BIO TECH FOODS

10 Reasons We Need/Don’t Need Biotech Foods and Crops

One of the main reasons I would prefer to steer clear of GMOs is that I don’t believe they can solve world hunger issues. We can and do grow enough food to feed people, the problem is a matter of food distribution and poverty/inequality. 

“40 percent of food in the United States today goes uneaten. That is more than 20 pounds of food per person every month. Not only does this mean that Americans are throwing out the equivalent of $165 billion each year, but also 25 percent of all freshwater and huge amounts of unnecessary chemicals, energy, and land. Moreover, almost all of that uneaten food ends up rotting in landfills where organic matter accounts for 16 percent of U.S. methane emissions. Nutrition is also lost in the mix—food saved by reducing losses by just 15 percent could feed more than 25 million Americans every year at a time when one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables. Given all the resources demanded for food production, it is critical to make sure that the least amount possible is needlessly squandered on its journey to our plates”

Why can’t we take our unused food – from farm waste to consumer waste, and donate it, not only to hungry Americans, but to people in starving countries as well? If we are truly wasting this much, how can it be said that there is a shortage of food?

This is a great read on food waste (and where the above statement came from) - Wasted: How America Is Losing Up to 40 Percent of Its Food from Farm to Fork to Landfill

The other reason GMOs are on my ‘NO’ list is that although there has not been proof of humanhealth concerns, there have been lots and lots of documented health problems in animals who eat such diets. Pro-GMO campaigns leave that part out. Just because there are not human impacts yet documented, does not mean in 10, 15, 20 years, there won’t be. And why would it make any sense at all that GMOs are harmful to other animals, but not humans?

To be fair, I do think there is some value in certain types of genetically modified crops. Golden rice, for example, can possibly provide some of the nutrients that certain populations lack due to inaccessibility to food. I think it’s important to weigh the pros and cons of the situation. Vitamin A deficiencies, which Golden Rice primarily addresses, causes blindness eventually – so this is obviously an important issue to tackle. However, Golden Rice would be a temporary, quick-fix – because again, the real problem is poverty/lack of education/lack of accessibility to food/inequality.

Without addressing the root cause of hunger issues, my view is that GMOs are a band-aid with unknown consequences.

GMO Europe

3 Signs That Anti-GMO Activism Is Working In Europe

There are days that Monsanto’s efforts to dominate the food supply through its patenting of GMO seeds seem so malicious and abhorrent, that any possibility of regular people and family farms taking back control over agriculture and our food source appears insurmountable. Yet, there are also days when it appears the efforts of activism from regular citizens is succeeding in exposing Monsanto as an ego-driven, malevolent organization that can easily be opposed, undermined and cast out.

These days a new global activist movement is emerging where small victories in countries around the world – such as India and Peru – illustrate the power that we the people have, when united, to stop Monsanto and the agro-chemical giants, and put an end to the raping and poisoning of nature and our earth.

Europe offers a few great examples of triumphs driven by anti-GMO activism, which could easily fuel the drive of citizens in other countries who are tired of seeing Monsanto seed overtaking farm lands and tired of food suppliers selling unlabeled genetically modified products.

#1 – Hungary Burns 1000 Acres of Corn to Eradicate GMO Seed

Tolerance for GMO in Hungary is slight, at best, exemplified by the burning of about 1000 acres / 500 hectares of corn in mid 2011. The act was conducted not by frustrated activists or enraged protesters, but by agricultural officials and supported by the government. The Ministry of Rural Development had indicated that Monsanto crops were among corn ready for harvesting on the burned plantations, although this was never proven by a third-party organization. Both the farmers and Monsanto denied the claims, but in Hungary, officials have a no tolerance policy. GMO cultivation is now a criminal offense. Over the last half decade, the Hungarian government has burned other agricultural fields in an effort to eradicate illegal GM crops. Hungary’s deputy state secretary of the Ministry of Rural Development Lajos Bognar stated:

“The government will continue seed distribution as well as crop plantings in the country to ensure that no GMO seeds will slip past authorities.”

Hungary was one of the first on the European Union to strongly oppose the use of transgenic seed.

#2 – Italy Joins France and Germany in Banning GMO

Mid July 2013, the Italian ministry of agriculture officially banned the cultivation of Monsanto’s MON810 maize, giving the reason of “negative impact on biodiversity” as one of the many problems with Monsanto’s GMO crops. The agriculture ministry, backed by the Italian health and environment ministry, stated:

“Our agriculture is based on biodiversity, on quality, and those we must continue to aim for, without games that even from an economic point of view would not make us competitive.”

There was very little GMO cultivation in Italy up to this point, because, frankly, the public opposes transgenic seeds. Italy’s biggest farmers group, Coldiretti, conducted a survey to assess the public’s opinion regarding GM crops; the results showed that 80% of Italians are in support of the ban. This is quite uplifting, considering Italy’s culture has a strong culinary foundation and its economy relies heavily on the quality of its food exports.

The farming community and activists in Italy have been strongly opposed to GMO seeds for many years, even leading to publicly-condemned actions of vandalism such as stomping and crushing of GMO crops. Twenty-seven conservation, farming and environmental associations, run as the Task Force for an Italy Free of GMOs, have been coordinating efforts against GMO cultivation and putting up legal roadblocks for anyone trying to grow GMO crops. It seems that these activists have won one battle for the sake of the environment and human health.

#3 – Monsanto Officially Gives Up on Europe

Following the GMO defeat in Italy, Monsanto has officially announced that it will withdraw 8 of its 9 patent applications that are pending with the European Commission. A spokesman for the company, Brandon Mitchener, stated, “[The patent requests] have been going nowhere fast for several years. There’s no end in sight … due to political obstructionism.” Although the MON810 maize was just banned in Italy, it is currently approved for growing in Europe. Yet this seed was the last of Monsanto’s patented seed that was approved in Europe…in 1998…and the decision of its patent renewal, which expired in 2008, is still not finalized. Regardless of what the European Commission decides about MON810 maize, each country in Europe can make its own assessment of the safety of GMO crops and decide if they want to allow cultivation on their lands or not.

Conclusion

In the US it may seem that Monsanto’s political ties are too strong and advertising budgets too large for any activist action to make much of a difference. But not for long. People are waking up and they want to know what is in their food supply. Farmers are realizing GMO seeds are not living up to Monsanto’s promises. Environmental groups are realizing the strain that GMO plants are putting on the Earth’s biodiversity. US farmers are starting to realize the freedom they have given up and the power they have handed over to just a few corporations when it comes to seed (and hence food) ownership. All of this information is quickly spreading through alternative media channels.

GMO’ed foods are already being labeled in about 50 countries, and banned in more than 25. Europe – not just one country, but many – is a great example of what unified grassroots organizations, concerned citizens and informed farmers and politicians can do. In addition to the lack of political support of Monsanto’s patenting efforts, the EU does not allow import of GMO food or feed material through its strong GMO labeling laws. So don’t be afraid to participate – to share information – to act. Become part of an activist effort and start making a difference.

GMO FOOD

The use of GMOs in our food supply – a look at the debate

In the past two months alone, there have been international marches against Monsanto, which produces genetically modified seeds, in more than 400 cities, and the company has been named in several lawsuits. Occupy Monsanto is also gaining momentum for a large protest on September 17. On the other hand, others defend genetically modified crops as an answer to providing food for the world’s growing population.

NBC Latino decided to talk to scientists on both sides of the debate about biotech agriculture and the controversial genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) it produces.

“There have been lots of protests against Monsanto, because they sell their seed and want to make sure growers don’t use their own seed for a year,” says Dr. Juan Luis Jurat-Fuentes, a researcher at the Institute of Agriculture at the University of Tennessee who has been working on developing new types of transgenic crops since 1995. “Monsanto is just a company that has spent millions of dollars in research — I don’t think it’s wrong.”

After spending years studying how insects respond to insecticides and transgenic crops, he says he hasn’t seen any negative effects.

“The only negative thing I’ve seen is bugs that develop resistance to these transgenic plants,” he says. “The second thing that can happen is eliminating pests from the field opens up other pests to take their place.”

Currently, he says about 70 percent of corn in the U.S. and 80 percent of cotton is made in the transgenic variety.

Dr. Cecilia Chi-Ham is the director of science and technology at PIPRA — an organization started by the Rockefeller Foundation to make sure the latest technologies reach farmers in developing countries. The researcher agrees with Dr. Jurat-Fuentes that there is nothing dangerous about companies like Monsanto.

“I develop genetically modified crops and research the impact of genetically modified seeds on small farmers,” says Dr. Chi-Ham. “One our biggest challenges is that the world population is growing and we need to produce the same amount of food as before…that’s when technology like GM can be so important.”

She says many organizations such as, The Pontifical Academy of Science (the Vatican) and theAmerican Medical Association have also reached the conclusion that there is no harm in biotechnology. Instead, she feels it has only contributed to improving agriculture and health.

“There are many drugs that are made by using GM organisms — medications like for diabetes, for example,” says Dr. Chi-Ham. “Before, insulin was extracted from the pancreas of cows or pigs, which could cause some problems.”

Other researchers don’t agree and feel that GMOs pose health concerns as well as threaten the rights of small farmers.

Dr. Ignacio Chapela, a researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, has been an outspoken critic of UC Berkeley’s ties to the biotechnology industry for more than a decade. He’s also appeared in the documentaries “The World According to Monsanto” and “The Future of Food.”

Dr. Chapela pointed to studies showing that Bt toxins found in Monsanto crops damage red blood cells in humans, not only insects, and Dr. Chapela has been talking about the dangers of GM corn for years.

“For example, the corn produc[es] a toxin that kills insects [and] has serious consequences because it’s leaking that insecticide into the environment…through the roots,” said Dr. Chapela in a video. “A lot of that Bt toxin goes into the soil.”

Chapela also says GM seeds lead to crops becoming homogeneous, causing the loss of the diversity we need and require for the future survival of the crop.

“It’s not an exaggeration to say that it’s really world food sustainability that’s at stake,” said Dr. Chapela.

Dr. Ricardo Salvador, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, is also concerned about the monocrops being developed by biotech companies such as Monsanto.

“Through genetic modification, human beings have taken out lots of the characteristics of corn, which are not for human consumption,” says Dr. Salvador. “There’s a lot of people that argue that’s why we are developing huge food allergies and dietary diseases like Crohn’s disease.”

He explains that by changing the DNA of organisms, it’s harder to research the results. The assumption now, he says, is that GM seeds are safe unless there is evidence to the contrary.

“There is effectively no formal approval process for transgenic food crops…We need to produce more of the right stuff and less of the wrong stuff,” says Dr. Salvador, explaining we need healthier fruits and vegetables and less meat and grain — what is being produced now. “We need to do more research on that.”

He also says we need to take a closer look at where the GM products are really going.

“They are not going into the food supply or going to the hungry of the world, but to produce biofuel, fatten livestock, and to produce the raw ingredients for junk food,” says Dr. Salvador. “The market that is buying meat and biofuel is the wealthy of the world.”

GM Crops

GM crops: campaigners in Ghana accuse US of pushing modified food

From farmers to MPs, debate over seed ownership

and the role of foreign influences on agriculture is

causing divisions in Ghana

The US embassy in Accra held a roundtable on biotechnology this month. The discussion, designed to promote candid dialogue between biotechnology supporters and sceptics, was attended by experts and campaign groups on both sides of the GM foods debate.

But one Ghanaian campaign group refused the invitation. "Our call for a moratorium on GM foods was met with an invitation to a closed-door discussion," said Duke Tagoe, of Food Sovereignty Ghana, which campaigns for greater transparency about GM foods. "We are deeply worried about what seems like an imposition of genetically modified foods on the good people of Ghana without any meaningful public discourse, compounded by attempts to stifle any opposition."

Food Sovereignty Ghana and other domestic organisations accuse the US and other foreign donors of promoting GM foods to west African countries, and tying aid to implementation.

According to a leaked cable, the US government was heavily involved in drafting Ghana's 2011 Biosafety Act, which provided a framework for the introduction of GM foods. The US aid department provided technical assistance and some funding.

The cable said biotech products were being sold in Ghana and GM seeds from neighbouring countries were likely to have migrated over its borders. US companies have begun requesting permission to conduct trials.

The US embassy in Accra declined to respond to a request by the Guardian to comment on its stance on GM food in Ghana, but claims about the arrival of GM are supported by public officials.

"GM foods are used in agriculture. This is something you cannot wish away because it has come and it is in practice," said John Odame Darkwa, acting chief executive officer of Ghana's Food and Drugs Authority (FDA). "We ensure that any food imported into the country is safe."

But campaigners say trials of GM foods, which the FDA admits have been carried out in Ghana, are a violation of the law, which states trials require the written approval of a new body, the National Biosafety Authority. The problem, they say, is that this authority does not exist yet.

"Trials are being conducted, but there isn't any framework in place," said Kweku Dadzie, from Food Sovereignty Ghana. "We are calling for a ban on the importation, cultivation, consumption and sale of genetically modified foods and crops, until the people of Ghana are satisfied that such an important and irrevocable decision is a sound and proper one to make."

Dadzie points to a lack of public debate surrounding the passing of the Biosafety Act. Maxwell Kofi Jumah, MP for Asokwa, recently admitted on local radio that ministers lacked understanding of the issues.

Many opponents of GM crops have pointed to the role of multinational companies that sell GM "hybrid" seeds that do not self-pollinate, compelling farmers to buy new seeds from the same companies each year, as well as their pesticides and herbicides.

Tagoe said: "Farmers in Ghana have had their own way of keeping seeds year after year. If these policies are allowed to manifest, Ghanaian farmers will have to change money into foreign [currency] in order to purchase seeds from overseas firms. The economic impact on the lives of the farmers will be disastrous. The origin of food is seed. Whoever controls the seed controls the entire food chain. These seeds are not owned by any African entity, they are owned by American companies."

However, experts say there are advantages to the technology. The chief executive of CGIAR Consortium on agricultural research, Dr Frank Rijsberman, said: "Private companies could develop self-pollinating seeds that also provide higher yields, but they don't because it's not profitable.

"But at the same time, the quality of seeds that pollinate themselves is often not that great. It can be difficult for farmers to select the best seeds. The job of seed companies is to select seeds that will have a bigger yields. The best hybrid rice, for example, produce about 20% better yields than the best self-pollinating seeds."

Some say that, instead of looking at yield increases through GM, the focus should be on improving access to markets for the crops that are already being grown by greater investment in extension services and low-technology improvements in farming.

"There is huge potential to increase yields using low-cost and existing technologies," said Kanayo Nwanze, president of the International Fund for Agricultural Development, speaking at the Africa Agricultural Science Week in Accra last week. "In Africa, only about 6% of the total cultivated land is irrigated … It is estimated that irrigation alone could increase output by up to 50% in Africa.

"Small increases in fertiliser use in sub-Saharan Africa can produce dramatic improvements in yields. Post-harvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa average $4bn every year. This is food that could meet the nutritional needs of around 48 million people."

Rijsberman said farmers needed better seeds, but also required better access to inputs, access to markets, farming systems and livelihood strategies. "These things would go a long way to improving yields and incomes in a country like Ghana," he added.

GM Crops

GM crops: Public fears over 'Frankenstein food' may be easing, Independent poll reveals

But pressure groups warn they will maintain their strong opposition

More people support rather than oppose the growing of genetically modified crops and more of them are prepared to buy and eat GM foods than not, according to a survey for The Independent.

As the Government launches a drive to persuade people to eat more GM foods, the ComRes poll suggests that public fears about so-called "Frankenstein food" may be easing.  Asked if they would support the growing of GM crops in the UK,  47 per cent agreed, while 42 per cent disagreed and 11 per cent replied don't know.  Men (57 per cent) were more likely than women (38 per cent) to support the idea.

Liberal Democrat supporters (59 per cent) were more likely to back the growing of GM crops than people who intend to vote for Labour (52 per cent), the Conservatives (50 per cent) or the UK Independence Party (46 per cent).

The survey of 1,000 people found that 49 per cent agreed that they would have no problem buying or eating GM foods if they were sold in the UK, while 42 per cent disagreed with this statement and 9 per cent were don't knows.

Again, men (59 per cent) were more likely to agree than women (39 per cent).  People aged 18-24 (60 per cent) were more likely to say they would buy and eat GM produce than other age groups. Lib Dem supporters (57 per cent) were more favourably disposed to buying and eating it than those of other parties.

Owen Paterson, the Environment Secretary, called last month for the UK to lead a farming revolution in Europe, arguing that GM crops would cut fertiliser and chemical use while feeding the world's poorest countries. 

Public opposition in the UK appears to have reduced since the Blair Government held a consultation exercise, including 650 public meetings, in 2003. Of  the 37,000 people who responded to questionnaires, a  majority (54 per cent) said they never wanted to see GM crops grown in Britain; 18 per cent said they would find the crops acceptable only if there were no risk of cross-contamination; 13 per cent  wanted to see more research; only 8 per cent they were happy to eat GM food and  only 2 per cent said the crops were acceptable in any circumstances. The public hostility stalled plans by Tony Blair to push the technology.

Although the ComRes findings will be welcomed by ministers, pressure groups warned tonight that they would maintain their strong opposition to GM crops.

Peter Melchett, policy director at the Soil Association, said: "These results are completely out of line with all recent polls of public opinion about GM. When asked, 61 per cent of UK farmers, who should know more about the risks of GM farming and food, said they would be willing to grow GM crops if they were available, which they are not. However, only an extraordinarily low 15 per cent would be willing to eat GM food, and far more, 24 per cent would eat organic food in preference."

Pete Riley of GM Freeze said: "These results do not follow the trends found by recent UK polls and are very different those from mainland Europe, where opposition to GM food and crops is very high."

India: GM Crop

• GM crops would enslave Indian farmers: MP minister

BHOPAL: Madhya Pradesh agriculture minister Ramkrishna Kusumaria has said that the proposed Bio-Technology Regulatory Authority and Agriculture Bio-Security Bill, both of which would deal with genetically modified (GM) crops, would lead to Indian farmers becoming "slaves" of the multi-nationals.

"US and European nations will enslave our farmers as they will capture the country's agriculture," state Agriculture Minister Ramkrishna Kusumaria has said in a letter to social worker Anna Hazare, MPs and all the Chief Ministers.

The letter urges them to use their influence to block passage of the bill and formation of the authority.

Countries such as France, Germany, Austria, Peru and Spain had already banned GM crops while Hungry recently destroyed a standing GM maize crop in nearly 1,000 acres, he has claimed.

US and European countries, with the help of multinationals, have wiped out traditional methods of seed procurement, changed the crop-cycles and ended traditional manufacturing of fertilisers, he alleges, adding that farmers had already become dependent on MNCs for BT cotton.

GM seeds initially give a higher yield, but it goes down later and input costs keep increasing, he has said, alleging that this led to farmers' suicides in Gujarat and Maharashtra.

INDIA: GM CROP

Accept expert panel report on GM crops: forum

The report is a strong indictment of regulatory affairs, says Coalition for a GM-free India.

Welcoming the recommendations of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) on Genetically Modified crops, the Coalition for a GM-free India has urged the government to accept the report and “not come in the way of delivery of justice.”

The panel, set up by the Supreme Court in a Public Interest Litigation, has recommended in its final report that it would not be advisable to conduct any field trials in Bt transgenic crops till gaps in regulatory system are addressed.

“The report is a strong indictment of the state of regulatory affairs with regard to modern biotechnology in the country. We urge that the Central government to take the report seriously and act on it in the interests of food safety, security, and sovereignty as well as protection of environment and farm livelihoods,” the Coalition said in a letter to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

However, the Association of Biotech Led Enterprise - Agriculture Group (ABLE AG) that represents the industry has termed the document — though an improvement over the interim report that called for a 10-year moratorium on field trials of Bt transgenic in all food crops (those used directly for human consumption) — as “regressive, biased and a troubled treatise” that promises to push Indian agriculture into an archaic age.

“The industry believes the TEC report, besides being incomplete, is also anti-science and anti-research and will severely dent the future of country's farmers besides destroying the domestic private and public sector research. While improving the testing programmes is a continuous process, we do not believe that testing should be stopped in the interim,’’ said Ram Kaundinya, Chairman, ABLE AG in a press statement.

The report submitted to the Supreme Court has not been signed by R.S. Paroda, the representative of Agriculture Ministry who was inducted after the submission of the interim report last year.

“This is not surprising given the fact that Dr. Paroda’s very inclusion in the Committee was controversial and objectionable — his organisation receives funding from biotech majors like Monsanto and Mahyco — and this constitutes a clear conflict of interest. It is ironical that even this court-appointed committee has had to face such a conflict of interest situation, given that this has been the case with almost all GM-related issues in India so far,” the Coalition’s letter said.

The TEC’s comments with regard to bio-safety dossiers that were approved by the current biotechnology regulator is a scathing indictment of the failings of the existing regulatory regime, the Coalition noted.

The TEC could not find any compelling reason for India to be the first country, where Bt transgenics are widely consumed in large amounts for any major food crop that is directly used for human consumption.

The TEC has therefore reiterated its recommendation made in the Interim Report that there should be a moratorium on field trials for Bt in food crops, until there is more definitive information from sufficient number of studies as to the long-term safety of Bt in food crops.

With regard to herbicide tolerant (HT) GM crops, the panel said that these would most likely exert a seriously adverse impact over time on sustainable agriculture, rural livelihoods and the environment. Noting that that HT GM crops are completely unsuitable in the Indian context, the TEC recommended that field trials and release of HT crops not be allowed in India.

Unlike the situation in 1960s, the TEC said, there is no desperate shortage of food and India is in a reasonably food secure position. It recommended that the release of GM crops for which India is a centre of origin or diversity as in Bt brinjal should not be allowed. (Philippines Supreme Court has recently banned open field trials of Bt Brinjal.)

Urging the government to accept the recommendations based on sound-science, justice and principle of sustainability”, the Coalition said “vested interests must not be allowed to prevail.”