Biotechnology giants top the food chain with GMO usage

Courtesy of wikipedia.org

March Against Monsanto is just one of the many groups fighting against the deregulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) used in most food. Studies suggest GMOs pose serious health risks.

our friendly neighborhood conglomerate Monsanto would like you to know that they don’t just make chemical bioweapons like Agent Orange and the pesticide RoundUpanymore; they are now supplying the country with acres upon acres of fresh, genetically modified crops that go straight to the grocery shelves.

And don’t worry about your food not being labeled for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), because why would you need to know that? Just keep eating those Cheerios, Lean Cuisines, Fritos, Bisquick pancakes and don’t ask any questions. Cancer? Organ damage? Shhh, just keep drinking that Kool-Aid, also a Monsanto product.

Monsanto Company owns a lot of the food you put in your mouth, and the people there don’t want you to ask what’s in it. Worse, there seems to be a major lack of concern or knowledge about it among most of the American public. The company has made itself infamous among anti-GMO protesters and the alternative media in recent years due to having its hands in almost every type of processed food that you can find in a typical American grocery store.

GMOs are plants that have been genetically engineered with DNA from bacteria, viruses, or other plants and animals, according to nongmoproject.org. Almost all GMOs are made to withstand being sprayed by chemicals like pesticides and herbicides, hence Monsanto manufacturing RoundUp.

Other developed countries, like Australia and Japan have laws that require major restrictions on the production and sale of GMOs, along with labeling foods that contain them. Due to a powerful lobbying effort by Monsanto and other companies in the biotech industry, the United States is one of the only nations to not require labeling GMO foods, and there seems to be virtually no laws regulating them.

According to the Institute for Responsible Technology, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) doesn’t mandate the labeling of GMOs, they do not require a single safety study and they allow companies to put their GMO foods on the market without notifying the agency.

The FDA has said that it has have no evidence that GMO foods were any different than say, real food, which is why there is a lack of regulations on these products.

The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has conducted studies on the ingestion of GMOs and animals, and they have found that organ damage, accelerated aging and infertility have occurred.

GMOs leave material behind inside of us, which can lead to long term effects that are difficult to track. The AAEM has also noted that after GMOs were first introduced in 1996, the percentage of food allergies, autism and chronic illnesses skyrocketed. The American Public Health Association has also condemned the use of GMO bovine growth hormone in cow’s milk, which has been linked to cancer.

The list goes on and on.  
If you ask Monsanto, everything they make is incredibly safe to eat.

“Plants and crops with GMO traits have been tested more than any other crops — with no credible evidence of harm to humans or animals,” Monsanto said.

The key words in that sentence are “credible evidence.” They are basically saying that yes, there is evidence, but it isn’t up their standards so why dwell on it? A little more scrolling down the company’s FAQ page and one can find that the words “credible evidence” seem to be one of their favorite terms.

Despite the massive efforts of Monsanto to keep the public ignorant to its game, recent legal developments have given the anti-GMO movement some hope.

At the end of September, a provision in a Senate spending bill, labeled by members of the food movement as the Monsanto Protection Act was cut from the bill. If included, the provision would have stripped the federal courts authority to stop the production of GMOfoods if safety tests showed that the products were harmful or unsafe.

While this is very good news, it’s important to keep in mind that most politicians, including our president, have turned a blind eye to, or in some cases, aided Monsanto.

Barack Obama filled certain key posts with Monsanto people after his initial election in 2008 and actually signed the Monsanto Protection Act last March when it was first proposed.

So how do we even begin to phase out GMO foods when evil giants such as Monsanto seem to have such a stronghold on our economy and government? Much like anything else, baby steps will help.

Shop at public markets for your produce, and talk to produce sellers about how they grow their crops. Get involved with March Against Monsanto, a group that has been putting a global foot forward in their efforts to thwart GMOs.

But most importantly, talk to others about the issue, because an informed public is one of the greatest weapons to combat any form of wrongdoing. The stylus

Monsanto spends $5 million on anti-labeling campaign

Agricultural giant Monsanto Co., one of the largest makers of bioengineered crop seeds, is trying to persuade Washington state voters away from a proposal to require labels on genetically modified foods.

Monsanto has contributed $5.1 million to oppose the measure, according to Bloomberg. So far, companies like Monsanto, DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. are backing an anti-labeling campaign with $18.1 million.

Washington joined 26 states with proposals this year to mandate genetically engineered food be properly labeled or removed from store shelves.

Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) reported total net sales of $14.86 billion in 2013, compared with $13.50 billion reported last year.St. Louis Business Journal

INDIA: No import nod for GM processed food items till March 2014

No import nod for GM processed food items till March 2014

The Union environment ministry has issued an order keeping in abeyance the controversial August, 2007 notification, which allows import of genetically modified (GM) processed food items into India without its prior permission, till March 31, 2014.

Though the ministry has continuously been keeping the notification in abeyance since February 2008, this time it has opted for a shorter period — usually it used to be a year — expecting the Supreme Court's final view on the contentious issue of genetically modified organisms before March.

At present, any genetically engineered organism can be imported — either for research or for restricted lab trial — only after prior permission of the ministry's apex regulatory body, genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC). Had the ministry not put the 2007 notification on hold, it would have exempted importers from even informing the government.

The ministry's order has been in sync with what the apex court had directed the government in response to a petition six years ago. The court had directed the ministry to put such an order on hold till the controversial issue is finally decided.

The current order — to strictly regulate the import of GM organisms — assumes significance in view of strong opposition from civil society groups to any transgenic food item. They argued that the transgenic food will not only ruin the health of consumers but will also adversely affect the biodiversity.

"Government will take a call on the issue only after conclusion of a pending PIL (public interest litigation) in the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the court will have a final word on it, either way, by March", said a ministry official. He said the ministry would accordingly either amend the notification or withdraw it altogether. The apex court's final order would hopefully also bring more clarity on the issue of labeling GM foods in India, he added.

In order to have definite view on the issue of GM food crops, the SC had appointed a technical expert committee (TEC) comprising scientists/experts from different backgrounds. Though this panel has already submitted its report in the court, it failed to make unanimous recommendation.

While five members of this panel expressed their strong reservation against the genetically engineered crops and rejected even the scientific trials of such crops in India, one member R S Paroda submitted a separate report and pitched for field trials for collecting bio-safety data under close observation of experts appointed by the agriculture ministry. TOI

"Farmer" Pawar bats for genetically modified crops

"Farmer" Pawar bats for genetically modified crops

Backing use of genetically modified (GM) technology in crops, Union Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar today said farmers prefer GM cotton as it gives higher yield and is more disease-resistant and opposed "arbitrary bans" on trials of such crops. 

"I am not a scientist. But as a farmer, I would like my friends opposing the GM technology to answer some of my queries. For instance, is it not a fact that GM technology substantially curtails the requirement of fertilisers and pesticides? This helps farmers maintain the soil quality and also save money," Pawar said. 

"Second, is it not a fact that we might be consuming oil made out of GM soya produced in the US? But, we aren't willing to benefit from the same technology on our own soil. Why?" Pawar said. 

The NCP leader expressed the views in a blog titled "Food for Thought", posted on his party's official website today. 

"Is it not a fact that GM technology has increased the food production four-fold, reducing the need of additional land, thereby protecting the green cover," he said. 

"My only contention is that let us not kill this promising science by placing arbitrary bans on its trials. Let the scientific community get the freedom to conduct its experiments on this technology with the strictest possible regulatory framework in place. Is this asking for too much?" he said. 

Stating that "GM technology is now a reality," Pawar said, "From mere 1.7 million hectares in 1996, the world-over area under GM crop has seen an unprecedented 100-fold increase to 170 million hectares by 2012, spread across 28 countries and touching the lives of 17 million farmers." 

"We have adopted the GM technology for only one crop - cotton. And it has all along been a success story. In 2000-01, the production of cotton was just 9.5 million bales as against the demand of 17 million bales. This went up to 18.5 million bales as against demand of 22 million bales in 2005-06," Pawar said. 

"Today, we produce 35 million bales as against the demand of 27 million bales. Thus, we have emerged as a major exporter in the international market," the minister said. 

"I believe that a farmer is the best judge to decide on the adoption of a new concept or ideology. Let me tell you that 90 per cent of the India's cotton farmers have already adopted the GM technology," he said.BS

Why big companies are spending $21 million to beat I-522

The latest No on 522 cash infusion, another $3.78 million channeled through the Grocery Manufacturers Association, brings to $21.1 million the war chest that food and agribusiness giants have raised to defeat Washington’s Initiative 522, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods.

A military phrase, “shock and Awe,” best describes the No on 522 campaign: Pepsico has put $2.352 million, Nestle $1.528 million and Coca Cola $1.520 million, with General Mills now at $598,819 and J.M. Smucker up to $349,977.

Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, passed out ice cream at a recent event supporting Initiative 522.  But the initiative is getting creamed on the money front.  Big food and agribusiness companies have raised $21 million to fight the measure, which requires labeling of genetically modified foods.

The companies’ contributions are known only because Attorney General Bob Ferguson took legal action to stop the money from being laundered through the Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Association, the industry’s lobbying arm.

Why are these corporate interests spending, and until recently laundering, such enormous amounts of money?

It is to prevent the labeling movement from scoring a momentum-building victory. Stop it now. Washington is a much-watched state and bellwether for issues about to go national.

Washington has gone two ways with statewide ballot measures.

It has been on the cutting edge of social change. The state voted in 1970 to legalize abortion, more than two years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Then, last November, Washington was among the first three states to vote for marriage equality.

But big corporate campaigns have squelched other proposals. The aluminum industry and bottlers repeatedly turned back initiatives requiring returnable bottles. A small state income tax, targeted to the wealthy, was defeated by dollars from the wealthy.

The American Beverage Association in 2010, spent $16.9 million to roll back a modest soda pop tax, enacted by the Legislature to ease cuts in education spending.  Other state legislatures were looking at the model. The beverage makers sent a message: This is what we will do to you.

The National Rifle Association, fearful of precedent, spent $5 million in 1997 to defeat an initiative that would have required trigger locks on weapons stored in households and mandated a gun-safety course for new purchasers of firearms.

Big corporate and special interest campaigns follow a pattern:

–The money comes from out of state, but the TV spots feature spokespeople from in state.  After two stints as Republican state chairman, and long ago (1980-92) as state attorney general, Ken Eikenberry has found a virtual third political career filming commercials against “badly written” initiatives.

–A lot of the money comes late in the campaign. The latest anti-522 infusions — $3.78 million from the Grocerty Manufacturers Asscoation, $460,000 from Dupont Pioneer — have come a week after ballots were mailed out. The state attorney general has an ongoing investigation of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but the election may be over before disclosure of more violations of state public disclosure laws, or penalties for violations.

–Intense effort is made to shield who exactly is giving what. Until smoked out by Ferguson, a special “Defense of Brand Strategic Account” was used as a funnel for money from Pepsico, Coca-Cola, J.M. Smocker, Campbell Soup, General Mills, Kellogg, Cargill, Hillshire Brands and other big givers.

The fund was set up, according to an internal memo from the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s Chief Executive Officer Pamela Bailey, “to allow for greater planning for the funds to combat current threats and better shield individual companies from attack that provide funding for specific efforts.”

Another strategy is seen incorporate-financed campaigns. The “No” or “Yes” side has a single public spokesperson, almost always a woman. Executives from the big givers — e.g. Montsanto, Dupont Pioneer, and Netstle on Initiative 522 — are never heard from. The Grocery Manufacturers Association has spoken mainly in legal proceedings through blue-chip Seattle law firms.

It is possible to buy an election in Washington state. You betcha. A free-spending Costco effort dismantled the state’s monopoly on retail liquor sales. The state’s billionaires combined in a “shock and Awe” effort last year that pushed through (barely) a charter schools initiative, after previous rejections.

Almost a year has passed since the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s board directed staff to begin polling in Washington “to determine the viability of a campaign to defeat I-522.”

They’ve now put in more than $11 million.  Is this big investment succeeding?

Two polls last week showed I-522 in the lead, but with the gap narrowing. The Elway Poll put the initiative ahead by a 46-42 percent margin. A SurveyUSA poll for King 5 News pegged support at 45 percent, opposition at 38 percent, with a big number of undecideds.

Initiatives are considered in trouble if pre-election polls show support at under 50 percent. SEATTLEPI

Modified brinjal finally sees light

The National Committee on Biosafety (NCB) yesterday officially released the country’s first genetically modified (GM) food crop, brinjal, which is infused with pest-resistant gene.
The decision was taken following a two-day meeting of the NCB, the highest regulatory body for GM crop release, held at the environment ministry with its secretary in the chair.
With this decision, Bangladesh becomes the 29th country in the world to grow GM crop. In South Asia, India, Pakistan and Myanmar grow GM crop cotton. With the NCB nod, Bangladesh becomes the first in the region to grow a GM food crop.
Scientists at the Bangladesh Agricultural Research Institute (Bari) genetically engineered brinjal, one of the most consumed vegetables in the country, by inserting a crystal protein gene (Cry1Ac) taken from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, otherwise known as Bt. Since then it has been known as Bt Brinjal.
The Bt gene insertion in brinjal gives it resistance against fruit and shoot borer (FSB), considered to be the most widespread and devastating pest in South and Southeast Asia. FSB infestations inflict 50 to 70 percent yearly crop loss in brinjal.
Officials present at the NCB meeting yesterday confirmed The Daily Star that four varieties of Bt Brinjal — Bt Brinjal-1 (Uttara), Bt Brinjal-2 (Kajla), Bt Brinjal-3 (Nayantara), and Bt Brinjal-4 (Iswardi local) — would first be released on limited scales as per a production manual following biosafety guidelines.
Uttara would be released in Rajshahi region, Kajla in Barisal, Nayantara in Rangpur and Dhaka regions, and Iswardi Local in Pabna and Chittagong regions, said the officials.
Detailed plan of variety releases, seed multiplications, and best practices in farmers’ field-level production would be worked out soon, the sources added.
Though it will be the country’s first homegrown GM crop, consumers in the country have long been exposed to GM food through consumption of imported GM soybean oil.
GM crops are derived from traditional plant varieties by altering their genetic makeup in laboratories for faster growth, resistance to pests, production of extra nutrients, or any other beneficial purpose. This is usually done by adding one or more genes to a plant’s genome using genetic engineering techniques.
The Bt Brinjal release decision came amidst outcry by a section of Green groups, who consider GM crops to be counter-productive for ecology and fear potential health risks. The Daily Star

NGOs seek action against companies selling GM food product without disclosing its content

NGOs seek action against companies selling GM food product without disclosing its content
Noting that the transgenic food products are being sold in Indian markets without being mandatorily labeled as "GM" (Genetically Modified), a forum of civil society groups on Monday wrote to the ministry of consumer affairs asking it to take action against those who are selling such product without declaring its genetically engineered content. 

A coalition for GM Free India - the forum comprising many civil society groups - alleged that cotton seed oil from BT Cotton andgenetically modified soybean oil were being marketed by flouting the government's existing rules to this effect. 

Pointing out that the government had in January this year made it mandatory for any genetically modified (GM) food product sold in Indian markets to be labeled as "GM", the Coalition in its letter to the ministry said that consumers would logically and rightfully expect that any packaged food with GM should carry the label to alert them and to make 'choice' possible for them. 

Highlighting how the government machinery has failed to implement its rules over GM food products, Rajesh Krishnan, co-convenor of the Coalition, said, "It is an open secret that while no GM food crop has been approved for commercialization in our country, cotton seed oil from Bt Cotton is being sold without any monitoring or labeling....It is unfortunate that Indians are forced to eat it (transgenic food product) without being given a choice." 

The Coalition's letter to the ministry pointed to the fact that these products do not conform to the labeling requirement imposed by the Legal Metrology Act Amendment last year. The existing rule says that "every package containing the genetically modified food shall bear at the top of its principal display panel the words GM". 

Bringing it to the notice of the ministry, the group pointed out that cotton seed oil and soybean oil are being used in different parts of the country as cooking medium. While cotton seed oil is being processed locally, soybean oil is being imported through a one-time clearance provided by Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee ( GEAC) of the ministry of environment and forest. 

"However, no soybean oil package sold in the country or other products which contain such imported soybean oil from GM Soy are being marked as such, despite the new notification coming into effect from the 1st of January 2013", said the coalition in its letter to B N Dixit, director (legal metrology) in the ministry of consumer affairs. 

Reiterating its request for implementation of the notification through pro-active action, the coalition said since the labeling law had come into effect from January, consumers would logically and rightfully expect that any packaged food with GM would carry the label to alert them and to make informed consumer choice possible. TOI

CHINA: GM rice taste test in Wuhan aims to quell doubts

GM rice taste test in Wuhan aims to quell doubts

About 260 Chinese volunteers participated in a taste test of genetically modified rice, hoping to reassure the public about the food.

The volunteers savored cakes and porridge made from GM rice at a campaign initiated by pro-GM internet users on Saturday at Huazhong Agriculture University in Wuhan, capital of central China's Hubei province. The rice included "golden rice," grown by the university and modified to be rich in beta carotene.

GM food remains controversial nearly two decades after being introduced to the commercial market, as there is still no consensus on whether or not it is harmful to humans.

"Today, genetically engineered food is everywhere. My wife buys modified soy oil all the time, even after she became pregnant months ago," said Zhu, a participant who works in IT at a bank in Wuhan.

The volunteers, from 20 provinces and municipalities, signed up for the event via QQ, a popular instant messaging tool.

"Maybe we are all skeptics at the beginning. But some day we must believe the things we used to distrust," said another volunteer from Shanghai. "We should not blindly object to high and new technology, like genetic modification."

Similar taste tests have been staged since May in more than 20 cities, drawing over 1,000 participants.

"The taste test is the best way to popularize GM food," said Yan Jianbing, a pro-GM professor with the School of Life Sciences at Huazhong Agriculture University. Such events dispel doubts abound GM food and raise its acceptance by the public, he added.

"A plight facing us is that our country has resisted commercializing GM food and we're missing out on a huge opportunity," Zhang Qifa of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and Dean of School of Life Sciences at the Wuhan university, told volunteers in T-shirts reading: "Love Science, Support Genetic Modification".

GM crops are more resistant to disease and pests, and need less pesticide and chemical fertilizer, said Zhang.

The campaign has apparently failed to convince critics concerned about health risks and environmental impact. "What we don't know is far more than we do know. Scientists also have very limited knowledge," said Chen Xirui, a 36-year-old teacher in Wuhan.

GM rice was at the center of a storm when it emerged that 25 children in central China's Hunan province were fed US-grown "golden rice" as part of a research program led by a professor from Tufts University in 2008. A probe by the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (China CDC) showed Tang Guangwen of Tufts, along with researchers from the China CDC and Zhejiang Academy of Medical Sciences, conducted the test without telling parents that GM food was used. Several CDC officials and researchers were punished for certifying the test and concealing information.

Tang was banned from conducting human body research for two years, and families of the children each received 80,000 yuan (US$13,000) in compensation from local authorities.

In November 2009, the Ministry of Agriculture granted biosafety certificates for two pest-resistant GM rice varieties and one variety of corn, making China the first country in the world to give the nod to field trials of GM staple foods.Xinhua

GM Debate Not Settled, Say European Scientists

Controversy erupts after World Food Prize awarded to Monsanto

Protesters demonstrate against Monsanto in Los Angeles on May 25. A European coalition of scientists is challenging claims that the debate around genetically modified foods is settled and that GM foods are safe. (Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images)

In the wake of biotech giants Monsanto and Syngenta being awarded the World Food Prize, a European coalition of scientists is challenging claims that the debate around genetically modified foods is settled and that GM foods are safe.

The European Network of Scientists for Social and Environmental Responsibility, which consists of more than 90 scientists, academics, and physicians, released a statement Monday in response to “sweeping claims” that GM products are safe.

“We strongly reject claims by GM seed developers and some scientists, commentators, and journalists that there is a ‘scientific consensus’ on GMO safety and that the debate on this topic is ‘over,’” the group said in a statement.

“The claim encourages a climate of complacency that could lead to a lack of regulatory and scientific rigour and appropriate caution, potentially endangering the health of humans, animals, and the environment.”

The coalition cites several studies that suggest GM crops and foods can be toxic or allergenic, and raises the concern that many GM products remain under-tested.

Controversy erupted last week after the World Food Prize, known as the Nobel prize of agriculture, was awarded to three researchers—including Monsanto’s Robert T. Fraley—who played prominent roles in developing genetically engineered crops.

Those who view GM foods as an answer to world hunger lauded the decision. Others, however, were outraged, saying the technology is overhyped, under-tested, and unsustainable. Critics also pointed to recent rulings in nine countries that have restricted or banned the field release or commercialization of certain GM crops.

The neutrality of the food prize itself was also questioned, as it relies on funding from corporate, private, and government contributions. Among its donors are Monsanto and the Syngenta Foundation.

“There’s a lot of money at stake if GM food safety is questioned, so we worry that important questions are being ignored,” said Lucy Sharratt, coordinator for the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network (CBAN), which has long opposed GMOs.

“Industry funding is undermining the integrity of science, and industry campaigns are eroding the public understanding of the scientific process.”

No Evidence of Harm: Monsanto

Monsanto maintains that its GM products are safe, and that seeds with genetically engineered traits have been tested more than any other crops “in the history of agriculture,” with no evidence of harm to humans or animals.

“We place the highest priority on the safety of our products and conduct rigorous and comprehensive testing on each,” said Trish Jordan, public and industry affairs director for Monsanto Canada. 

“The science and safety behind genetic modification and other advanced breeding techniques are well-established and strongly supported by the scientific community.”

A 2011 study by researchers at the University of Sherbrooke in Quebec found that pregnant women who ate livestock fed with GM corn retained in their bodies and in their umbilical cords the toxic pesticides implanted in the corn through the genetic modification.

GM corn grown in Canada has been predominantly used for animal feed, processed-food ingredients, and biofuels. More recently however, GM sweet corn has made its way—unlabelled—onto store shelves.

Results of a test released this week by CBAN found GM sweet corn in grocery stores, roadside stands, and farmers’ markets in Ontario, B.C., Nova Scotia, and Alberta.

Fifteen of the 43 samples purchased tested positive—meaning that approximately 35 percent of the samples were genetically modified. Samples from Sobeys and Walmart did not test positive.

“The high number of positive results in our small sample size alerts consumers to the fact that they could be unknowingly buying GM sweet corn. At the very least, GM sweet corn should be clearly labelled so consumers can make a choice,” said Sharratt.

CBAN said sweet corn is the first GM “whole food” grown in Canada. Theepochtimes

OPINION: Labels for all the wrong reasons

OPINION: Labels for all the wrong reasons

Tracy Warner's column

He can be reached at warner@wenatcheeworld.comor 665-1163.

I have had many conversations lately about genetically modified foods, not surprising under the circumstances. Not all, but most have been pleasant exchanges among people with differing opinions. The discussion usually doesn't lead to debate over whether food derived from genetically engineered plants is good or bad, dangerous or safe. It's more often about who sells the stuff.

Friends, acquaintances, intelligent people I admire, tell me I am mistaken. I am wrong to oppose labeling GM foods and wrong to oppose Initiative 522 that would require it. The primary reason, they say, is I should fear corporate behemoths intending to dominate American agriculture for profit and greed. Monsanto, the international food sciences and chemical giant, which markets widely used genetically modified seed for corn, soy and other crops, is the perfect suspect. I must loath Monsanto. The sign wavers and protesters in butterfly suits and crop-ripping vandals have a legitimate point. If Monsanto is opposed to GMO food labels, and it is in a big way, then any sensitive and sensible person should support them.

Well, it's hard to argue with that. I'm not going to defend Monsanto, or its corporate history. You can't win there. To the best of my recollection I've never had any contact with Monsanto and it certainly hasn't offered to put me on the payroll or slipped me bucks under the table. Maybe they sent me an email press release or two -- I used to be the farm writer here -- but they didn't sway me since I can't remember them. Actually, bribes have been constantly non-existent in my career. A phone company lobbyist once offered to take me to a fancy golf course to talk telecommunications bills, but I turned him down (discussing legislation while golfing is not my idea of fun. If you are me, golf is never fun). So much for my career as a corporate shill.

If bad guys sell seed to farmers, shouldn't I want large, conspicuous, front-facing labels on the products that originate with that transaction? "Partially produced by genetic engineering" becomes code -- brought to you by the people we strongly dislike.

Since when did we start labeling food based on corporate policy? Food labels supply a vague list of ingredients and some nutritional information. They don't say anything about plant breeding or agricultural practices or what brand of herbicide the farmer used, because beyond ideology that doesn't make any difference in what goes in your mouth. Your partially hydrogenated vegetable oil or lecithin might be processed from oil seed with different and perhaps oddly manipulated genome, but that doesn't matter. The strands of protein floating around in the seed's cell nucleus aren't the issue, because none are likely to affect you. And you don't label food if the seed company once sold nasty chemicals to the Defense Department. You don't label food because the wrong company sold herbicide to farmers in Iowa. You don't label food if you want people to buy your product and not their's.

I happened across a policy statement from the American Phytopathological Society on this issue. Never heard of them? These are plant pathologists, the studiers of plant disease. They are scientists, but they have a stake here. "APS has long opposed regulating food, feed and fiber products based solely on the particular technologythat was used to create the varieties/cultivars. Thus, APS advocates regulating on the basis of the products derived and not the breeding process. Gene transfer to achieve disease resistance, as well as nutrition, color and taste, have a long history in plant hybridization and cytogenetics. These techniques are considered conventional in breeding even though they constitute gene mobilization from both species and genera to recipient plants. Currently there are several efforts to require labeling for products derived from plants produced using molecular genetic manipulation. ... To date, no documented and reproducible studies have shown harm to human or animal health associated with GM crops ... Thus, labeling foods as GM would be considered arbitrary and capricious and would be confusing to consumers. Further, such labeling could reduce the availability and use of biotechnology for the management of plant diseases."

Those pesky scientists, they actually like technological progress. They don't want to scare people away from it for no reason beyond politics and brand loyalty. Imagine. Maybe they don't hate Monsanto enough.

OPINION: L.A. Considers Banning GMOs

L.A. Considers Banning GMOs

The City of Angels may prohibit the sale and distribution of genetically modified organisms to become the biggest GMO-free zone in America. But it’s not just about ridding Los Angeles of them. As one of the councilmen who proposed the measure puts it, “so goes the West, so goes the rest of the country.”

Introduced on Friday by City Councilmen Paul Koretz and Mitch O’Farrell, the ordinance aims to protect personal and communal gardens from catching the GMO bug. These DNA-altered organisms are mainly used by large farms, but Koretz and O’Farrell want to have the ban in place in case the seeds and plants are intended to be sold to home gardeners. Although L.A. wouldn’t be the first place to disallow the sale of genetically modified organisms—in California alone, Mendocino and Marin counties and the city of Arcata all have bans in place—the proposition is meant to get the ball rolling in the rest of the states by using L.A.’s influential position to inspire similar movements. The Huffington Post offers more information on the proposed ordinance:

“The pending ordinance would be symbolic more than anything else, but we do feel it’s an important step to have the second-largest city in the nation declare itself as against genetically modified seeds,” said [David King, head of Learning Garden and Seed Library of LA].
Joanne Poyourow, executive director of Environmental Changemakers of LA, said targeting city gardeners is easier than large farmers.
“Right now, it is very challenging to save that diversity in the farmlands, but we think we can provide significant help in saving that diversity by saving seeds within the cities,” said Poyourow, who also worked on the motion.
Poyourow is part of a community of heirloom seed-savers in LA. “Our objective is to preserve a large area where heirloom seeds can safely be saved,” she said.
O’Farrell said he thinks the worldwide decline of honeybees is the “canary in the coal mine” for GMOs. U.S. World commercial beehives declined 40 to 50 percent in 2012, with the suspicions of some beekeepers and researchers falling on powerful new pesticides incorporated into plants themselves. In California, almond agriculture, which depends on bees, has been hit especially hard. About 80 percent of the nation’s almonds are produced in central California.
“A growing number of problems are being traced to GMOs,” Koretz said in a statement. In addition to loss of bees, he cited “the evolution of ‘superbug’ insects which are growing immune to the pesticides engineered within GMO crops” and “‘seed drift’ (for example the recent finding of GMO-pollinated wheat growing in an Oregon farmer’s field).”
Proponents of GMOs—including food, biotech and chemical companies—say there is no research proving that genetically modified food has less nutritional value than non-modified food. They also point out that genetic modification allows for insect- and weather-resistant crops that can help meet a rising global food demand.
The LA motion comes weeks before Washington state will vote on ballot initiative 522, which calls for labeling food products that contain genetically modified ingredients.
Last November, Californians narrowly defeated Proposition 37, which would have made California the first state to require that genetically modified food be labeled. Monsanto, Kraft and Coca-Cola were among companies contributing to what became a $46-million “No on Prop 37” radio and television campaign. Proponents raised $9.2 million.

The ban would not address the sale of genetically modified foods.

Ghanaians in mix of GMO debate

Global Information Network | October 24, 2013

(GIN)—Members of Food Sovereignty Ghana (FSG) and other environmental groups took the issue of food security to the streets in a march through Accra that linked up virtually with seven African countries from South Africa to Kenya.

It was the second annual march against genetically modified seeds, bioengineered food and its corporate backers, coupled with the perceived risks to small farmers incomes and to health.

This month, activists in Kenya, Ghana, Namibia, Nigeria, Senegal, Egypt and South Africa came out in force. Activists in Accra carried signs saying, “GMO will make Ghanaian farmers poor” and “Our Food Under Our Control!!!”

Public opposition to GM crops has grown in recent years. Critics assert that DNA-altered crops require massive chemical inputs, which destroy local biodiversity and poison the water tables; create superweeds; and cause organ damage, sterility, and diabetes and obesity in mammals. Nevertheless, the Ghana government continues to lean toward GMOs and a field trial of GMO cow peas is currently underway.

Perhaps most important to African farmers, imported GM seeds are the intellectual property of the multinationals and cannot be saved for future use as is the practice of small farmers worldwide. Seed purchases every year versus the saving of seeds year to year are a heavy if not unsustainable burden on small farmers, warns Food Sovereignty Ghana.

The “control of our resources by multinational corporations and other foreign entities,” must be avoided, FSG said on their Facebook page.

They cited a recent UN report, which noted that hunger is not caused by a food shortage but by “a lack of purchasing power and/or the inability of the rural poor to be self-sufficient.”

“The engagement in the market was very surprising and drew a lot of curiosity,” said Ras Aswad Nkrabea, the group’s director of mobilization. “It resulted in us being invited to meet with the market queens in the near future to make sure they are well informed about these issues.”

Genetically modified curse arrives

Genetically modified curse arrives

Protests against GM food erupted in the country the moment the 'high-tech' crop came into news. The then Union minister Jairam Ramesh got a taste of disapproval at public discussions he held over the issue.

Not a day passes at the Krishna temple at Udupi, 12 km from here, without the devotees being served the Sambar prepared using the iconic Matti Gulla brinjal.

Every year, lakhs of devotees from all over the country go back with the taste of the Sambar still lingering on their taste buds and the aroma in their nostrils. But things may not remain the same in the next couple of years, as farmers have begun to give up cultivating Matti Gulla in favour of hybrid varieties of brinjal. With acreage under Matti Gulla reducing, the local variety is becoming rare in markets in Udupi and Mangalore and costlier too.

It all started in 2008 when the companies started pushing genetically modified (GM) seeds in brinjal-growing areas in the state. Executives of seed companies preyed on growers at Matti, near Udupi, where the Gulla (round object, with the term denoting the globular appearance of the local brinjal) has been grown for over 400 years, on a piece of land enriched with fish meal manure. About 250 families are engaged in the cultivation of this heritage crop which secured the geographical indication (GI) tag in 2010 after a long struggle for recognition.

Matti Gulla is a hardy variety. For years, the plants needed no management including pest control, but after the GM seed invasion, Matti Gulla too became vulnerable to pests, bringing down the quality of crop and yield, indicating bio-contamination, say the office-bearers of the Matti Raitha Sangha.

”Due to contamination, the produce was getting rejected by the consumers, and the shortfall in production raised prices,” said Srinivas Bhat a grower who also sells them at an outlet in Udupi.
This village has 750 acres under Matti Gulla in a geographical area lying between Udyavar river in the east to Swarna river in the west, belonging to families that depend on growing Matti Gulla for sustenance. The Matti brinjal is an essential ingredient for a typical Udupi sambar. Gourmets from several cities including Mumbai, Pune, Bangalore, Chennai can’t do without the brinjal and some of the Gulf countries import them.

”But this time I don’t think it will be possible for us to meet the demand as our crops have suffered damage. Firstly and uncharacteristically, the crops have been severely affected by two types of pests identified as leaf cutters (Green Jiggy Jocids) and white fleas, which ravage the plants just as the fruit come to harvest, says Jayendra Poojary, a grower.

Gulla is seasonal and yields two crops a year. The most important bio-info about Matti Gulla is that it grows in marshy land and local resource persons contend that the plant can absorb nitrogen directly from the air and converts it into ammonia which becomes the basic fertilizer for growing Gulla in Matti. The findings during 2006, made by Richard Bardgett and his colleagues from the University of Lancaster and British Institute Grassland and Environmental Research also supports this contention. He used most modern radio isotopic techniques that organic nitrogen can be directly taken up by plants and used differently by different species support the scientific validity of the ancient writings. Thus the practice followed by the Mattu villagers in cultivation of Mattu brinjal stands scientific scrutiny, according to an observation made by the researchers of Federation of Asian Nutrition Societies.

In the wings 
The controversial Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) Bill was introduced in the Lok Sabha on April 22 this year amid huge protests by opposition parties. Greenpeace India remarked, “This shows that the UPA government has not only ignored the voices of people, but also the credible and exhaustive report by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture which had tabled its report ‘Cultivation of Genetically Modified Food Crops – Prospects and Effects’ in the Monsoon Session last year. PSC had clearly recommended that the BRAI Bill is not the way forward for regulating GM crops in the country.”

The opposition 
The BRAI proposal has been facing strong opposition from various quarters due to its centralised, biased, unscientific and non-transparent nature in dealing with the regulation of GM crops. It also comes at a time when there is mounting scientific evidences on the adverse impact of GM crops on human health, environment and farmers livelihoods. State governments and civil society organisations are also agitated due to the absence of any decision making roles for state governments and clauses to override the Right to Information (RTI) Act in the current BRAI Bill. — Greenpeace India

The legend behind the brinjal
There is also a legend behind Matti Gulla. ”The legend says that abut 400 years ago, Vadiraja Swami of Udupi Sode mutt, one of the ashta (eight) mutts, gave a bag of seeds to the fishermen who were facing severe fish famine. He insisted that they eke their livelihood out of growing this vegetable for rest of their lives, and pass on the knowhow of growing brinjal to their following generations. Since that day, farmers have renounced fishing and have been growing Matti Gulla - which they also call Vadiraja Gulla, says Krishnaraja Pejathaya, a scholar of the Krishna math.

Matti Gulla trivia
Mattu, a coastal village in Udupi district, is located by the Arabian Sea.

The village is also known by name of Matti.

The village is famous for a particular variety of brinjal (eggplant) that is grown only here.

The brinjal grown here is light green in colour and is spherical, unlike the usual purple-coloured variety.

The first brinjal harvested is offered to Lord Krishna at Krishna Matha, Udupi.

The seeds for growing this type of brinjal is said to be given by Shri Vadiraja swamiji.

This village is also famous for a bridge named Annekatta, which connects it to Katapady town.
Source: Wikipedia

In Vietnam, genetically modified crops set to get official green light

In Vietnam, genetically modified crops set to get official green light

A woman holds a sign during one of many worldwide "March Against Monsanto" protests against genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and agro-chemicals, in Los Angeles, California October 12. Vietnam is set to issue a circular on regulating GM grains used in animal feed which critics say legalizes the use of GMO. PHOTO: REUTERS

Hitherto unregulated, the use of genetically modified organisms in animal feed will soon be legalized despite warnings about the harm they cause

Genetically modified (GM) grains can only be used in animal feed if they are certified by a specialist council as posing no risk to the health of humans and livestock, a proposed circular to take effect by year end is expected to say.

They can also be used if at least five countries do so, but this is just the thin end of the wedge, critics say, in allowing farmers to grow GM food despite warnings about environmental impacts and reliance on foreign seed companies.

The government in fact plans to cover half of the country’s arable land with GM crops by 2020.

Henk Hobbelink of GRAIN, an India-based international nonprofit advocating community-controlled and biodiversity-based food system, said it is “clearly the result of the GM lobby[‘s efforts].”

“First they want countries to accept GM animal feed, and then they will push on to allow the growing of any GM food crop. They do that everywhere,” he told Vietweek.

Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development Le Quoc Doanh said the new regulation is only a safety measure since Vietnam imports four million tons of soy and 1.5 tons of corn for animal feed every year from Brazil, Argentina, and the US, including genetically modified varieties.

“The [draft] regulation aims to ensure food safety when using the grains for human consumption and animal feed,” he said at a conference held in Hanoi on October 10 to discuss the circular.

Vietnam has no regulations governing GMOs though exporters in many other countries have to obtain permission to export GM crops.

The proposed legalization of GM grains in animal feed is in line with an ambitious plan to develop GM crops approved in 2006 by then Prime Minister Phan Van Khai as part of a “major program for the development and application of biotechnology in agriculture and rural development.”

The plan envisages the cultivation of some GM crops by 2015 and covering 30-50 percent of the country’s farmlands with them by 2020.

Pham Van Du, deputy director of the Cultivation Department, told the media recently that mass cultivation of GM corn will be done in 2015.

“Field trials showed that BT corn has high yield and pest resistance,” he said.

On October 1, the agriculture ministry set itself a target of meeting 30 percent of farmers’ needs for GM seeds and studying at least eight GM rice varieties by 2020. 

Ignored warnings

While the government is formalizing the right to grow GMOs, farm export industry groupings warn their members that importing countries may refuse entry to GM crops exported from Vietnam.

Vo Tong Xuan, a well-known agriculturist, who used to tout the benefits of GM maize for the animal feed industry, has now become an opponent of GMOs.

Many countries have become cautious when importing farm produce because of concerns over GM crops, Phap Luat Thanh Pho Ho Chi Minh (Ho Chi Minh City Law) newspaper quoted him as saying.

“Europe, Japan, and some others have always rejected GMOs, and if Vietnamese enterprises cannot control the quality of inputs, they could accidentally export GMOs to these markets.

“Then these markets would shut the door on Vietnamese exports.”

Xuan said European countries are planning to scrutinize imports for GMOs, especially seafood. Last year the Japanese media reported that GMOs were found in rice noodles imported from a Vietnamese company.

He said the government should strictly control GMOs and require them to be labeled.

“Vietnam should pay more attention to the issue, especially following warnings from Japan and the EU,” he added.

Multinational invasion

According to Hobbelink, the government should be aware that the push for GM is based on false myths and promises.

“Accepting GM is accepting that powerful transnational companies take control of Vietnam's agriculture. Instead, the government should support Vietnam's small farmers.”

According to GRAIN, “myths and outright lies” about the alleged benefits of genetically engineered crops persist only because the multinationals that profit from them have put so much effort into spreading them around.

“They want you to believe that GMOs will feed the world, that they are more productive, that they will eliminate the use of agrichemicals, that they can coexist with other crops, and that they are perfectly safe for humans and the environment,” the organization wrote in a recent article that “debunked these myths.”

GM crops are controlled by a few companies like Monsanto, Dupont, Syngenta, BASF, Bayer, and Dow which dominate research and patents and control 60 percent of the world seed market and 76 percent of the world agrichemical market, according to GRAIN.

Monsanto and Dow are also producers of dioxin or Agent Orange, the defoliant used widely during the Vietnam War.

Many activists have said it would be ironic if Vietnam allows a “lethal” product made by the same US companies.

Between 2.1 to 4.8 million Vietnamese were directly exposed to Agent Orange and other chemicals that have been linked to cancers, birth defects, and other chronic diseases during the war that ended in 1975, according to the Vietnam Red Cross.

A researcher at an international food-sustainability NGO, who wished to remain anonymous, said hybrid and GMO seeds promoted and produced by companies like Monsanto can only be planted once, meaning farmers would have to buy them from Monsanto or the other companies each time.

“A dependency will be created for farmers on these companies. And it is most likely that the cost of the seeds will keep rising as demand for them increases.

“In the long run, the companies will be in control of Vietnam’s food security and sovereignty because Vietnam will be heavily dependent on these seeds.

“Agriculture in Vietnam seems to be highly influenced by multinational companies … Vietnam should look critically at this relationship.”

Inflammation, tumors, leukemia

Several studies released in the past few months warn about the harmful consequences of GMOs.

A group of researchers in France recently found Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready corn caused a host of negative health effects in rats, including tumors and premature death, according to a report on motherearthnews.

The study involved 200 rats and spanned two years, the normal life expectancy of the particular species of rat, and investigated how eating Monsanto’s Roundup-Ready corn and any Roundup herbicide traces that may come with it affected the rats’ health.

The researchers said they found “severe adverse health effects, including mammary tumors and kidney and liver damage, leading to premature death” caused by Roundup-Ready corn and Roundup herbicide, whether consumed separately or together.

A study by a team of Australian and US researchers released in June found pigs fed a diet of only genetically modified grain showed markedly higher stomach inflammation than pigs who dined on conventional feed.

Another study released in July underscored the potential “leukemogenic” properties of the BT-based biopesticides used in almost all GM foods that are currently grown in the US.

Corn, soy, sugarcane, and other GM crops carry what is known as Bacillus thuringiensis, also called Cry toxins, which causes several problems like blood abnormalities, hematological malignancies (blood cancer), suppression of bone marrow proliferation, and abnormal lymphocyte patterns, according to the study recently published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases.

“Many of these crops are shipped to other countries who have not yet banned GM imports, so the prevalence of their use on US soil affects the whole planet,” it said. thanhniennews