Monday, October 28, 2013

Biotechnology giants top the food chain with GMO usage

Biotechnology giants top the food chain with GMO usage

gmo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto spends $5 million on anti-labeling campaign

Monsanto spends $5 million on anti-labeling campaign

Agricultural giant Monsanto Co., one of the largest makers of bioengineered crop seeds, is trying to persuade Washington state voters away from a proposal to require labels on genetically modified foods.
Monsanto has contributed $5.1 million to oppose the measure, according to Bloomberg. So far, companies like Monsanto, DuPont Co. and Dow Chemical Co. are backing an anti-labeling campaign with $18.1 million.
Washington joined 26 states with proposals this year to mandate genetically engineered food be properly labeled or removed from store shelves.
Creve Coeur-based Monsanto Co. (NYSE: MON) reported total net sales of $14.86 billion in 2013, compared with $13.50 billion reported last year.St. Louis Business Journal

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

No import nod for GM processed food items till March 2014

The Union environment ministry has issued an order keeping in abeyance the controversial August, 2007 notification, which allows import of genetically modified (GM) processed food items into India without its prior permission, till March 31, 2014.
Though the ministry has continuously been keeping the notification in abeyance since February 2008, this time it has opted for a shorter period — usually it used to be a year — expecting the Supreme Court's final view on the contentious issue of genetically modified organisms before March.
At present, any genetically engineered organism can be imported — either for research or for restricted lab trial — only after prior permission of the ministry's apex regulatory body, genetic engineering approval committee (GEAC). Had the ministry not put the 2007 notification on hold, it would have exempted importers from even informing the government.
The ministry's order has been in sync with what the apex court had directed the government in response to a petition six years ago. The court had directed the ministry to put such an order on hold till the controversial issue is finally decided.
The current order — to strictly regulate the import of GM organisms — assumes significance in view of strong opposition from civil society groups to any transgenic food item. They argued that the transgenic food will not only ruin the health of consumers but will also adversely affect the biodiversity.
"Government will take a call on the issue only after conclusion of a pending PIL (public interest litigation) in the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the court will have a final word on it, either way, by March", said a ministry official. He said the ministry would accordingly either amend the notification or withdraw it altogether. The apex court's final order would hopefully also bring more clarity on the issue of labeling GM foods in India, he added.
In order to have definite view on the issue of GM food crops, the SC had appointed a technical expert committee (TEC) comprising scientists/experts from different backgrounds. Though this panel has already submitted its report in the court, it failed to make unanimous recommendation.
While five members of this panel expressed their strong reservation against the genetically engineered crops and rejected even the scientific trials of such crops in India, one member R S Paroda submitted a separate report and pitched for field trials for collecting bio-safety data under close observation of experts appointed by the agriculture ministry. TOI

"Farmer" Pawar bats for genetically modified crops

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The latest No on 522 cash infusion, another $3.78 million channeled through the Grocery Manufacturers Association, brings to $21.1 million the war chest that food and agribusiness giants have raised to defeat Washington’s Initiative 522, which would require labeling of genetically modified foods.
A military phrase, “shock and Awe,” best describes the No on 522 campaign: Pepsico has put $2.352 million, Nestle $1.528 million and Coca Cola $1.520 million, with General Mills now at $598,819 and J.M. Smucker up to $349,977.
Jerry Greenfield at a news conference in December 2011 when he announced his support for the occupy movement. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Jerry Greenfield, co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s, passed out ice cream at a recent event supporting Initiative 522.  But the initiative is getting creamed on the money front.  Big food and agribusiness companies have raised $21 million to fight the measure, which requires labeling of genetically modified foods.
The companies’ contributions are known only because Attorney General Bob Ferguson took legal action to stop the money from being laundered through the Washington, D.C.-based Grocery Manufacturers Association, the industry’s lobbying arm.
Why are these corporate interests spending, and until recently laundering, such enormous amounts of money?
It is to prevent the labeling movement from scoring a momentum-building victory. Stop it now. Washington is a much-watched state and bellwether for issues about to go national.
Washington has gone two ways with statewide ballot measures.
It has been on the cutting edge of social change. The state voted in 1970 to legalize abortion, more than two years before the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling. In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide. Then, last November, Washington was among the first three states to vote for marriage equality.
But big corporate campaigns have squelched other proposals. The aluminum industry and bottlers repeatedly turned back initiatives requiring returnable bottles. A small state income tax, targeted to the wealthy, was defeated by dollars from the wealthy.
The American Beverage Association in 2010, spent $16.9 million to roll back a modest soda pop tax, enacted by the Legislature to ease cuts in education spending.  Other state legislatures were looking at the model. The beverage makers sent a message: This is what we will do to you.
The National Rifle Association, fearful of precedent, spent $5 million in 1997 to defeat an initiative that would have required trigger locks on weapons stored in households and mandated a gun-safety course for new purchasers of firearms.
Big corporate and special interest campaigns follow a pattern:
–The money comes from out of state, but the TV spots feature spokespeople from in state.  After two stints as Republican state chairman, and long ago (1980-92) as state attorney general, Ken Eikenberry has found a virtual third political career filming commercials against “badly written” initiatives.
–A lot of the money comes late in the campaign. The latest anti-522 infusions — $3.78 million from the Grocerty Manufacturers Asscoation, $460,000 from Dupont Pioneer — have come a week after ballots were mailed out. The state attorney general has an ongoing investigation of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, but the election may be over before disclosure of more violations of state public disclosure laws, or penalties for violations.
–Intense effort is made to shield who exactly is giving what. Until smoked out by Ferguson, a special “Defense of Brand Strategic Account” was used as a funnel for money from Pepsico, Coca-Cola, J.M. Smocker, Campbell Soup, General Mills, Kellogg, Cargill, Hillshire Brands and other big givers.
The fund was set up, according to an internal memo from the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s Chief Executive Officer Pamela Bailey, “to allow for greater planning for the funds to combat current threats and better shield individual companies from attack that provide funding for specific efforts.”
Another strategy is seen incorporate-financed campaigns. The “No” or “Yes” side has a single public spokesperson, almost always a woman. Executives from the big givers — e.g. Montsanto, Dupont Pioneer, and Netstle on Initiative 522 — are never heard from. The Grocery Manufacturers Association has spoken mainly in legal proceedings through blue-chip Seattle law firms.
It is possible to buy an election in Washington state. You betcha. A free-spending Costco effort dismantled the state’s monopoly on retail liquor sales. The state’s billionaires combined in a “shock and Awe” effort last year that pushed through (barely) a charter schools initiative, after previous rejections.
Almost a year has passed since the Grocery Manufacturers Association’s board directed staff to begin polling in Washington “to determine the viability of a campaign to defeat I-522.”
They’ve now put in more than $11 million.  Is this big investment succeeding?
Two polls last week showed I-522 in the lead, but with the gap narrowing. The Elway Poll put the initiative ahead by a 46-42 percent margin. A SurveyUSA poll for King 5 News pegged support at 45 percent, opposition at 38 percent, with a big number of undecideds.
Initiatives are considered in trouble if pre-election polls show support at under 50 percent. SEATTLEPI

Modified brinjal finally sees light

Modified brinjal finally sees light

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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