Labeling genetically engineered foods

Labeling genetically engineered foods

GMO label necessary

An ear of genetically altered corn waits to be harvested in Illinois.[Scott Olson/Getty Images.]

It’s no surprise that chemical companies such as Monsanto and Bayer own and promote genetically modified seeds.

Herbicide resistance is one of the outcomes of the process. The result: pour on the Roundup (glyphosate), as it’s not going to harm the modified, immune food crop.

But how about the people who eat the poison and harvest the crop that has received higher levels of the herbicide? Not to mention the collateral damage to beneficial insects such as pollinator bees and birds.

I want genetically engineered food to be labeled, and maybe shunned.

Sharon Stroble, Seattle

GMOs are trouble

I fervently hope that Washington voters do some research on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) before they decide whether or not to label products containing them.

GMO seeds that Monsanto has foisted upon farmers in other countries have produced disastrous results with terrible, long-term consequences, including soil sterilization and erosion, pollution of ground water, deforestation and the destruction of natural resources. This is serious, because the damage can be irreversible.

Proponents of GMOs claim that independent science groups have found no evidence of ill health effects. That is false.

More than 35 countries have adopted legislation either limiting the imports of GMOs, which has resulted in heavy loss of American export revenue, or requiring the labeling of food containing them, which we are now considering.

These are not inconvenient truths we can just shrug off and ignore. I hope Washington voters will look carefully into the ramifications of the decision we will make in the fall.

Steve Lequire, Des Moines

Seattle Times letters to the editor

GMO labeling bill

House subcommittee begins work on GMO labeling bill

By JEREMY BLACKMAN

ConcordMonitor staff

Two months after his state passed legislation requiring labels on genetically engineered foods, Maine Rep. Lance Harvell, the bill’s chief sponsor, pitched his case yesterday for why New Hampshire lawmakers should follow suit.

Bonnie Wright, of Salem, left, hands out literature with Dave Stewart, right, of Rochester, following a house subcommittee work session for HB-660-FN, the bill requiring the labeling of genetically engineered foods, on August 13, 2013 at the Legislative Office Building. Wright and Stewart attended the session along with several other members of their grassroots organization, New Hampshire Right to Know GMOs, who all wore hand made t-shirts supporting their cause. (ANDREA MORALES / Monitor staff)

“If you want to make the American people potentially a lab experiment, at least let them know what’s going on,” Harvell told members of a New Hampshire House subcommittee, as they began work on a similar bill introduced and retained earlier this year.

New Hampshire’s bill, which would take effect July 1 of next year, would require labels on all foods produced entirely or partially through genetic engineering, whereby an organism’s gene composition is altered to give it certain characteristics, such as an ability to ward off pests or disease. Though not in the bill’s language, subcommittee members indicated yesterday they would add an exemption for meat, dairy and eggs, which would be difficult to trace for genetically modified inputs, such as altered feed.

The subcommittee is also considering adding a “trigger” that would prevent the law from taking effect until a number of New England states adopt similar legislation – a move intended to deter large-scale producers from pulling their goods from any one state’s grocery shelves. The bill in Maine, as well as one Connecticut legislators recently passed and signed into law and one now pending in Vermont, each have triggers. Harvell, a Republican, acknowledged yesterday that this made for at least part of his interest in the fate of New Hampshire’s bill.

Subcommittee members voiced an array of anxieties yesterday about the bill’s potential effects on farmers and consumers, and on whether it would likely lead to litigation from large-scale producers and biotech companies.

“If Monsanto hasn’t sued you yet, stand in line,” he said, referencing the biotech giant and leading producer of genetically modified seed.Harvell’s response to the last concern: Probably, but you wouldn’t be alone.

Who would win any hypothetical legal battle is anyone’s guess, Harvell added, noting that corporate interests wouldn’t have invested so many resources trying to defeat his bill – and those that have been or are being considered in dozens of other states – had they been certain of the strength of their case.

“If you’re so sure about this being unconstitutional, why don’t you just lay off, let the state pass it, hammer them in court as the example for everyone else to see, and then walk away?” he asked subcommittee members. “They don’t really want to go (to court) any more than we do. If they lose, right – if the other side loses once – it’s all 50 states can say, ‘Fair game.’ ”

But with no scientific proof or federal indication to date that genetically engineered plants pose health risks, Rep. Robert Haefner, a Hillsboro Republican, said his concern was that the law would imply that such foods are unsafe to consume, which could lead to additional litigation from producers.

It was a point that Robert Johnson, policy director for the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, which opposes mandated labeling, reiterated after the meeting. What’s more, Johnson said, such inferences obscure the potential benefits that genetic engineering provide, such as reduced need for pesticides, added protection against soil erosion and improved crop yields. Opponents of genetic engineering often contend that such technology in fact harms soil conditions and weakens crop variety.

The meeting drew a packed room of more than 50 spectators, some sporting buttons and T-shirts in support of the bill, though none of them spoke as the subcommittee did not take any public comment.

Work on the bill is scheduled to continue throughout the fall, and Rep. Peter Bixby, a Democrat from Strafford and subcommittee chairman, said he had lined up at least two speakers for future sessions, including a consumer advocate and Gary Hirshberg, the chairman of Stonyfield Farm and a staunch and vocal proponent of labeling. The next session is Sept. 3, Bixby said.

Ghana: Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton in Ghana - the Hidden Agenda Exposed

Genetically Engineered Bt Cotton in Ghana - the Hidden Agenda Exposed

OPINION

Ali Masmadi Jehu Appiah is the Chairperson, Food Sovereignty Ghana

By PAMBAZUKA NEWS

After several years of apparent short-term success in Burkina Faso of Bt cotton in increasing yields, and improving profits of small scale cotton farmers, authorities in Ghana have decided to go down the same road. Ghana’s National Biosafety Committee (NBC) has just approved field tests of GE rice in the Ashanti Region, and GE cotton field tests at 6 different locations in the Northern Region. Bt is bacillus thuringiensis, a pesticide used to control bollworms in cotton, and stem borers in rice.

Why is Ghana looking only to the short-term gains of Burkina? Why not also look at the much longer-term experience of Bt cotton in India, China, the USA, and Indonesia? In all of these countries, there is evidence of huge problems arising from Bt crops after the first few years. There is an alarming record of growing dependency on agribusiness corporations, reduced profits, increasing debt of small-scale farmers, and major environmental safety hazards. Is Ghana naively following bad advice from agribusiness corporations and their NGO and diplomatic agents?

Currently, West Africa has the enviable record of producing some of the best cotton in the world with the least use of pesticides and without genetic engineering. Introducing Bt cotton will put this at risk. Cotton and rice farmers in Ghana can easily recount the constraints limiting their production and profits. But none of these priority problems can be solved by introducing highly controversial GE hybrid seeds.

Potential demand by farmers is not driving this recent action by the Biosafety Committee. There is another, quite hidden, agenda pushing Ghana down the GE road. The so-called success of Bt cotton in Burkina is only being used as a pretext for this agenda.

The start of field trials for Bt crops in Ghana is highly alarming because there is no scientific evidence supporting the long-term safety of genetically engineered (GE) crops. “Closed” field trials on research stations are no guarantee of preventing Bt contamination when wind and birds spread pollen laced with insecticide genes. What seems likely as a major factor pushing this highly risky venture is that the Biosafety Committee has been influenced by outside forces.

The risks Ghana is taking by starting down the GE road are many. Bt cotton and Bt rice have the pesticide Bt in every cell of the plant, including the pollen. There is some evidence suggesting that inhaling Bt pollen can sicken people and livestock, and in some cases even cause death, as happened in Mindanao in the Philippines. There are reports that thousands of sheep in India were killed after grazing on the fields of Bt cotton after harvest. And in both Germany and India, cows eating Bt crops have died. Bt infected pollen can drift far and wide, pollinating normal crops, contaminating them with the Bt altered genes. Transgenic proteins, the proteins transferred from one species to another by GE technology, can potentially cause serious immune reactions including allergies. This is a serious public health issue; and warrants an immediate ban on GM crops, including field trials, until proper assessment on the immune potential of all the transgenic proteins has been carried out.

Bt cotton also has a devastating effect on the soil, because the insecticide gene destroys vital microbial organisms, bacteria, and enzymes. A decade of planting with GM cotton, or any GM crop with Bt genes in it, could lead to total destruction of soil organisms, leaving dead soil unable to produce food. Bt enters our soil, our air, and our water.

In light of all these reports, the question we Ghanaians need to ask ourselves is: “Do we want to eat, breath, and drink Bt? Do we want to eat animals that have been eating, breathing, and drinking Bt?”

It is highly unfortunate that key scientists involved do not seem concerned by these issues. Dr. Emmanuel Chamba, Plant Breeder and Principal Investigator for Bt Cotton research at the CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute (SARI), Nyankpala, Tamale, seems preoccupied only with finding ways to control cotton’s two main insect pests, Bollworm complex and Sucking pests. And these, he indicated, can be well taken care of by the Bt cotton.

But even on this narrow basis, the record of other countries is a savage contradiction to his words. Burkina Faso’s example only shows that the first few years of Bt cotton crops may be a success. But longer-term experience in India, China and the US provide strong evidence that the insects soon develop resistance. Also, secondary pests, that before caused little or no damage, soon become major problems. The agrochemical companies then genetically engineer plants with stronger toxins. After the first few years the cotton farmers find they have to treat their fields more frequently with more and stronger chemicals. They enter a cycle of more expensive seeds, more pesticides, and more debt. They are required by contract to buy new seed each year along with the accompanying chemical fertilizers and pesticides. In the US and India this has led to a cycle of debt in which the agrochemical company eventually seizes the farmer's land to pay the debt, leaving the farmer with nothing.

These are the grave risks that the Biosafety Committee decision is bringing to Ghana. Are the potential short-term benefits of Bt crops worth these multiple risks? What are the lessons we need to learn from what happened in other countries? Even leaving aside the biosafety hazards, and regarding only production, in India, there is a striking correlation in the areas where Bt cotton is widely grown, and a dramatic increase in the rate of farmer suicides, many thousands per month. In most cases the farmers committing suicide have lost their farms due to a cycle of debt they incurred to buy new seed and pesticides, and negative income due to crop failures. Many attribute the huge price increase of cotton seed, which has gone up 8000% in India since Bt seed was introduced, as a contributing factor to farmer suicides.

In many countries, Bt cotton has proven subject to other crop diseases, particularly virus wilt. Farmers in the US and China have found whole fields wilting and when they pull up the plant there are almost no roots. Nothing can be done but destroy the entire field. Even in Burkina Faso, touted as a success story, farmers have been unhappy with the short fibers produced by Bt cotton. Most West African cotton has the highly desirable long fibers. In 2012 there was talk of stopping Bt cotton production completely in Burkina Faso. For now there are reports of a resort to the use of traditional seeds again, and a sharp decline from 70% to 40% of the land surface previously occupied by Bt cotton. So much for the so-called Burkina success story!

Dr. Margaret Ottah Atikpo, of the CSIR Crop Research Institute, stated that if the trials being conducted for genetically modified rice at Fumesua proves successful it will enable Ghana to grow rice that is nitrogen and water efficient as well as salt tolerant. “So that where the soils are poor, it doesn’t matter, it is supposed to thrive. You can grow it where you don’t have swamps and even where there is salt in the soil you can grow it,” she stressed.

However, Bt rice is supposed to help kill insect pests. But in Ghana, insect damage in rice is not a major problem faced by rice farmers. Moreover, Bt rice has nothing to do with what Dr Atikpo is saying about drought tolerance, and nitrogen efficiency. She is reciting the mantra the GE interests have promoted for over 20 years. But there is not yet any widespread example of success of GE crops being more drought resistant, much less significant increases in nitrogen efficiency.

To the contrary, all evidence to date indicates that GE crops need to be coddled with the special chemicals the agrochemical companies have designed for them. Most need more water rather than less. And most need steady and reliable irrigation and are unable to depend on rainwater. They are less likely to tolerate floods or drought, or secondary pests and diseases, than conventional varieties.

GE crops engineered with Bt are seldom used to feed people. They are mostly used for animal feed at present. A recent Australian study shows pigs fed a Bt corn and soy diet have inflamed stomachs and the females have enlarged uteruses. Rats fed GE corn over their lifespan develop enormous tumors. Do Ghanaians want to be human guinea pigs for Bt crops in humans?

Dr. Stephen Amoah, a research scientist at CSIR, Kumasi, says Ghana's agricultural production is beset with a myriad of constraints. “These include declining soil fertility, pests, diseases, low yields of crops, drought, floods, post-harvest losses among others" He neglects to mention that over time all of these become greater problems with GE crops. Even though Ghana has increased food production in recent years, this has been by expanding land under cultivation. He worries about inadequate land to feed Ghana's people.

There are many proven techniques that multiply productivity on very small areas of land, as the recent trend in urban agriculture, and work with agroecology science and farming systems research is demonstrating. These have nothing to do with genetic engineering. Seeds alone do not determine crop productivity. They are a contributing factor, but there are many more factors involved. This is why it is highly beneficial to ensure farmers have access to many varieties of seed, and grow a diversity of crops.

Farmers’ choice among the most appropriate varieties of seed is something the genetic engineers are trying to stamp out with their patented seeds and exclusive contracts. The giant agrochemical companies promoting their GMO varieties in Ghana are using their influence, and money, to divert Ghanaian scientists and politicians away from much more relevant approaches to agricultural science and food security, in their pursuit of profits.

The priority need of Ghanaian farmers is not GE seeds. The only people who need genetically engineered crops are the foreign agrochemical companies and their stockholders who profit from the monopoly sales of these products, with no regard for the human misery and bio-contamination they will cause.

INDIA: Government following a policy of case by case approval of GM crops

INDIA

Government following a policy of case by case approval of genetically modified crops

The government is following a policy of case by case approval of genetically modified (GM) crops, said Tariq Anwar, minister of state for Agriculture and Food Processing Industries in the Lok Sabha on Tuesday.

He said that extensive evaluation and regulatory approval process takes place before any GM crop is approved for commercial cultivation.This included generation of relevant biosafety information, its elaborate analysis to ensure food, feed and environmental safety. A final view on the commercialization of GM crop plants is taken only when there is a clear economic and technical justification besides suitability for environment and human consumption he said.

As on date, Bt Cotton was the only GM crop that has been introduced for commercial cultivation in the country.
Since inception of Bt. Cotton, there have been objections from some of the non-governmental organizations besides civil society on agriculture, etc., on the grounds that biosafety assessment of Bt Cotton before its introduction and post release monitoring is not adequate and that Bt cotton is not suitable for cultivation in rainfed areas . Further cattle death and farmers suicides have been attributed to introduction of Bt cotton in some regions such as Warangal and Vidarbha.

""The objections have been very speculative, without any reasonable assessment of the technological strengths of Bt-cotton. In spite of the controversy regarding Bt cotton, the ground reality is that during the last decade, area under cotton cultivation (approximately 12 million hectares, of which 90% is under Bt cotton) and productivity of cotton has gone up significantly," said Mr Anwar.

He said that during the post Bt cotton era, Indian economy has benefited as India is the second largest exporter of cotton. ""There is no scientific evidence to show that Bt cotton has adversely impacted the biodiversity or human/cattle health. Bt cotton effectively control bollwsorms, especially Helicoverpa armigera, thus preventing yield losses from an estimated damage of 30% to 60% each year in India. The biggest gain from the technology is in the form of reduced insecticide usage for bollworm control. Yields are estimated to have increased at least by 30% due to effective protection from bollworm damage," he said. ET

Ask the Diet Doctor: GMO Foods

Ask the Diet Doctor: GMO Foods

(Source: shape.com)

Q: Should I be worried about GMO foods?

A: The topic of genetically modified foods is one that is hotly debated, but the problem is that the phrase GMO is very broad and encompasses techniques and modifications to food that you potentially should and shouldn't be concerned about. At this point in time there doesn't seem to be an overt benefit or risk to consuming GMO foods, but let's explore a little further.

What Are the Major GMO Foods?
According to the FDA, the big three GMO foods are soybeans, corn, and canola. But the FDA has also evaluated the safety of genetic modifications to flax, tomatoes, potatoes, cantaloupe, alfalfa, creeping bentgrass, papaya, sugar beets, wheat, squash, radicchio, and plums. The FDA lists consultations on GMO foods and what was genetically modified in the food to warrant the safety consultation on its website.

Benefits of GMO Foods
In the mid- to late 1800s, monk Gregor Mendel, the “father of modern genetics,” discovered that you could selectively breed pea plants to elicit specific traits in subsequent crops. This was essentially the simplistic origin of genetically modifying foods. Farmers have subsequently refined Mendel's approach, crossbreeding different plants and plant species to create crops that grow faster, are more resilient, and have improved nutritional qualities. GMO is essentially the next evolution of crossbreeding. However, in their report “GMO Myths and Truths,” Michael Antoniou, Claire Robinson, and John Fagan refute the fact that GMO foods reduce pestcide use and improve the overall nutritional quality of foods.

Potential Health Risks
The FDA monitors GMO foods for safety and has yet to discover any potential allergen or toxin that would be harmful to humans based on the genetic modifications of the previously mentioned plants. However, many would agree that the rigor of testing to truly discover the impact of a plant’s genetic modification on human health needs to be increased. Our genetics roadmap is very interconnected. The modification of one gene targeted to increase a tomato's vitamin C could or could not have implications in modifying other processes in the tomato plant, leading to the creation of toxins or allergens. More testing and evaluation is needed.

Food Labeling
In her book Safe Food: The Politics of Food Safety, Marion Nestle points out that you might still not want to consume GMO foods due "to ethical, religious, cultural reasons or concerns about corporate control of the food supply." This is why GMO food labeling is so important. At this point in time, manufacturers are not required to disclose whether or not their products contain GMO foods. But because of the polarizing nature of the GMO debate, many GMO-free food companies have voluntarily put "GMO Free" labels on their products. The Institute for Responsible Technology has also created an app that allows consumers to see which foods are and are not GMO despite no overt labeling.

Much of the debate surrounding GMO and the health risks hinge on the word “potential.” There are potential health risks that need to be further evaluated. In the meantime, putting a GMO label on food products that contain GMO foods would be helpful to consumers who would prefer not to eat GMO foods until more research is done. SHAPE

Monsanto’s SmartStax maize ‘to be approved for growth in October’ in EU

Monsanto’s SmartStax maize ‘to be approved for growth in October’ in EU

Controversial genetically modified super-maize from Monsanto is set to be approved for cultivation across the European Union by late October, officials tell RT.

Despite EU regulators last month thwarting the expansion of the world’s largest seed corporation, it appears Germany won’t escape new GMO crops. 

A spokesman for EU health and consumer policy commissioner, Toni Borg, told RT that “the approval of SmartStax maize is expected in September or October.”

The commissioner’s office also told Germany’s Zeit Online that the approval for the maize seeds would come after a “rigorous, scientific evaluation process.”

SmartStax GM maize was developed in the US by Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences. It combines the genes of two already genetically modified maize varieties. SmartStax is resistant to two types of herbicides and poisons against six different species of insects, such as the European corn borer. The seed includes eight artificially added genes – previously, the biggest number of such genes added to a single plant was three.

Monsanto and Dow AgroSciences have been lobbying for SmartStax in Europe for the last five years, having first applied for EU marketing approval in 2008. 

In 2010, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that SmartStax was “as safe as conventionally bred maize and commercial versions in regard [to the] potential impact on the health of humans, animals and on the environment.”

A study completed the next year also came to the same conclusion - that SmartStax was safe.

But GM-critical German consulting company Testbiotech has repeatedly criticized EFSA for serious gaps in its safety assessment of SmartStax maize. The original GM varieties of maize that SmartStax was engineered from were tested in a 90-day trial of GM plants being fed to humans. Reportedly, SmartStax has never been scientifically tested on animals in Europe and therefore “the risk assessment performed by the EFSA is actually not adequate to sufficiently exclude adverse effects on humans, animals and the environment,” Testbiotech says on its website.

Independent European experts say that the cultivation of SmartStax is extremely controversial, because long-term tests of the new maize have not been conducted.

“This case shows that decisions made by the Commission on permitting genetically engineered plants in food and feed are not sufficiently based on science but on economic pressure. Just because US companies want unrestricted import of these types of maize into Europe, the EU Commission is continuing the authorization process and refusing to acknowledge the actual risks,” said Christoph Then, a representative of Testbiotech.

“This is a serious threat to consumers and the protection of health and the environment,” said Then, who also is Greenpeace Germany’s expert on agriculture genetic engineering. “No other already approved plant contains so many genetically modified ingredients. It is completely unclear how they interact and what consequences this has long-term.”

In June, Testbiotech wrote to the European Commission, about for their risk assessment of SmartStax maize.

In the commission’s reply, officials insisted that SmartStax maize had been thoroughly tested and had received a “favorable opinion” from the EFSA as safe to be sold on the European market.

Testbiotech blasted the EU Commissioner’s reply as “misleading,” and voiced concerns that the risk assessment of SmartStax showed that there was “no thorough examination in this case” as the EFSA did not initiate an independent study for the market authorization of the corn. 

When RT followed up on the exchange, the commission insisted that it plays no role in addressing the concerns of GM skeptics and that it is only there to make sure products are safe.

“Any GM product that has been approved for the EU market is safe because the EU has the most stringent safety rules in the world,” Borg’s spokesman, Frederic Vincent, told RT on Tuesday. 

Monsanto refused to comment on the upcoming authorization to Zeit Online, but stated that its products had been “assessed by various international authorities as safe” and the safety of Monsanto's products would be "occupied by a huge amount of data and a variety of studies."

The biotech giant said that the European approval of its seeds would be "in the interests of general world trade, and also for imports into the EU."

While Monsanto look likely to win this round, the corporation has dropped its bid to get more genetically modified crops onto the European market, due to “widespread popular opposition.”

If the SmartStax gets the green light, it will be in line with France’s decision to re-open the door to Monsanto products. In early August, one of the country’s top administrative courts reversed a ban on genetically modified MON810 corn, which had been in place since March 2012. The court explained that the EU moratorium on the GMO corn lacked a legal basis. RT

Pesticide illness triggers anti-GMO movement in Argentina

Pesticide illness triggers anti-GMO movement in Argentina

For years, a community near Córdoba, Argentina was slowly poisoned with pesticides. But even as awareness and protests against pesticide use grew, so did the support for the chemicals to promote crop growth.

Sofía Gatica sits in the sun on a café patio in the Argentine city of Córdoba. She talks about raising her three children in Ituzaingó, a Córdoba suburb surrounded by soy fields. It's not a happy story: it was in the mid-1990s, she says, that her oldest son started to get sick.

"When he was four years old, he came down with the illness that left him temporarily paralyzed," she recalls. "He was admitted to the hospital. They told me that they didn't know what was wrong with him."

It was a suffering not brought on by natural causes: "If I had known that it was the fumigation, that after the planes went by this would happen to my son, I wouldn't have let him play in the soy fields," she says.

The Gaticas lived just fifty meters from fields planted with genetically-modified soy. Planes regularly flew overhead, spraying the plants with the herbicide glyphosate. Slowly, the entire suburb started getting sick.

Soybean plantations in Argentina abound

"Children were being born with deformities," Sofia says, "little babies were being born with six fingers, without a jawbone, missing a skull bone, with kidney deformities, without an anus - and a lot of mothers and fathers were developing cancer."

In 1999, Sofía Gatica gave birth to her fourth baby, a little girl. Three days later, the baby died of kidney failure. The loss of her child prompted Gatica to take action. She decided to find out what was happening in her neighborhood: She started knocking on doors and asking questions.

"I went door-to-door and did a survey - asking each mother for the sick person's name, address, clinic, everything. And each mother sent me to another, and to another, and so on."

Major health consequences

From there, things began do develop a dynamic of their own: "The mothers started to come help me, to tell me, 'Look, I have another sick person.' They came to me by themselves; they decided to join the struggle." Armed with their survey, Mothers of Ituzaingó, as they called themselves by then, approached the government and demanded an investigation. In 2002, the government agreed to one.

Soybean harvest in Argentina - waiting to go to market

The results were alarming: The area's water supply was polluted, and eighty percent of the neighborhood's children had agrotoxins in their blood. And more was to come: Around this time, a doctor at the University of Buenos Aires - Andrés Carrasco - proved that the herbicide glyphosate can cause birth defects in vertebrates. "In most cases, the fetus dies before birth because of its deformities," Carrasco explains, "that is to say, the inhalation or the introduction of these agrotoxins kills the embryo."

Yet, surprisingly, not everyone views glyphosate as a danger. César Soldano has been farming in Córdoba and the nearby province of Santiago del Estero for three decades. He plants soy and corn in the spring and summer, and wheat and garbanzo beans in the winter.

The land where he now farms wasn't productive until he started using genetically-modified soy beans and the glyphosate herbicide:
"This was all scrubland," Soldano says, gesturing to his fields, which stretch as far as the eye can see. He says glyphosate enabled him to transform the landscape.

Short-term help

"Monsanto's 'Roundup-Ready' soy means that the soil doesn't have to be turned," Soldano continues. "The glyphosate destroys all plant growth except the soybean. This makes it possible to conserve water and grow crops."

Argentine soy is considered essential for the food supply of the future

Soldano drives around his fields, describing his irrigation system and explaining that today's green shoots will soon become garbanzo plants. Before the arrival of glyphosate, he says, farming techniques caused erosion, depleted the region's water supply, and polluted the environment with chlorine-based weedkillers, which have now been internationally banned.

"Our crops were not productive. And when this technological change came about, everything changed radically," Soldano notes. "The person who was able to alter the plant's nucleus in order to improve our food crops deserves a Nobel Prize."

Soldano points out that genetically-modified soy has also made an important impact on Argentina's economy. Almost ten percent of the national government's budget comes from taxes on soy.

Threats and awareness

Sofía Gatica, however, doesn't believe the short-term economic benefits make the long-term damage worthwhile. Her continued attack on genetically-modified crops and the pesticides used with them has made her a target. She was harassed for two years by a woman who met her at the bus stop and insulted her for the entire forty-minute bus ride to work.

Once, Gatica says, a man appeared at her home and threatened her with a shotgun, telling her to give up the fight against soy farmers. "And then the threatening phone calls began. They told me that I had three children and that I would end up with two. And it was awful not to know if your child would come home."

But Gatica has continued to speak out against pesticides and GMO crops. And slowly, she and other activists are gaining support. "Everyone is demanding pesticide-free borders - for agrotoxins not to be sprayed near people. Some places now have 1,500-meter (4,921-feet) borders, others 2,500 meters," Gatica says.

Soy is turned into everything from chops to tofu, as shown here

"And now we've got clean water in Ituzaingó, where before we didn't have potable water. And Córdoba has started a tumor registry; before there wasn't a registry of people with cancer," she says.

In a landmark case last year, a soy farmer and the pilot of a fumigation plane were found guilty of spraying harmful herbicides near residential areas, says Enrique Viale, the president of the Argentine Association of Environmentalist Lawyers. "A court in Córdoba gave a verdict that, for the first time, punished a farmer for the crime of polluting with agrotoxins," Viale says. "The verdict is the product of the struggle by citizens, by women like Sofía Gatica, by the Mothers of Ituzaingó. It's helpful and valuable as a precedent, but it's not widespread yet."

Sofía Gatica says she wants Argentina's government to strictly control the activities of soy farmers. She wants genetically-modified soy and all the associated chemicals banned - and the multinational companies that sell them to leave Argentina. "The multinationals come here to steal our land, to kick out the people who live on the land, to steal our water, and to sow death," she says.

But the world's population is growing and soy from the farmlands of Argentina is considered essential for ensuring food security for the future - making the battle between anti-GMO campaigners and soy farmers far from over. DW.DE

Filipino farmers destroy GM crops designed to alleviate malnutrition

Filipino farmers destroy GM crops designed to alleviate malnutrition

A group of 400 protestors has stormed a field filled with test crops of vitamin A-delivering Golden Rice in the Philippines, in protest at the genetically modified food industry it sees as being driven by foreign interests. 

The attack in the country's Bicol region has been referred to as being waged by "militant farmers", but was carried out by SIKWAL-GMO, which is made up of farmers, students, academics and other members of the public. Together, they destroyed 1,000 square metres of the crop, which is designed to benefit poorer populations suffering from malnutrition.

Spokesperson for SIKWAL-GMO Bert Autor was reported in Filipino newspaper Remate as saying: "Golden Rice is not an answer to the country's problem on hunger and malnutrition." Autor referred to the trials as "clandestine", but the groups behind them -- the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and local group the Philippine Rice Research Institute (PhilRice) -- have been openly discussing their progress and announced a week ago they were nearly ready to submit the rice to national regulators for evaluation. 

Golden Rice was first developed in the 90s by Ingo Potrykus of the Institute for Plant Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and Peter Beyer of the University of Freiburg, Germany. The rice has added genes that stimulate the plant's production of beta carotene, which the human body converts into vitamin A. The idea was to supplement this rice for ordinary rice in poorer communities where the average diet is largely made up of starchy foods. According to a 2009 report in Malaria Journal which refers to largescale vitamin A trials, ensuring the substance is included in a child's diet reduces mortality rates by 23-34 percent. PhilRice has been carrying out test trials to see how the crops fair to ensure farmers will get the same yield, pest resistance and grain quality in the same growing environments, according to a statement sent to Wired.co.uk by the IRRI. The body added that one cup a day of Golden Rice would provide an adult with half their daily vitamin A needs.

"Farmers would be able to grow it like other rice and it won't cost them any extra, and it would not cost consumers extra either. Golden Rice will be available to farmers and consumers only after it has been determined to be safe for humans, animals, and the environment and authorised for propagation and consumption by the appropriate regulatory authorities. Therefore, Golden Rice, if and when released, will be as safe as other rice."

Opponents do not agree. Arguments range from, "it's bad for human health and biodiversity", to accusations that the uptake and interest in GM crops is largely down to interfering foreign interests. In 2012 it was revealed that Golden Rice was being trialled with school children, without the proper forms of consent (it was left out that the rice was genetically modified), and Autor cites this as evidence that there are plenty of dubious practices surrounding the propagation of the crop.

"Vitamin A deficiency is a devastating problem for young children and pregnant and nursing women in the Philippines"Bruce Tolentino, IRRI

"Agrochemical TNCs, which are protected and abetted by the US government, gained millions of profit from GMOs even at the expense of the health and livelihood of Filipino farmers and consumers," said Autor. "They don't care if it's unsafe, as long as they get their profit. Such is the fate of GM corn farmers. Farmers who shifted to GM corn farming suffered the most, as the price of GM seeds and other inputs skyrocketed. The farmers are now in debt, most of them lose their land to corn traders because they are unable to pay. Once Golden Rice is commercialised, this will only lead to the privatisation of our rice. Agrochemical TNCs have been waiting for this opportunity, to finally control the rice seed industry. This would mean more profit to them, as rice is the staple of Filipinos and the people of Asia."

IRRI, however, maintains its goals are pure. "Vitamin A deficiency is a devastating problem for young children and pregnant and nursing women in the Philippines," Bruce Tolentino, Deputy Director General for Communications and Partnerships at the IRRI, tells Wired.co.uk. "It causes children to get sick, go blind, and even die. Vitamin A deficiency affects 1.7 million children (15.2 percent) in the Philippines and 33.5 percent of pre-school children worldwide -- far too many. Vitamin A deficiency is horrible and unnecessary, and we want to do our part to help to reduce it."

Tolentino states that although the kind of social awareness campaigns and supplement delivery programmes that Autor would like are effective, they are not nearly as effective as what Golden Rice offers. "Many people live in areas that are difficult to reach and as a result, the most vulnerable are often missed," he says. He emphasises that all the trials are given the go ahead by the Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry for the Philippines, only after having been deemed safe.

The idea, they say, is not to replace an industry that is working well for local farmer, just the seed they're using. "Breeders at PhilRice and Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) are developing Golden Rice versions of existing rice varieties that are popular with local farmers," an IRRI spokesperson told Wired.co.uk. "The new varieties would produce beta carotene while still having the same yield, pest resistance, and grain qualities as before. Golden Rice seeds are expected to cost farmers the same as other rice varieties and they will be able to save and replant the seed season after season. Cooking and taste tests will be done to help make sure that Golden Rice meets consumers' needs and preferences."

The fact that Golden Rice was given the go ahead to be trialled in the Philippines in the first place suggests the authorities have some degree of faith in the product. The country is generally GM-adverse, and earlier this year rejected an application involving a type of aubergine that would be resistant to pests.WIRED

INDIA: What we need is a biosafety authority

What we need is a biosafety authority

Ramanjaneyulu G. V. is an agricultural scientist working with Centre for Sustainable Agriculture.

A draft law to create a Biotechnology Regulatory Authority of India (BRAI) has been tabled in Parliament. If approved, it will replace the existing Environment Protection Act (EPA), 1989 rules and BRAI will replace the genetic engineering appraisal committee (GEAC) as a regulatory body.

The BRAI Bill fails to address the concerns surrounding genetically modified (GM) crops in India at a time when opposition to GM is growing in the country. There are two key assumptions on which the Bill is based: one that modern biotechnologies (read GM) are essential for improving agriculture, and two, their safety can be easily ensured by following certain protocols and be regulated.

Let’s see how true the assumptions are.

Almost 17 years after the introduction of the first GM crop in the world, only four crops—soybean (47%), maize (32%), cotton (15%) and canola (5%)—account for 99% of GM crops under cultivation globally. Only five countries (the US, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India) account for 90% of the total GM cropped area. The rest of the world seems to be improving agriculture even without GM.

In the past 17 years, there have been umpteen reports and research papers that highlight various biosafety problems of GM crops. In India, the first and only GM crop, Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) cotton was introduced in 2001 with the promise that it will reduce farm distress by reducing expenses on pesticides. After 11 years, we still find that 68% of the farmers’ suicides are from four major cotton growing areas. The use of pesticides initially came down due to reduction in bollworm infestation but increased again because of rising sucking pest attacks. There have been several other problems such as skin allergies to agricultural workers during the stage when the bolls burst, and a fall in soil fertility due to the impact on soil microorganisms.

When Bt cotton was introduced, the biosafety tests conducted before commercialization claimed that contamination is not a major issue. But when the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, released its version of Bt cotton, it was found to be contaminated with Mahyco Monsanto’s proprietary trait and had to be withdrawn from the market. The contamination, in hindsight, was inevitable. Given that India is a centre of origin, and a major centre of diversity for important food crops such as rice and brinjal, such contamination risks cannot be simply wished away.

The parliamentary standing committee on GM foods and the technical expert committee appointed by the Supreme Court have both pointed out these problems and have suggested a ban on further field trials and commercialization of GM crops till an improved regulatory system is put in place.

Instead of addressing these issues, the BRAI Bill only dilutes the current regulatory system, overriding the role of state governments in decision-making, and bypassing citizens’ right to information by including a clause on confidentiality of commercial information. India being a signatory to the Nagoya—Kuala Lumpur supplementary protocol on liability and redress is mandated to establish a strong liability and redress mechanism. But the penal clauses for erring in this Bill are extremely weak.

The BRAI Bill in its current format will do more harm than good. We must conceive of an alternative regulatory regime around GM crops with the primary mandate of protecting our health and environment from the risks of modern biotechnology. Such a regime should be based on the precautionary principle and must lay down protocols for independent testing, post-marketing monitoring, and rigorous assessments of long-term health and environmental impact of all GM crops.LIVE MINT

East Africa: Farmers Urged to Adopt Biotech

East Africa: Farmers Urged to Adopt Biotech

Small-scale farmers in the East African region have been urged to opt for Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) crops to foster the region's economic growth..

Mark Lynas, a former anti-GMO activist, last week told EABW, the use biotechnology crops would assure better outputs to farmers and promote food security in the region.

"The biotech crops are a commercial good and will offer farmers superior harvests and high quality crops. This will enable smallholder farmers compete favorably in the world market," Lynas said.

He applauded local plant scientists, who are in the forefront of research in new biotech crops for their efforts to combat new pests and diseases. These pests and diseaeses threaten to wipe out staple crops.

"Only GM technology can save the banana from regional eradication by banana bacterial wilt. There is no other way to reliably protect it. I visited the GMO trial of virus-resistant cassava at Namulongein Uganda and can report that the crop looks extremely healthy and vibrant" he said.

According to Lynas. the assumption that organic agriculture can feed the increasing population is deluded and undermining to food security. The world will have another 1 billion people in the next 12 years, and a total of 9.5 billion by 2050 and cannot be fed from organic agriculture alone.

Lynas said most of the anti-GMO case is based on myths and misconceptions. For instance, there is still a widely-held view that GM crops are necessarily sterile and cannot be replanted.

He said: "This myth goes back to the original terminator technology which was researched by Monsanto but never adopted. It is promoted by NGOs who draw funds from donors to stop biotechnology in Africa."

He said these foreign donors have an agenda, to make sure Africa does not need new technologies in agriculture.This foreign agenda is repeated by their local representatives, many of whom have misleading names and promote anti-science misinformation.

Dr. Hassan Mshinda, the Director General of the Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology (COSTECH), said GM crops could be alternatives of seed crops in Africa.

He said the so-called first-generation GM crops have improved traits. Crops can also be modified to ward off plant viruses or fungi. Due to more effective pest control, crop yields are often higher.

Lynas said, fifteen years ago, he was an anti-GMO activist, determined to ensure biotechnology was never adopted. He destroyed crops in fields in the United Kingdom, published long creeds against Monsanto. He insisted that GM seeds would enslave farmers and usher in an era of multinational dominance of the food system.

However through his work on climate change, writing books and being advisor to a head of state, he discovered the science on the safety of biotechnology is just as clear as the science on the reality of climate change.

Agriculture is the foundation of the Tanzanian economy. It accounts for about half of the national income, three quarters of merchandise exports and provides employment opportunities to about 80% of the people. ALLAFRICA