PHILIPPINE: Farmers Rip Up Experimental Golden Rice Plants In The Philippines

Farmers Rip Up Experimental Golden Rice Plants In The Philippines

As scientists prepare to submit the genetically engineered rice for regulatory approval, some locals protest.

A Rice Breeding Plot in the Philippine Rice Research Institute International Rice Research Institute

A decade and a half after it was first invented, genetically engineered rice may soon grow in farmer's fields for the first time, in the Philippines. Just as some in the U.S. oppose GMO technology, however, so do some Filipinos.

After seeing the BBC's report this week that Philippine scientists are close to submitting golden rice—rice engineered to make vitamin A—for regulatory approval, I looked for local news on the development.

Farmers entered test fields and ripped up 400 experimental plants, Philippine tabloid paper Remate reported yesterday. (It was all over in 15 minutes, Malaya Business Insight reports.)

One of the farmers' worries is the cost of GMO seeds and the privatization of the nation's staple crop, spokesman Bert Autor told Remate. The International Rice Research Institute expects golden rice's price will be the same as regular rice. The rice's inventors and patent-holders arranged for their licenses to be available without royalties.

The protesting farmers uprooted nearly all of the plants in one field so that one field test can't continue, according to a statement from the Philippine Rice Research Institute. Nevertheless, golden rice research in the Philippines will continue, the institute said in another statement.

The farmers also believed that golden rice would be unsafe to eat. Others in the country share their worries. In June, a group called Green Moms held a rally in Quezon City to protest golden rice. Protestors PhilStar talked with were primarily worried about the rice's safety for kids.

Both the farmers and the Green Mom members seemed opposed to genetically engineered food generally. Many major science and health organizations say that just because a food is genetically modified doesn't mean it's unsafe. Groups such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the World Health Organization support the testing of new GMO plants as they're developed, as each could affect human health differently. Safety tests would be part of the Philippine government's approval process for golden rice, Philippine Rice Research Institute project leader Antonio Alfonso told the BBC. POPSCI

Things to Know about GMO

By Karen Johnston

(an Ayurvedic Consultant, former farmer, and community food activist living in Hardwick, Vermont) 

I admit to being confused about GMO. Like many Americans, I’m challenged to understand the consequences of genetically engineered organisms in my body, family, and in the environment. Knowing the facts will help guide us in the choices we make for all the things we care about.

While a long-term study of genetically engineered organisms is still lacking, significant parts of the world are concerned about their impacts: All 27 countries in the European Union now ban or limit GMO crops. Egypt and Algeria also restrict GMOs, as do Peru, Brazil, Bolivia, and Paraguay.

With over 75 percent of all non-organic foods in the U.S. containing genetically engineered ingredients, why hasn’t the FDA and the USDA, guardian angels of the nation’s food supply, moved in that direction—or at least taken a more cautious approach? And why aren’t GMO foods labeled, so we can make informed choices?

Some things to know about GMO:

GMO foods are made with new, uncertain technology: Older methods of crossing plants, including hybridization and selection, have been used for centuries. These methods are natural and safe. They don’t try to splice flounder DNA into tomatoes to resist frost (no one has ever tasted the infamous “fish tomato,” a genetically engineered failure of the early 90’s). Long-term impacts of GMOs are unknown.

GMOs are everywhere: Much of our food, though not labeled as such, is already GMO: 85 percent of soy, 40 percent of corn, 75 percent of canola, and 76 percent of cotton grown in the US are GMO.

Mostly Roundup: 80 percent of food-crop GMOs are bred for tolerance to the herbicide glyphosate, or Roundup, made by Monsanto. A Roundup-resistant plant lives while the herbicide kills competing weeds. The problem is that glyphosate stays in the plant. If you eat GMO corn or soy, you’re eating the herbicide too. In 2009, a French court found Monsanto guilty of falsifying an advertising claim that glyphosate is biodegradable. A 2011 European study found glyphosate in 44 percent of volunteers from 18 countries. You’re even exposed if you eat organically: A 2011 study, “detected glyphosate in 60-100 percent of all U.S. air and rain samples.”  Another 2012 study found it widespread in groundwater.

Problems with Roundup: Glyphosate has been linked to breast cancer, Parkinson’s disease, autism, MS, infertility, gastrointestinal diseases, and Alzheimer’s. The American Academy for Environmental Medicine says that GMO foods “pose a serious health risk” and has called for a moratorium on the use of GMOs until further studies are done.

If GMOs are risky, why are they everywhere? Someone left the barn door open—a revolving door between industry and government. Michael Taylor, for example, is both the former VP of Public Policy at Monsanto and the current Deputy Commissioner for Foods under the Obama Administration. As a regulator, Mr. Taylor approved use of rGBH, bovine growth hormone—a controversial GMO—despite links to cancer, allergies, and higher rates of childhood asthma.

Everyone knows not to put a fox in the chicken house, because while Mr. Fox may know more about chickens than anyone alive, knowledge does not imply honorable intentions.

When I was farming, a peahen, Penelope, escaped from a farm up the road and moved in with our chickens. Eventually she sounded just like a chicken, and blindfolded, you’d never know. GMO proponents would like us to stay blindfolded and believe genetically modified salmon is the same as its wild brethren.  They want us to stay blind to potential problems by fast-tracking GMO approval and stacking the regulatory deck. They would like us to turn a blind eye to the growing number of negative GMO studies and continue to trust that Monsanto, guilty of lying and polluting, can protect our health while telling us a peahen is a chicken.

With more states compelling food producers to make GMO labeling mandatory, it’s clear that the awakening American public opposes the abuse and manipulation of our food system.

It’s time for Congress to pull off the blinders for good and pass a responsible GMO labeling bill that protects the health of everyone. Safety comes first. livinggreenmag.com

INDIA: Pawar admits concerns about GM food could be real

Pawar admits concerns about genetically modified food could be real

Agriculture Minister Sharad Pawar in an interview with the CNN-IBN has admitted that concerns about genetically food could be real but he added that a ban on field trials would be an extreme measure. "Without trials, how can they test. So opposing even trials, I think this is an extremely sad," he said."

Here's is an excerpt from the interview:

Rupashree Nanda: In 2010, Jairam Ramesh imposed a moratorium on the commercial release of Bt brinjal and his argument was that that there was no consensus, either scientific or political for the commercial release of Bt brinjal. Now the Supreme Court appointed technical expert committee also says that there should be a moratorium of the field testing of GM crop. Do you believe that these people have a point of view? That they are also raising concerns that are probably real?

Sharad Pawar: India is not the only country where we are thinking of GM food. As I told a few years back, India was a major importer of cotton. We have accepted Bt cotton. Ninety two per cent area of the cotton in this country is under Bt. Government has not propagated but the farming community has accepted. And now few years, they are taking crop of Bt cotton and that's why we have become self sufficient. We have become not only self sufficient but we have become exporters also. And in India, only cotton has been the crop where the GM has been allowed not a single other crop has been allowed. Those who are raising concern that there has to be proper machinery to evaluate these products, they are right. The Supreme Court is also saying that you appoint a proper machinery - yes. But if appointing proper machinery, they have to go and test. For that test, you have to take trials. Without trials, how can they test. So opposing even trials, I think this is an extremely sad.

Yes, if suppose something goes wrong, it is affecting environment, it is affecting soil, it is affecting water, it is affecting other crop, it is affecting human beings, it is affecting animals, yes - we have to take corrective action or even we have to stop. But there are many countries in the world who are taking advantage of this and they have successfully improved their productivity. Another thing I recollect, in 1960s , when India started propagating hybrid seeds, in those days there was tremendous opposition. But ultimately whole country has accepted. Farming community has accepted. And because of this hybrid, we have successfully become self sufficient.

Rupashree Nanda: Are you saying that GM technology is absolutely essential for India to improve productivity in agriculture?

Sharad Pawar: See, basically, such a huge populous country - any government cannot neglect the issue of the food security and if we are to take enough attention towards food security, we have to see how we have to improve productivity. Today, India got 2.5 per cent of land in the world, India got 3.2 per cent - 3.3 per cent water of the world. And India got 17 per cent of population of the world. With such limited land and water, we have to feed 17 per cent of the world's population, it is not an easy task. For that purpose, you have to produce more. And secondly, it should be affordable to the sizeable sections of the society. And farmers also should get remunerative price. So unless and until per hectare yield has been enhanced, productivity improved, farmers will not be happy and he will not survive.

Rupashree Nanda: Sir in 2012, when the Prime Minister was asked why had the governmnet put a moratorium on Bt brinjal, he had said that biotechnology has enormous potential, and in due course we must make use of genetic engineering technologies to increase productivity of our agriculture. But also said that there are controversies, there are NGOs often funded by the US, from the US and Scandinavian countries which are not fully appreciative of the development challenges that our country faces. Would you agree that these NGOs which are funded from the US and Scandinavian countries are actually impacting the decision making process over here when it comes to critical issues like when it comes to GM crops?

Sharad Pawar: It is very interesting that some of these NGOs who are funded from outside - now take the country of the United States of America, they themselves are using GM food. Monsanto which is a controversial seed company is from America who has produced various different kinds of seeds, GM seeds and propagated in the United States of America. So these johnnies are producing, exporting, earning and teaching us that don't go that route? You see, today for instance edible oil has a shortfall. Lot of edible oil are coming from outside. There are certain types of pulses which are coming from outside. Soybean from America is a GM product. So they can process and they can send their finished product here that we should buy and we should fulfill our requirement. But, if some work on that direction has started here, immediately lot of noise has been made by certain sections of the society who have been funded from outside as you just referred to one statement. IBN

INDIA: Protesters Demand Withdrawal Of BRAI Bill

INDIA

Protesters Demand Withdrawal Of Biotechnology Regulatory Authority Bill

Thousands of citizens demand that the BRAI bill be withdrawn and India be GMO free. PMO accepts Indian flag made from organic cotton which did not come from Monsanto's cotton seed

On the eve of Quit India Day, August 8, over 2,000 citizens from 20 states came together at Jantar Mantar, Delhi for a day-long protest and march demanding that GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) and multinational seed giant, Monsanto quit India. The delegation marched to Parliament also asking the government to withdraw the BRAI (Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India) bill 2013. An Indian flag made out of organic cotton, which does not come from Monsanto's patented cotton seed, was an important symbol of the event. This flag was later gifted to the Prime Minister's delegate, urging him to unfurl this non-Bt cotton flag on Independence Day.

The protest comes after the Union government recently introduced the BRAI Bill, 2013 in Parliament in the last budget session. This Bill has been facing strong opposition inside parliament and outside as it will facilitate the fast track entry of GM food crops into our agriculture. The Bill proposes to set up a centralised single window clearance system which is designed to lower the bar for GM crop approvals with no independent long-term safety assessments or need assessment of a particular GM product. It also takes away the decision-making power of state governments on open field trials in their states. Furthermore, it proposes to override the RTI Act. The bill is currently under review of the Parliamentary Standing committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forest.

From the protest, Neha Saigal, Sustainable Agriculture Campaigner at Greenpeace India said, “The BRAI Bill is India's Monsanto Protection and Promotion Act, it will give a free hand to Monsanto and other Biotech giants to control our food security and endanger small farmer livelihoods. In order to protect our seed sovereignty it is important that notorious corporations like Monsanto along with their controversial GM technology Quit India.”

The gathering also urged farmers in the country to follow the path of agro-ecological farming in consonance with nature and also with due recognition for women farmers. They also urged the government stop promoting GMOs and invest urgently in sustainable agricultural solutions to ensure food and livelihood security. The main demand was that the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Science and Technology, Environment and Forests recommend to the government that the BRAI bill be withdrawn.

Rajesh Krishnan, Co-Convenor of the Coalition for a GM Free India said, “At this critical juncture in Indian agriculture, clearing the BRAI Bill to ensure speedy clearance for GMOs will be detrimental to the interests of our citizens. Indian cotton farmers have already experienced the devastating consequences of the takeover of their seeds and fields by Monsanto through its proprietary Bt cotton. We can’t surrender our food and farming to the onslaught of GMOs and multinational seed companies like Monsanto. Seed is a matter of sovereignty and this is our struggle to ensure that others don’t take control over our seeds and food”.

The persistence of the protestors ensured that a delegation from among them met with V. Narayanasamy, the Minister of State in the Prime Minister’s Office. He was given the organic flag and memorandum asking the government to withdraw the BRAI bill and uphold the country's seed sovereignty by rejecting GM crops.

Pointing to the increasing evidence on the negative impacts of GM crops, Kavitha Kuruganti of Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA) also present at the event, said “The final report of the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) of Supreme Court has clearly stated that open air field trials of GM crops needs to be stopped and the effort to introduce biotechnology in food crops is not advisable. Even last year the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Agriculture (PSC) emphasised that protection of biosafety is of paramount importance and it asked for the creation of a comprehensive biosafety protection authority instead of the current BRAI. Why is the government ignoring these highly credible reports and promoting GMOs and pushing the flawed BRAI Bill?”

The protesters also demanded that all the political parties should pay heed to the democratic voices that are opposing GMOs in our food and farming and declare their commitment to ecological farming, and take a firm stand against GMOs in our food, farming and environment.

In response, cutting across party lines senior leaders from various political parties including BJP, Congress, Communist Party of India (Marxist), Communist Party of India, Janata Dal (United), Bahujan Samaj Party, Biju Janata Dal, Telugu Desam Party, DMK etc. addressed the gathering and pledged their support in the struggle to keep our food and farming free from GM crops. Several also promised to oppose the BRAI Bill in the Parliament. Countercurrents.org

New Hampshire should put labels on GM food

New Hampshire should put labels on genetically modified food

By John F.J. Sullivan

Editor-in-chief

Live Free or Die Alliance

Bite into a crisp, delicious apple or top off your BLT with a freshly sliced tomato and, if you're like most New Hampshire snackers, one thing is certain: You have no idea where those fruits have been.

That is, did they spring from natural seeds and traditional cross-bred techniques, or are they from genetically modified organisms (GMOs), engineered in a laboratory? It's tough to tell because the Granite State doesn't require food producers to label their goods as having been genetically modified. Is it time for that to change?

Those in favor of food labeling worry that genetically modified foods might be harmful to ingest and encourage negative agricultural practices. In contrast, opponents say no scientific evidence exists that such foods aren't healthy to eat, adding that genetic modification leads to larger yields of hardy livestock and produce important to combating world hunger and keeping food prices low.

As state lawmakers head toward a mid-August work session on House Bill 660, "requiring the labeling of genetically modified foods and agricultural commodities," the Live Free or Die Alliance's Facebook followers have made it clear they believe genetically modified foods should be labeled as such.

On June 24, we asked our 14,333 Facebook fans whether New Hampshire law should require labels. Within a day, the question received 384 responses, including "likes," comments and people sharing the question on their own Facebook pages. The sentiment was nearly unanimous — 96 percent of respondents — in support of labeling, with 2 percent each opposed to labeling or providing an answer that was judged either nonresponsive to the question or too ambiguous to tally.

Nearly a year ago, we asked a similar question: whether New Hampshire should be the first state to require labeling of foods consisting of GMOs. At that time, we received 312 total responses: 80.5 percent of respondents favored the Granite State blazing the GMO-labeling trail. Conversely, 12.5 percent opposed the idea and 7 percent were judged nonresponsive to the question.

Those supporting the labeling of genetically modified foods said citizens have a right to know what they're putting in their bodies, especially if it might be harmful.

"Food labeling is important so people can make informed choices," said one respondent. "Live free or die isn't just a motto. Label foods so if we don't want GMO we can be free to make the choice."

But others warn of falling prey to food hysteria and junk science.

"Everything you have ever eaten or will eat has been altered genetically in some way by the farmer, and has been so for thousands of years." said one opponent of GMO labels. "I think this whole anti-GMO craze is just as scientific as being an evolution-denier, or a global-warming denier. To be anti-GMO is to be on the wrong side of science, facts and reality."

The aforementioned findings are not the results of a scientific survey, but more akin to citizen testimony, where respondents are (to the greatest extent possible) identifiable by their real names. As New Hampshire's Town Hall, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Live Free or Die Alliance is free and open to all, offering a unique and important mechanism for more than 14,000 community members to express their views.

However, the collective opinion of the citizens who follow the LFDA on Facebook and have taken part in our relevant discussions is unmistakable: Even in the Live Free or Die state, people are looking to government regulation, or at least education, to help them make their own informed choices about what they eat. SEACOASTONLINE