing environmental protections on genetically modified crop projects, Laird said.

In one case, a judge ordered the department to conduct more detailed reviews of genetically engineered plant projects after studies found that pollen from weed killer-resistant grass had drifted more than 12 miles from plots in Madras, Ore., and bred with conventional plants.

"Two things are inevitable on this issue,'' Huffman said. "One is genetic engineering is here to stay. We're going to see it more and more.

"But the second is there is going to be some regulation of this, and hopefully we can put a coherent policy in place before California experiences a cross-contamination disaster like the one that happened in Arkansas.''

(thanks to tw)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

USDA bars planting of rice suspected of GMO taint

Wed, 07 Mar 2007 05:17:05 GMT

USDA bars planting of rice suspected of GMO taint

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agriculture Department ordered seed dealers on Monday not to sell a long-grain rice seed that may contain a genetic modification not approved for planting.

USDA issued "emergency action notifications" to distributors to prevent planting of Clearfield CL131 seed. Similar orders will be issued to farmers to prevent use of the seed until USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection tests the rice.

Arkansas state officials say the Clearfield variety apparently carries the Liberty Link RICE601 gene material, a GMO strain made by Bayer CropScience. The rice variety disrupted the U.S. rice industry in the summer of 2006 after the material, which was not cleared for food use, was found in commercial bins in Arkansas and Missouri.

BASF Agricultural Products, said late on Monday, that it is removing all Clearfield CL131 rice seed from the marketplace. BASF Agricultural is a unit of German chemical group BASF AG.

APHIS Administrator Ron DeHaven said his agency acted "because the genetic material detected in Clearfield CL131 seed might be regulated, in which case it would not be approved for commercial use." USDA was informed last week of the potential problem by BASF, which developed the seed, and by Ag Horizon, licensed by BASF to market the seed.

"BASF notified the USDA immediately after becoming aware of the laboratory findings and we continue to work cooperatively with USDA on this situation," Andy Lee, a director with BASF said in a statement.

Clearfield 131 was not developed as a genetically engineered variety. It is popular among U.S. rice growers because it is resistant to red rice weed.

USDA, through its own testing, is in the process of confirming the results reported by BASF, said DeHaven.

BASF said it remains committed to the Clearfield technology and is working with Bayer CropScience to "determine the scope and source of the GM presence in Clearfield seed."

Last week, APHIS said trace levels of a previously deregulated genetically engineered trait had been identified in Clearfield CL131.

© Reuters 2007

(thanks to tw)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

HB 1577 passes the Hawaii State House - No GMO Coffee Allowed in State!

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:48:16 GMT

On Tuesday March 6, 2007 the Hawaii State House of Representatives passed HB1577 which prohibits the outdoor planting and outdoor field trials of GMO coffee in the state of Hawaii. It allows for research in an environmentally controlled facility. HB1577 previously passed both the Energy and Environmental Protection Committee, chaired by Hermina Morita and Consumer Protection and Commerce Committee, chaired by Robert Herkes. The vote on the House floor was 45 ayes and 4 nos with 2 excused. This comes on the tails of the historic vote last month in the Hawaii Senate passing SB 958 a ten-year ban on the planting and research on taro, the Native Hawaiian staple crop and the revered ancestor of the Hawaiian people. The first gmo crop moratorium to pass a body of the Hawaii State Legislature

The coffee bill HB1577 is a reasonable, fair and prudent bill, which will help to protect the vibrant Hawaii coffee industry from the contamination that other crops in the U.S. have been affected with. Says Una Greenaway, from the Coaliton to Protect Hawaii Coffee and an organic Kona coffee farmer. "We applaud the foresight of the Hawaii State Representatives to behave in a proactive manner to control the risks that could devastate an industry's markets. The coffee industry in Hawaii, is a 175 year old industry. There are over 600 small family farms in Kona alone that could be affected. We say mahalo (thank you) to the legislature."

The bill crosses over to the Senate next week, where the dialogue continues.

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

UC Berkeley Students and Professors Protest BP's $500 mil Partnership

Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:46:36 GMT

GM WATCH daily
http://www.gmwatch.org
---
---
1.British Petroleum Spills Oil at UC Berkeley
2.Cal's biofuel deal challenged on campus
3.The promise and perils of tech transfer

EXTRACT: BP's half-billion-dollar deal is nothing less than massive greenwashing by a corrupt corporation - supported by a governor eager "to keep his eight Hummers running on alcohol." - Iain Boal, professor of social and environmental history in the geography department at UC Berkeley
---

---
1.British Petroleum Spills Oil at UC Berkeley
IndyMedia, Mar 4th, 2007
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2007/03/04/18372601.php [go to this link for good pics and links to videos]

Last thursday (3/1) approximately 150 people demonstrated against the $500 million agreement between British Petroleum and University of California, Berkeley. During the protest a mock oil spill was created in front of California Hall, the administration building. 2 students were arrested for dumping the mixture of molasses and water. Below are reposts from The Daily Cal, Berkeley Daily Planet, the San Francisco Chronicle and youtube.

03.02.protest.rodriguez.jpg

You Tube VIdeos from www.berkeleycitizen.org

from The Berkeley Daily Planet
Week of Arrests, Protests Challenges UC/BP Accord
By Richard Brenneman (03-02-07)

The firestorm of controversy over the $500 million pact tying UC Berkeley to one of the world biggest and most criticized oil giants intensified this week, with a teach-in, a demonstration, a pointed exchange between students and a key administrator and at least one arrest.

The central issue is the role BP-the company formerly known as British Petroleum-will play on the campus of one of the nation's premier public research universities. At the heart of the deal is a plan to genetically engineer grass and microbes to produce ethanol.

According to a UC Berkeley historian Monday night, BP's half-billion-dollar deal is nothing less than massive greenwashing by a corrupt corporation-supported by a governor eager "to keep his eight Hummers running on alcohol."

Iain Boal, professor of social and environmental history in the geography department, joined three other professors, an award-winning science writer and a coalition of students for the first teach-in targeting the controversial plan revealed in a press conference last month.

The BP project has garnered an impressive collection of political endorsements, ranging from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates to Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obamaâ€”whose own state of Illinois is another beneficiary of the project.

But opposition is growing as well, with the student activists staging two major events this week -Monday night's teach-in and a protest Thursday afternoon outside California Hall, the seat of campus administration and the offices of Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

Students also spoke up during a closed meeting Wednesday noon with Paul Ludden, dean of the College of Natural Resources, according to two participants.

Then, at 1 p.m. Thursday, demonstrators gathered outside California Hall to stage a bit of guerilla theater, and two of them, clad in white lab coats emblazoned with the BP logo, each dumped a yard weed sprayer tank of dark liquid outside the main entrance.

Campus police, present in numbers and armed with video cameras as well as more traditional hardware, took the pair into custody, and hauled at least one, Ali Tonack, off to the Berkeley city lockup.

A series of speakers, including professors Miguel Altieri, Ignacio Chapela and Gray Brechin, joined students in denouncing the agreement. As a final gesture to demonstrate the harmlessness of the liquid, Chapela pushed through police, dipped his finger in the substance, tasted it and pronounced it be molasses.

"It's organic, too," called out one of the students.

Among those who spoke was Hillary Lehr, an undergraduate in the Conservation and Resource Studies program at the College of Natural Resources (CNR).

The day before, she had confronted Dean Paul Ludden moments after he began his presentation to a group of students and faculty, asking the 50 or so present for a show of hands [check] on whether they had serious questions about the agreement.

"An overwhelming majority did," said the witness, a critic of the project. "It was wonderful. Most were worried, and they asked questions."

When Ludden told faculty members they'd have ample opportunity to become involved, "he was immediately challenged by" ecosystem science Professor Andrew Paul Gutierrez, who said the agreement threatened academic freedom.

Ludden responded that "any researcher can do anything he wants" at the university.

When students protested the commercialization of research, Professor David Winickoff, a faculty member who helped Ludden draft the proposal, said they should ask legislators to revise the Bayh-Dole Act, federal legislation which gives universities the right to patent research and work with corporations to profit from its exploitation.

"I don't think it went the way they expected," said the witness.

"Their answers were very inadequate," said Maren Poitras, one of the organizers of Monday night's teach-in. "It became very clear that they weren't going to change the process."

"I asked the dean if he took the Novartis guidelines into account. He said no, the university had not adopted them."

Those guidelines were drafted by researchers at Michigan State University, who were contracted to examine the university's controversial agreement with Novartis, a Swiss agro-pharmaceutical corporation which entered into an agreement with the CNR to fund $25 million in research.

That deal sparked a national controversy over the increasing role played by corporations in modern universities, and drew the attention of science writer Jennifer Washburn. An article on Novartis she wrote for The Atlantic magazine was expanded into her book, University, Inc., She was one of the speakers at Monday's teach-in.

"It's really critical that you get hold of the agreement," she told the students who gathered into the auditorium at Morgan Hall. "I called the university to try to obtain a copy and I was denied access to anything."

Kamal Kapadia, a CNR graduate student, did get a copy, reported in some detail at the teach-in. The San Francisco Chronicle got a look at one and published excerpts Tuesday.

Much of the research will be aimed at creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), a highly controversial research agenda critics fear will create significant unintended consequences, especially in lesser developed countries where they fear already threatened rain forest will be destroyed to clear ground for planting crops to fuel American cars.

At Monday's teach-in, Boal said oil companies are increasingly setting research agendas for universities around the world, with the $100 million 2003 ExxonMobil accord with Stanford serving as an increasingly typical example.

The 10-year BP agreement with Berkeley he described as part of a "massive greenwashing campaign" funded by a minuscule fraction of the fraction of corporate profits, which amounted to more than $22 billion in 2006.

The same firm has shown a ruthless hand in dealing with critics, he said, hiring a former Central Intelligence Agency to break into the home of one critic and tap his phone, while another was targeted with a fabricated file offering specious evidence of an adulterous affair that never happened.

"How could a major oil company behave differently?" he asked, because of the fiduciary responsibility of directors to generate the highest possible profits for investors.

Under the corporate regime, he said, "science has become capitalismâ€™s way of knowing the world."

Washburn told students that lack of public disclosure of corporate/academic agreements has become all too common at a time when corporate funds are a steadily growing part of university research budgets.

Even though federal coffers remain the largest source of university research dollars, the corporate moneys that accounted for about 7 percent of university research funds in 2000 influenced between 20 and 25 percent of research projects because of matching fund and cost-sharing agreements.

"I am not opposed to corporate/academic relationships," Washburn said. "They have been an integral part of the advance of science and knowledge ... The problem is the way the relationships are organized and structured," jeopardizing the universityâ€™s core missions of education an independence.

Miguel Altieri, a professor of agroecology at CNR and an advocate of sustainable agriculture, said the corporatization of research has virtually ended research on non-chemical means of pest control, once a strong emphasis on the Berkeley campus. "The discipline has disappeared," he said.

By focusing research in fields where corporations can hope to harvest patents, other field of science vanish, along with expertise.

Already, patented GMO crops occupy between 80 million and 100 million hectares (one hectare is 2.47 acres), most farmed in vast tracts beyond the scale of traditional farming techniques because farmers who own less than 500 acres simply can't afford the essential machinery.

Reliance on so-called biofuels doesnâ€™t make sense, Altieri charged, and will increase energy consumption in fuel production and raise carbon dioxide emissions.

He criticized BP in particular for working with paramilitary groups in Colombia who have kidnapped and murdered critics of the oil company.

"Will we feel satisfied when filling our cars with a mixture containing six percent of biofuels coming from the Amazon, where peasants and indigenous people were violently displaced, leaving thousands without food security?" he asked.

Altieri described what he call â€œthe green fuel mafia,â€� a consortium of oil, biotech and agricultural businesses allied with car manufacturers and environmental organizations, including the World Wildlife Federation, Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy.

Civil and environmental engineering Professor Tad W. Patzek is one of the universityâ€™s most outspoken critics of biofuels, and worked for Shell Oil before joining the Berkeley faculty.

â€œWhat troubles me is this alignment of public research with corporation goals,â€� he said, resulting in â€œa public institution now completely aligned with corporate interests.â€�

Patzekâ€™s research has yielded evidence which he says proves that biofuels like ethanol are not viable because, when all costs are added up, including the loss of natural resources diverted to production, only red ink results.

The notion that research on ethanol will solve an energy crisis that stems in large part from over-consumption is dangerous, â€œand our complicity in this delusion is dangerous and runs against my feelings about the ethics of scientists at a public institution,â€� he said.

While research has shown the productivity of techniques that donâ€™t require GMOs, pesticides and major applications of fertilizer and irrigation water, thatâ€™s not the work that draws grants.

â€œI personally know the chief scientist at BP and I know how things work there,â€� Patzek said, adding that he was â€œquite opposedâ€� to the agreement â€œbecause they donâ€™t know what they want,â€� while the corporation itself â€œwants an increases in the value of their stock by using a public institutionâ€� to make it possible.

â€œWe are a public institution in dire straits in many, many ways. We are here, hat in hand, begging for any donations from any source.â€�

â€œThe university has been penetrated and transformed from the inside,â€� said CNR Professor Ignacio Chapela, who was denied tenure and released by the university following his outspoken criticism of the Novartis agreement.

Chapela told teach-in participants that the university had seen the loss of a once-strong tradition of faculty governance in Berkeley in the face of secret corporate agreements approved by trustees acting for the public. â€œWe are losing the trust of the people,â€� he said, and the people are losing their trust in science.

from Daily Californian Two Arrests in Protest Over Biofuels Deal
Students Don Lab Coats, Spill Mock Oil in Rally Against BP Contract
By Vanessa Lord

Nearly 150 protesters gathered outside California Hall yesterday to rally against UC Berkeleyâ€™s recent $500 million contract with energy giant BP Amoco PLC.

The protesters from the group Stop BP wore white lab coats marked â€œBPâ€� and staged a mock oil spill, pouring black liquid across the front entrance of California Hall and surrounding the area with caution tape.

The organizers planned to remove the spill to symbolize the need for a cleanup of â€œoil contaminationâ€� on campus.

Graduate student Ali Tonak and freshman Nathan Murthy were arrested on charges of trespassing after spilling the liquid and hanging the caution tape.

According to UCPD Assistant Chief Mitch Celaya, the students will be released with a citation.

Ignacio Chapela, an associate professor in the department of environmental science, policy and management, said it was upsetting that a student was arrested for a theatrical performance.

â€œThe problems this deal will cause for the university are much more damaging than a mock oil spill,â€� Chapela said.

To confirm the black liquid was harmless, Chapela dipped his finger in the mess and tasted it. Chapela said he believed the liquid was molasses.

According to a petition against the BP project, Stop BP is concerned about the deal because of what they say is a lack of student involvement in the decision to accept the contract, the potential harms of biofuels research and the risk to academic integrity that university contracts with private companies pose.

â€œStudents have no sayâ€”that is not democracy,â€� said senior Hillary Lehr, an anthropology and conservation and resource studies major. â€œEven though (the contract) looks democratic because there are forums, the fact of the matter is that itâ€™s not.â€�

The level of student involvement in the protest was great, said alumna Nina Rizzo, a campus organizer for human rights organization Global Exchange.

â€œThis was definitely a great turn-out, especially because itâ€™s only the beginning,â€� Rizzo said.

Stop BP will continue advocating for its cause as the project unfolds, said Lee Worden, a postdoctorate researcher and protest participant.

â€œThis may be a long-term project, but weâ€™re going to get the oil contamination off this campus,â€� Worden said. â€œWeâ€™ll be back.â€�

from Berkeley Daily Planet
by reposts Sunday Mar 4th, 2007 5:07 PM

altieriandarres.jpg.jpg

A campus police officer warns Miguel Altieri, center, to step back after the professor and BP agreement critic challenged the need to detain one of the two UC Berkeley students handcuffed after they dumped molasses in front of California Hall. A second student, Ali Tonack, was booked into Berkeley city jail. Photo by Richard Brenneman.
from Sf Chron
by reposts Sunday Mar 4th, 2007 5:07 PM

ba__bpprotest.jpg

UC Berkeley police arrest an ecology student suspected of pouring a mixture of molasses and vinegar at an entrance to California Hall on Thursday to protest a proposed deal between the university and British Petroleum to develop biofuels. The substance, which a protest leader called "fake oil," was part of a student-led campaign to persuade Chancellor Robert Birgeneau not to sign the $500 million deal. Critics say the deal would put the university on the path of becoming dependent on corporate funding for research. Undergraduate Nathan A. Murthy, 19, and graduate student Ali B. Tonak, 24, were charged with misdemeanors.
---
---
2.Cal's biofuel deal challenged on campus
Critics say energy alliance with oil giant BP endangers school's integrity, independence
Rick DelVecchio, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle (page A - 1), March 8, 2007
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/08/MNGCROHIOV1.DTL

Andrew Paul Gutierrez, a 67-year-old professor of ecosystems science in UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources, has a word for those who believe human ingenuity and productivity are boundless.

He calls them "cornucopians."

He thinks cornucopians are misguided and prone to taking big risks that can backfire.

That's one of the reasons he is upset that the university where he has spent his entire academic life is joining with oil giant BP in a $500 million, 10-year program to discover how to mass-produce clean, safe transportation fuels -- such as ethanol -- from biomass in an environmentally safe and cost-effective way.

The Energy Biosciences Institute is to create high-tech energy farms as productive as oil fields but without the carbon waste that adds to climate change. The harvests would be processed into sugar-based fuels for filling the gas tanks of vehicles.

Institute scientists "will be unified and propelled by a common purpose to solve a global problem of great magnitude and urgency," according to the proposal written by a UC Berkeley-led team and accepted by BP.

The BP deal has been presented as an environmental call to arms, but Gutierrez is among a loose-knit group of faculty members and students not falling in line. The critics don't agree on what they disagree about but share a fervor that contrasts with the administration's self-confidence at landing history's richest academic-industry research partnership.

The heretics fall into three camps: those who question the science program, those who feel the deal taints the university's independence, and those who fear it conflicts with UC Berkeley's time-honored collegial process for hiring and promoting faculty.

They're few in number on a faculty of more than 1,500 but have been so persistent since the deal's announcement five weeks ago, that time had to be set aside for everyone to speak. That time is from 4 to 6 p.m. today at a campus forum sponsored by Cal's Academic Senate.

"These are arguments that have to be taken seriously," said Bill Drummond, a journalism professor who is chairman of the Academic Senate.

To give the sponsors of the BP deal their due, supporters say, leaders of the giant petroleum company are considering the issue of global warming in broad ecological and socioeconomic terms. No previous effort has even attempted such a comprehensive approach.

"I've met a bunch of the VPs at BP," said Chris Somerville, a Stanford professor who is the top candidate for the Energy Biosciences Institute's top job. "They're people like you and me. They're trying to do the right thing. They want the right thing for their children and grandchildren."

Gutierrez, interviewed at his office in Mulford Hall, said he believes it's important to pursue alternative fuels but was hard put to find anything to cheer him up about the BP deal's approach.

"You'd think this proposal is exactly what we needed because it's promising a lot to reduce greenhouse gases," he said. "The problem is, how do you separate the hype from the facts?"

Another reason he's upset is he thinks the deal marks a step backward for the university's intellectual independence.

He criticized the administration for entering into a relationship in which 50 corporate researchers will work hand in hand with university scientists. Gutierrez said partnerships between individual faculty members and corporate sponsors have been common during his career, but a partnership on the institutional level is something new.

"There used to be deals between individual professors and industry -- they would provide funding, and they could provide any kind of relationship you wanted," he said. "But you didn't have people coming in from industry with all the rights of a professor who's been through the academic sieve."

What is being introduced in the BP deal, Gutierrez said, is a public-private hybrid he calls a "corporaversity."

BP's corporate scientists and engineers will be able to profit from what they learn on campus, which is not only normal but also desirable if the research is to have a rapid social impact, according to the sponsors. But they also will be encouraged to embrace campus intellectual life, including, as the BP sponsors suggest, helping design courses, mentor students and promote science careers to schoolkids.

"It's a harbinger," Gutierrez said. "As this big money starts coming in, first we'll become addicted to it, and secondly, in becoming addicted to it, they'll start demanding more things from the university in terms of what the relationship is all about."

Gutierrez, a New Mexico cowboy's son who worked nights at a gas station to help pay his way through college and grad school, comes to his critique as an expert in modeling natural systems. His recent work includes plotting the impact of climate change on the spread of the olive fly, and the ecological backlash from cotton genetically modified to kill bugs.

During his interview with The Chronicle, he returned again and again to the theme that natural systems are all about limits. Modern human systems, on the other hand, are all about consumption. So there's a battle.

Gutierrez does not bet on technology to win the battle. He says biological systems will strain to reach equilibrium and frustrate the cleverest of the cornucopians trying to adjust them to benefit humans' insatiable consumption.

"What do you know about all the pest problems that are going to be created when you start producing these plants that are going to be different?" he asked. "Pretty soon you start making a system that starts out with good intentions but becomes more complicated.

"That's what happened with bioengineered crops. In some areas it simplifies the system. But in others it makes it so complicated."

The biofuels push has been compared with putting a man on the moon. Gutierrez doesn't see the connection.

"As a scientific adventure and quest of man and all that good stuff, it's wonderful," he said, "and I recall exactly where I was when they stepped off onto the moon. This is different. We're messing with the whole environment."

The vision of rolling Midwestern fields of bioengineered fuel crops is, Gutierrez thinks, "nonsense."

He thinks of south-central Brazil, with its sugar-cane plantations in place of what had been a mix of forests and diverse croplands. The cane is harvested to make ethanol, a substitute for fossil fuels in transportation. "It's sugar cane as far as the eye can see," he said. "The rivers run red with the runoff."

He fears more such scenes around the world.

"At a certain point there's a carrying capacity to the environment," he said. "Even if you plant the last hectare with biofuels, the demand keeps growing. Then what?"

E-mail Rick DelVecchio at rdelvecchio@sfchronicle.com
---
---
3.The promise and perils of tech transfer
Universities mull industry partnerships
Tom Abate, Chronicle Staff Writer
San Francisco Chronicle, March 7 2007
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/03/07/BUGCHOGF0D1.DTL

About 25 years ago, Congress encouraged universities to commercialize federally funded research by allowing both schools and scientists to profit when they patented discoveries and licensed them to private firms.

This week, hundreds of top university officials will gather in San Francisco as the Association of University Technology Managers meets to mull the promise and perils of this process known as technology transfer.

To Bay Area residents, tech transfer is as familiar as the myth of Silicon Valley: Take knowledge, add capital and create startups.

"This is not only good for the country, this is good for the communities around the universities,'' said John Fraser, president of the association and director of tech transfer at Florida State University.

The meeting, which starts tonight and runs through Saturday, comes as the controversy around university-industry partnerships is flaring up again, thanks to the proposed $500 million research partnership between the University of California and British Petroleum to develop fuels.

"I am deeply concerned that universities are continuing to run full speed down a path that is going to destroy the university as an institution for serving the public good,'' said author Jennifer Washburn, whose book title encapsulates her critique -- "University Inc.: The Corporate Corruption of Higher Education."

Even academics who favor tech transfer acknowledge that the practice carries perils such as conflicts of interest. Officials from Harvard, Stanford, the University of California and other top schools are issuing a white paper today that boils down to this: Keep doing tech transfer, but be careful.

"On the one hand, we are very proud of our contributions to the Bay Area and the larger economy that have resulted from Stanford research,'' said Arthur Bienenstock, Stanford vice provost and dean for research and graduate policy, who co-authored the white paper. "On the other hand, we have to be constantly vigilant to ensure that the education of students and high-quality research remain the goals of the university."

Bayh-Dole Act crucial

The prod that drove the ivory tower closer to Wall Street was the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which the Economist magazine calls "possibly the most inspired piece of legislation to be enacted in America over the last half-century."

The act said that universities and other federally funded labs owned their discoveries. The law encouraged researchers to commercialize their work by letting both scientists and their institutions share in any profits.

The result has been a burst of academic entrepreneurship that in the Bay Area has spawned not merely companies, but industries. Workstations, scientific visualization, biotechnology, Internet routing and search engines are among the commercial developments that originated with inventions at the region's three premier universities: UC Berkeley, UCSF and Stanford.

"People have heard of the knowledge economy -- and that sounds wonderful -- but they don't know what it means in their everyday lives,'' said Fraser, adding that governors understand that university spin-offs create high-paying jobs.

In a booklet titled "The Better World Report," the association cataloged 100 products that grew out of tech transfer, including a blood-clotting agent discovered at the University of Santa Barbara now carried by Marines in Iraq; drought-resistant grass developed at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for golf courses and lawns; and a process developed at UC Davis, still undergoing clinical trials, that may yield a new way to detect breast cancer.

But critics warn that the commercial winds blowing over academia have made researchers leery of sharing research, sparked legal battles over discoveries, and rewarded short-term payoffs in institutions that are supposed to take the long-term view.

"The university culture is supposed to be an open culture for sharing cutting-edge ideas that may not have any short-term utility,'' Washburn said, arguing that science is now following the money.

But Regis Kelly, former UCSF executive vice chancellor, challenged "the premise that the culture of the university has changed."

Kelly, who heads a special research institute called QB3 based at the UCSF Mission Bay campus, said QB3's 150 researchers were chosen because their studies were considered commercially relevant. But getting them to pay attention to tech transfer "is like pulling teeth," Kelly said.

Deal prompts misgivings

The deal that crystallized misgivings about university-industry collaborations was the 1998 agreement between UC Berkeley and the Swiss biotechnology firm Novartis. That $25 million deal, which ended in 2003, was intended to develop genetically engineered foods. It sparked campus protests and prompted many inquiries, including one commissioned by UC Berkeley's faculty and conducted by independent researchers at the Michigan State University.

Michigan State University sociologist Larry Busch, who led that inquiry, said the same concerns about conflicts of interest and undue influence raised in the Novartis deal have resurfaced with a proposed $500 million collaboration with British Petroleum. Under that proposal, a consortium of universities and research laboratories led by UC Berkeley will help BP develop clean, renewable fuels. Busch, without passing judgment on the proposal, said: "The general concern I have is that universities over the last 25 years have been more and more squeezed; state appropriations have not kept up with costs."

Washburn, the critic, is blunt: "The problem now is that universities are so desperate for industry money that they are allowing industry to dictate the terms."

On the flip side, tech transfer fans complain that universities can take too long to make deals and ask too high a price for their intellectual property.

"Universities have become, especially from industry's perspective, more difficult to interact with,'' economist Ross DeVol of the Milken Institute told the Scientist magazine in an article titled, "The Trouble With Tech Transfer."

Public universities like UC Berkeley, subject to political oversight, are even more likely to agonize over deals -- before and after they sign on the dotted line -- than are the private schools like Stanford that do not face the same outside scrutiny.

"Berkeley emerged as a lightning rod in part because it is public," said C. Judson King, director of the Center for Studies in Higher Education at UC Berkeley.

"There is a public university role in helping the state to improve economically and socially," King said. "If we can do something with the federal government or BP, or even with Novartis, that makes the lives of Californians better. I think we're fulfilling our mission."

But Miguel Altieri, a professor of insect biology at UC Berkeley's College of Natural Resources, said that when universities take big industry grants, it pushes science down certain avenues of inquiry, while fields that can't make the case for an industrial payoff are likely to wither, irrespective of merit.

"To serve the public that can afford it, that's what these deals do,'' said Altieri, who studies ecological techniques that are not as marketable as patented technologies.

As the tech-transfer tribe gathers here, amidst complaints they're either writing deals too quickly or too slowly, it's easy to believe they could do things better. It's tougher to imagine them not doing such tech transfer at all -- especially now that the practices of university-industry partnerships, encouraged by the Bayh-Dole Act and exemplified in Silicon Valley, are being emulated by ambitious foreign competitors.

"When we developed this legislation, the Japanese and the Germans were eating our lunch," recalled former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh, who is scheduled to address the association later this week. In a telephone interview from his law offices in Washington, Bayh said the incentives in the act "awakened the American genius that had been slumbering." But, he cautioned, this is no time to rest on laurels.

"Now we have an equally clear threat on the horizon that the Indians and Chinese are following the example we set and trying to make the same connections between industry and research,'' Bayh said. "That's the kind of competition we have to deal with in this day and age."

Chronicle reporter Rick DelVecchio contributed to this report. E-mail Tom Abate at tabate@sfchronicle.com

(thanks to tw)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

U.S. Agency Violated Law in Seed Case, Judge Rules

Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:25:17 GMT

U.S. Agency Violated Law in Seed Case, Judge Rules
Andrew Pollack
New York Times, February 14 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14crop.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

A federal judge ruled yesterday that the Agriculture Department violated the
law by failing to adequately assess possible environmental impacts before
approving Monsanto<'s genetically engineered alfalfa.

Judge Charles R. Breyer of Federal District Court in San Francisco said the
agency had been "cavalier" in deciding that a full environmental impact
statement was not needed because the potential environmental and economic
effects of the crop were not significant.

Plaintiffs in the case some alfalfa seed companies and environmental and
farm advocacy groups â€” said they would push to stop the sales and planting of
the alfalfa, which is resistant to Monsantoâ€™s Roundup herbicide.

Joseph Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety, a Washington
advocacy group that organized the lawsuit, said the decision by itself could
block commercial sales of genetically engineered alfalfa seeds but that the
plaintiffs would ask for an injunction to make sure. Judge Breyer asked the
parties to meet and propose remedies to him by Feb. 26.

Christopher R. Horner, a spokesman for Monsanto, said the company had not
seen the decision but thought it would not affect its business. Monsanto was not
named in the suit, which was filed against the Agriculture Department.

Calls to several spokesmen for the Agriculture Department were not returned.
A recording in the departmentâ€™s communications office said the government
closed early yesterday because of expected bad weather in Washington.

A federal judge in Washington said last week that the Agriculture Department
had not done adequate assessments before approving field trials of genetically
engineered grass. And last August a federal judge in Hawaii, in a case
involving field trials of crops engineered to produce pharmaceuticals, ruled
that the Agriculture Department had not adequately assessed the possible impact on
endangered species.

Mr. Mendelson of the Center for Food Safety said yesterdayâ€™s decision could
set a precedent that would require the Agriculture Department to do full impact
statements for other biotech crops before they are approved.

The Roundup Ready alfalfa was deregulated by the Agriculture Department in
June 2005, meaning it could be grown outside of field trials. It was the first
approval in years of a new genetically engineered crop. Because alfalfa is the
fourth most widely planted crop in the United States, the action presented a
big opportunity for Monsanto.

The Agriculture Department had first done an environmental assessment, which
concluded that a longer and more detailed environmental impact statement was
not needed. This was in part, the agency said, because the implanted gene
conferring herbicide resistance was harmless to people and livestock.

But Judge Breyer, in his 20-page opinion, said that the agency had not
adequately considered the possibility that the gene could be transferred by
pollen to organic or conventional alfalfa, hurting sales of organic farmers or exports
to countries like Japan that did not want the genetically engineered variety.

"An action which potentially eliminates or at least greatly reduces the
availability of a particular plant â€” here, nonengineered alfalfa â€” has a
significant effect on the human environment," he wrote.

The judge also said that the Agriculture Department had too easily dismissed
the possibility that planting Roundup-resistant alfalfa would lead to wider
use of Roundup, which in turn would contribute to the development of weeds
resistant to the popular herbicide. That is particularly a risk, he said,
because many other crops like soybeans and corn are also resistant to Roundup, which is
known generically as glyphosate.

"One would expect that some federal agency is considering whether there is
some risk to engineering all of Americaâ€™s crops to include the gene that
confers resistance to glyphosate," he wrote.
---

(thanks to TW)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

GM Food nightmare unfolding

cosmicbeing — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:35:20 GMT

Link to recent Russian study of gm soy fed rats and the effects on their reproductive functions +
overview of past studies...from the Institute of Science in Society...
http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GMFoodNightmareUnfolding.php

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes

Wed, 21 Feb 2007 21:36:58 GMT

Suppressed report shows cancer link to GM potatoes
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor

The Independent, 17 February 2007
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2278044.ece

Campaigners against genetically modified crops in Britain last are calling for trials of GM potatoes this spring to be halted after releasing more evidence of links with cancers in laboratory rats.

UK Greenpeace activists said the findings, obtained from Russian trials after an eight-year court battle with the biotech industry, vindicated research by Dr Arpad Pusztai, whose work was criticised by the Royal Society and the Netherlands State Institute for Quality Control.

The disclosure last night of the Russian study on the GM Watch website led to calls for David Miliband, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to withdraw permission for new trials on GM potatoes to go ahead at secret sites in the UK this spring. Alan Simpson, a Labour MP and green campaigner, said: "These trials should be stopped. The research backs up the work of Arpad Pusztai and it shows that he was the victim of a smear campaign by the biotech industry. There has been a cover-up over these findings and the Government should not be a party to that."

Mr Simpson said the findings, which showed that lab rats developed tumours, were released by anti-GM campaigners in Wales. Dr Pusztai and a colleague used potatoes that had been genetically modified to produce a protein, lectin. They found cell damage in the rats' stomachs, and in parts of their intestines.

The research is likely to spark a fresh row about GM crops in Britain. Graham Thompson, a Greenpeace campaigner, said: "It is important because it backs up the research by Pusztai, which was smeared at the time by the industry."

Brian John of GM Free Cymru, who released the findings, said the research was conducted in 1998 by the Institute of Nutrition of the Russian Academy of Medical Sciences and has been suppressed for eight years.

It showed that the potatoes did considerable damage to the rats' organs. Those in the "control groups" that were fed non-GM potatoes suffered ill-effects, but those fed GM potatoes suffered more serious organ and tissue damage.

The potatoes contained an antibiotic resistance marker gene. The institute that carried out the studies refused to release all the information. However, Greenpeace and other consumer groups mounted a protracted legal battle campaign to obtain the report. In May 2004 the Nikulinski District Court in Russia ruled that information relating to the safety of GM food should be open to the public.

The institute, however, refused to release the report. Greenpeace and Russian activist groups again took the institute to court, and won a ruling that the report must be released.

Irina Ermakova, a consultant for Greenpeace, said she had conducted her own animal feeding experiments with GM materials. "The GM potatoes were the most dangerous of the feeds used in the trials ... and on the basis of this evidence they cannot be used in the nourishment of people."

Greenpeace said the Russian trials were also badly flawed. Half of the rats in the trial died, and results were taken from those that survived, in breach of normal scientific practice.

(thanks to tw)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

Federal Court Orders Halt to New Field Trials of GE Crops

Thu, 08 Feb 2007 16:20:54 GMT

Federal Court Orders for the First Time a Halt to New Field Trials of Genetically Engineered Crops

Far-Reaching Decision Requires More Rigorous Environmental Review For Future Trials

Past Trials on Genetically Engineered Creeping Bentgrass Ruled Illegal

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Joseph Mendelson (202) 547-9359

February 6, 2007
Legal Director, Center for Food Safety

Washington, DC - In a decision broadly affecting field trials of
genetically engineered crops a federal district judge ruled yesterday
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must halt approval of all
new field trials until more rigorous environmental reviews are
conducted. Citing potential threats to the environment, Judge Harold
Kennedy found in favor of the Center for Food Safety that USDA's past
approvals of field trials of herbicide tolerant, genetically engineered
bentgrass were illegal.

"This is a significant victory. The decision requires far more thorough
oversight of the environmental impact of these crops, " stated Joseph
Mendelson, legal director of the Center for Food Safety.

"The Court was clearly concerned that the agency has put our nation's
environment at risk by exempting many of these field trials from
environmental review. That's why the judge made the decision broadly
apply to all future field trials of genetically engineered crops."
Mendelson continued.

The federal lawsuit was filed by the Center for Food Safety,
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center and other individuals and
organizations in 2003. At issue in the lawsuit are novel varieties of
creeping bentgrass and Kentucky bluegrass manufactured by Scotts and
Monsanto that have been genetically engineered to resist Roundup,
Monsanto's popular herbicide.

Currently, use of the Roundup weedkiller is limited to spot spraying of
weeds in that the herbicide kills any grass with which it comes in
contact. The new engineered grass has been altered to be resistant to
the weedkiller so that users will be able to spray entire lawns, fields
and golf courses with large amounts of the chemical without fear of
hurting the grass. Large scale planting of the biotech grass would
therefore significantly increase the amounts of herbicide used in home
lawns, sports fields, schools and golf courses around the country.

In seminal studies concerning environmental contamination from
genetically engineered creeping bentgrass, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency found multiple instances of the pollen from engineered
bentgrass traveling several miles and transferring its traits to native
grasses. Last year, EPA researchers found that the engineered grasses
had escaped from field trials to contaminate a national grassland.

"These field trials threaten our public land, our communities and our
health," said Lesley Adams, Outreach Coordinator for plaintiff
Klamath-Siskiyou Wildlands Center.

"We will monitor the USDA very closely to make sure they don't allow
any more of these tests until they've rigorously assessed their
environmental impact," Adams concluded.

ooo

The court's decision is available at www.centerforfoodsafety.org

(Thanks to TW)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

Advice to Bush: Break up Monsanto

Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:51:19 GMT

How the World Works
Advice to Bush: Break up Monsanto
Andrew Leonard
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2007/01/23/break_up_monsanto/

Alexei Barrionuevo's roundup of all things ethanol in today's New York Times, setting the stage for an expected announcement tonight by President Bush calling for significantly increased ethanol consumption in the United States, is a generally good introduction to the topic. But one fragment caught my eye:

Responding to concerns that there just isn't enough corn to supply expected future demand, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johans was described as "confident that more corn will emerge to ease the pain of higher grain prices, as seed companies improve yields."

Seed companies? Now, who might that be? As of 2005, worldwide, 10 companies controlled about 50 percent of the global seed business. At the top of the heap are just three companies, Monsanto, Dupont and Syngenta. Industry concentration is continuing to proceed apace. Monsanto is currently waiting for antitrust approval to complete its merger with the 11th largest seed company, Delta Pine & Land. All three companies have been snapping up smaller firms at every opportunity.

All three are also huge chemical and pesticide conglomerates that are aggressively pursuing advanced genetic modification technologies. So when Secretary Johans talks about seed companies improving yields, what he's really saying is that a tiny group of huge multinational chemical companies will be introducing a steady stream of new transgenic corn strains, in a frantic attempt to keep innovating humanity's way out of an energy crisis.

Let's take a break today from worrying about whether scientists are properly evaluating the potential risks to human health and the environment from transgenic research. I've only just started reading Denise Caruso's "Intervention: Confronting the Real Risks of Genetic Engineering and Life on a Biotech Planet," a clear contender for best book yet on that topic, and so we'll save a more detailed discussion of the problem for later.

Here's a different angle: A few years back, the USDA publicized research that found that seed industry consolidation had led to a decrease in research and development intensity. In a classic
display of what happens when a market is locked up by a small number of players, competition suffers and the pressure to innovate slackens: "...increased competition in R&D," concluded the researchers, "as indicated by low levels of market concentration and the participation of more competing firms in the GM crop approval process, is positively related to R&D intensity. As the number of firms declined through mergers and acquisitions, the intensity of R&D fell."

If President Bush and Mike Johans want to put some muscle behind their faith that new breeds of corn will deliver ever-higher yields, maybe they ought to do something about the continuing consolidation of control over the seed industry. Stop Monsanto's merger with Delta Pine & Land, which will give the St. Louis giant effective control over cotton seed. Even better, break it up. Let a hundred seed companies bloom, instead of just a few.

Just trying to be helpful here. President Bush has some really low poll approval ratings going into tonight's State of the Union speech. It's time for bold moves!

(Thanks to TW)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 2 replies

2007 Food Democracy Legislation Tracker -- Environmental Commons

Tue, 06 Feb 2007 06:16:53 GMT

2007 Summary
Environmental Commons continues to track agriculture-based legislation that impacts local government and community decision-making. Unlike previous years of tracking, which focused solely on identifying "seed pre-emption" bills aimed at removing a community's ability to make decisions about seeds and plants, the 2007 Tracker (http://environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html) is additionally identifying where state and local lawmakers recognize the importance of community decision-making and are introducing bills that protect small farming systems and local decision-making.

So far in 2007, the bill of most concern has appeared in Monsanto's home state of Missouri. Missourians for Local Control is actively fighting this bill.

Missouri, SB364
Missouri's SB364 is a particularly alarming bill. Its language, if passed, would provide that "state law and regulations adopted by state agencies shall preempt the entire field of and constitute a complete and integrated regulatory plan for agricultural operations in Missouri." Whereas the 2006-defeated bill centered solely on seeds, the 2007 SB364 would preempt local governments from making any decisions related to agriculture. Not only would local jurisdictions be hamstrung from passing laws related to seeds and plants, but also regulations related to industrial concentrated animal feeding operations would be preempted by the State.

According to Dick Burke of the Missouri Association of Counties, "local officials are willing to cede some control. But a total pre-emption is just something we cannot accept." In addition, Tom Beamer, the mayor of Arrow Rock, who has fought a well-publicized battle against a proposed hog farm expansion near the tiny, town located on a bluff above the Missouri River, stated, "Without any county planning and zoning, then there's nothing you can do to stop it. A farmer could put a nuclear reactor in his field and you couldn't stop him. You might as well not have a county commission because everything is being decided by the state." Beamer added that tourism and the town's historic sites are the only industry it has and that a large animal-feeding operation would be devastating. He said it is these kinds of factors that only local governments can consider.

Why Local?
Providing local governments and communities with oversight of their food supply ensures that food production, distribution, and marketing are carried out in ways that are healthy for the local economy and the environment. The local control of our food supply helps secure the health and welfare of communities. Local authority strengthens democracy and gives citizens a more direct stake in a healthy future. Local control of our food improves food security, local economies, environment, and community cohesion and civic engagement.

From a public policy standpoint, local governments have historically been provided oversight of issues of health, safety, and welfare. Certainly farming operations fall within this arena. Moreover, when a series of local jurisdictions begin introducing laws to better protect health, safety, and welfare, the state's response should not be to simply remove the local governments ability to protect its constituents. The basis for such local laws should be thoroughly explored and studied. Perhaps concentrated animal feeding operations significantly affect air quality. Perhaps the cultivation of genetically modified seeds presents a real threat to local native species or organic farming economies. The State needs to support the concerns of its local jurisdictions not simply run roughshod over them. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison in which he stated, "I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people, and if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take the power from them."

For More Information:
2007 Food Democracy Legislation Tracker: http://environmentalcommons.org/gmo-tracker.html

Local Food Fact Sheets:
http://environmentalcommons.org/LocalFood/index.html

Food Democracy: http://environmentalcommons.org/food-democracy.html

Seed & Plant Preemption Bills Fail in 2006 Legislatures:
http://environmentalcommons.org/preemption-bills-fail-2006.html

(Thanks to TW)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 0 replies

ISLANDS AT RISK -- GENETIC ENGINEERING IN HAWAI'I -- Earthjustice

Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:36:22 GMT

ISLANDS AT RISK -- GENETIC ENGINEERING IN HAWAI'I
New video now available for activists and house parties
January 2007

Contact:
Brian Smith, 510-550-6714

Honolulu, HI - Earthjustice announces a new video entitled Islands at Risk -- Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i. This half-hour program explores a subject that has received little attention in the media but involves a potential public health and safety issue of enormous consequence.

Focusing on local experiments with genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the program features local Hawai'i farmers, teachers, legal and medical experts, and community activists who share their perspective on the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of life forms.

"Hawai`i has been called the GMO testing capitol of the world because, in the past ten years or so, we have had here more than 2,000 field tests of experimental genetically-engineered crops in more than 6,000 locations around our small state," says Earthjustice attorney Paul Achitoff in the video. "And this is more than any other place in the world."

Earthjustice has won recent lawsuits in federal and state courts challenging the introduction of these experimental crop tests in the islands without first assessing the environmental and human health impacts.

Islands at Risk -- Genetic Engineering in Hawai'i looks at some of the possible impacts, including allergic and immune system responses from exposure to biopharmaceutical crops - both in humans and in Hawai'i's endangered species - and contamination of regular food crops such as papaya, taro, coffee and corn with genetically modified versions of those crops.

"Some people say it's a tiny risk," says Kaua'i taro farmer Chris Kobayashi in the video, "but it's a huge risk."

Some of that risk is described by medical doctor, public health officer and World Health Organization consultant Dr. Lorrin Pang of Maui who calls for more oversight of the genetic engineering industry. Regarding the substances introduced into the cells of GMO plants, Pang states, "These things are not benign. These things are quite unknown. The kinds of studies we do for drugs and vaccines are exactly what genetically-engineered food needs."

Aside from health issues, the video focuses on the economics of the current state government policy of subsidizing the biotech industry. Local organic farmers growing coffee, papaya, taro and corn point out that genetically engineered produce does not command the export market prices of conventionally-grown and organic produce. Many countries either refuse to import GE food or require labeling. "We're going in the wrong direction for economic development," says international legal expert Mililani Trask. "We need to re-assess it."

Trask also discusses the practice of patenting Hawaiian life forms, calling it a form of bio-piracy. "We Kanaka Maoli (Native Hawaiians) are claiming our inalienable right to the biodiversity of our lands. This is the heart of what we are in terms of our survival, our ability to maintain our health."

The recent attempt by the University of Hawai'i to patent taro, honored as an ancestor of the Hawaiian people, is recounted in the video by Moloka'i hunter and Hawaiian activist Walter Ritte. His and others' successful efforts to persuade the UH to drop their patents on new hybrid Hawaiian taro varieties was a signal to the whole biotechnology industry, Ritte says in the video, that "you cannot own our ancestors."

The issue of food security and the world's future ability to feed itself is discussed by local farmers Una Greenaway and Nancy Redfeather.

"By choosing the path of genetically-engineered agriculture, we are narrowing significantly the amount of seed varieties that are available to the farmer today," says Redfeather.

The video ends with a vision of Hawai'i as a model for sustainable tropical agriculture. "Hawai'i is a niche specialty market for amazing things: coffee, pineapple, banana, flowers. We can actually support ourselves with this," says mixed organic farmer Melanie Bondera.

The program was produced for Earthjustice by Joan Lander and Puhipau of the documentary production team Na Maka o ka 'Aina. Copies are available at http://www.namaka.com

Watch a clip of the video online here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVwulgaGDa0

Media seeking review copies please contact Brian Smith bsmith@earthjustice.org

(Thanks to TW)

posted in **Genetically modified food watch** - 1 reply

**Genetically modified food watch**'s topics - tribe.net

Obama, Monsanto, and Hillary Clinton's redemptive first act as Secretary of State

BAN MIND CONTROL/ DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS TORTURE AND ABUSE

The Future of Food

an article of warning

Food, Inc. Trailer

No GMO Challenge

The Future of Food

Bad News For Big Ag — GMO Crops Don’t Increase Yields

Seeding Deep Democracy - Vandana Shiva

A SPIRITUAL C * NSP * R* CY

Introducing myself

Why GMO's are harmful to Humans

monsanto on why GM food shouldn't be labled

who's buying organic?

H.R. 857: Globalists claim dominion over US food supply

GMO Compass

Monsanto's "Rural Cleansing"

Monsanto and global warming

Codex - The 5 Minute Tour

France suspending the Monsanto 810 maize!

The world's top 10 pesticide firms - Who owns nature?‏

Corn grown for fuel

INTRODUCING THE MUST-HAVE ORGANIC SWEETENER HONEY CRYSTALS BY MAMA HEALTHY® - Free from Genetically Modified foods and Organisms (GMO)

Hawaii: Big Island prepares to ban GMO crops‏

USDA SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON DEREGULATION OF GE CORN

Obama’s team includes dangerous biotech “Yes Men” (brief history/ myths & lies/ links/ what you can do about it-petition)

LAST DAY for public comment: Last Bush Rules before 1/20/09

Overwhelming Opposition to Engineered Papaya‏

Monsanto tried to block Austrian research

Stop GE Papaya in Florida: Comment to USDA by Nov. 3

USDA: New GM rule can preempt state, local laws

Chile contaminated with GE crops

Bee learning behaviour affected by consumption of Bt Cry1Ab toxin

Lake County, CA, Board gives anti-GE ordinance OK

Order 81: Mutant Seeds for Mesopotamia

Hawaii: Council bans GMO taro, coffee

WORC: GM alfalfa decision upheld

Good News on the Codex Front / GMO issues

California GE Protection Bill Becomes Law

Genetically Engineered Foods Edge Closer To Dinner Plate, FDA To Develop GE Rules

germany vs. america with GMOs

Support AB 541: Protect CA farmers!

Interview with US Secretary of State Science Advisor and AID Administrator on GMOs (scary brainwashing)

U.S. Caves Into Lobbyists Over Massive Bee Deaths

In Lean Times, Biotech Grains Are Less Taboo

Switzerland Bans GMOs till 2012

Pollution in People

Important petition TV Drug Ads

HOW TO MAKE SAFER BUYING CHOICES: GMO Defensive Shopping List

US Bullies Africa on GM Labeling, Africa's Had Enough

Engineered seeds can survive in soil for 10 years

PLEASE WATCH = "IN LIES WE TRUST" = IT MAY SAVE YOUR LIFE

Growing Meat in Vats?

New Evidence Confirms the Nutritional Superiority of Plant-Based Organic Foods

Labels should tell the truth about hormones

Monsanto Round up Ready

KAUAI News: Organic corn 'outbreak' reported

American Songbirds Are Being Wiped Out by Banned Pesticides

KAUAI News: Taro at heart of hearing

Creamery pushes for tougher GMO rules

Hawaii won't ban genetic coffee

Wal-Mart Brand Milk Will Be rBST-Free

Transgenic Potato Not to be Released

GMO's linked to HIV

CA State Assembly Approves GMO Bill Protecting Farmers

Little Oranges/tangerines - are they GMO's or clean

An interesting video...

GMO - TEA ??

cloned food? no thank you

can this be true?

Hi please come join dansconspiraciesclub

France suspends commercial GMO seed use, studies safety

The Implications of Monsanto’s Patent Losses

Chinese Organics

Corn

The Food Bully

Save Wild Rice from Genetic Engineering

TRUTH IS FREE; so is my RETREAT --Vermont

USDA seeks public feedback on pharma/industrial crop regulations (Union of Concerned Scientists )

Genetically modified food watch's topics - tribe.net