Crazy GMO debates

It’s non-GMO month, say natural food retailers. Really. Kind of a crazy irony, as you and your peers harvest millions of GMO crop acres. These are the same grains that we all have consumed in food for more than 17 years -- without a single instance of adverse health or environmental effects.

But this fact falls on deaf ears among food activists who refuse to consider the sound, peer-reviewed science that has proven the safety of every genetically engineered crop on the market. The technology behind every product, individually, has been analyzed and deemed safe by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization, Health Canada, USDA, European Commission Joint Research Center and the National Academy of Sciences.

Your normal grocery store, caught in the middle, is being supported by its Grocery Manufacturers Association who launched a new educational website http://bit.ly/1fV6vfi to bring science forward and help consumers understand the safety of GM ingredients.

Anti-GMO activists choose to market fear through untrue exaggerated claims, causing science-challenged consumers to buy into the food label frenzy. And to further capitalize upon and profit from this fear, natural food co-ops and Whole Foods are moving forward with their own non-GMO certification process.

Activists who tout GMO research studies on rat tumors, Monarch butterfly deaths, tainted Mexican corn and many other issues cited to help flame the fears have all been proven wrong by unbiased researchers -- who are not beholden to Monsanto as activists claim. Real science can be powerful, just ask former architect of anti-GMO activism, Mark Lynas, who now supports GMO crops after accepting scientific information as a solution. Read his story here http://bit.ly/1fUxGqD.

I’ve written about seed genetics for more than 30 years. I’m a proponent of food choices including organic. But I’ve also held both farmers’ and seed companies’ feet to the proverbial fire over better management of GM crops (i.e. refuge, single trait or herbicide reliance, etc.). When managed correctly, this technology is amazing. But study the issues yourself. Read a current editorial by Scientific American “Labels for GMO Foods Are a Bad Idea,” http://bit.ly/16w8zp9.

Also, I highly recommend reading a Boston Review magazine story “The Truth About GMOs” written by Pamela Ronald, University of California-Davis plant pathologist and chair of the Plant Genomics Program. Better yet, read the book “Mendel in the Kitchen: A Scientist’s View of Genetically Modified Food,” by Nina Fedoroff, a leading authority in genetics and molecular biology at Penn State University, and Nancy Marie Brown, science writer.

Armed with real information, I challenge each of you to spend time every week to listen and help consumers overcome any fears they bring up. Tell your story. This is vitally important to your livelihood.

I sincerely thank you for reading, for viewing more valuable content on csdigest.com, for subscribing to our newsletters and for being willing to Think Different.

Kurt Lawton

Editor

klawton@csdigest.com

The Planting of Genetically Engineered Corn Stopped by a Mexican Court

Sources: Environmental and Food Justice, Vía Orgánica, Animal Politico,http://www.beyondpesticides.org

On October 10, a judge in Mexico issued an injunction against the planting and selling of genetically engineered (GE) corn seed, effective immediately, within the country’s borders. The decision comes nearly two years after the Mexican government temporarily rejected the expansion of GE corn testing, citing the need for more research. The decision prohibits agrichemical biotech companies, including Monsanto, DuPont Pioneer, Syngenta, PHI Mexico, and Dow AgroSciences, from planting or selling GE corn seed in Mexico, though imports of GE food will still be allowed.

This move follows the filing of a class action lawsuit on July 5 by farmers, beekeepers, environmentalists, and scientists, in total representing 53 citizens and 20 civil associations. “The action encompasses what we have been calling for over the past fifteen years: the protection of maize as the staple food of Mexicans and the preservation of our country, free of transgenic crops…” said Adelita San Vicente, representing seed interest group Fundación Semillas de Vida A.C.

The injunction was granted by Judge Jaime Eduardo Verdugo J. of the Twelfth District Court for Civil Matters of Mexico City, who cited “the risk of imminent harm to the environment” due to GE crops. The order requires Mexico’s Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaría de Agricultura, Ganadería, Desarrollo Rural, Pesca, y Alimentación) and Secretary of the Environment (Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales) to immediately “suspend all activities involving the planting of transgenic corn in the country and end the granting of permission for experimental and pilot commercial plantings.”

According to Greenpeace Mexico, which has been heavily involved in the sustainable agriculture campaign and GE dialogue, the injunction is just the first step toward the definitive protection of the country’s biological diversity, and full recognition of Mexicans’ right to a healthy environment, safe food, and untainted corn as a cultural heritage.

The lawsuit is supported by scientific research, dating from 2001 and documenting the ongoing contamination of Mexico’s native corn varieties by transgenes from GE crops, including Monsanto’s Roundup ready varieties and the herbicide-resistant varieties marketed by DuPont Pioneer and Bayer CropScience.

With 53 percent of caloric intake and 22 percent of protein in the Mexican national diet coming from corn, the grain represents an important daily staple that is also inherently interwoven into the country’s cultural heritage. National campaigns, including “Sin Maiz, No Hay Paiz” (“Without Corn There is No Country”), have rallied against the introduction of GE corn into Mexico, raising debates about the need to safeguard national heritage, save native seeds, and protect environmental and human health.

The injunction against GE crops in Mexico is still a far cry from an outright ban. Further legal proceedings are now expected to follow, where all parties will enter into a legal arguments supported by experts who present supporting evidence for and against genetically modified corn. For the moment, the injunction prohibits the planting of GE seeds, allowing the plaintiffs time to gather support for their case.

In the U.S., there have been several injunctions against GE crops that have temporarily stopped their planting. For example, in 2007, a U.S. District judge filed an injunction against the planting or sale of GE alfalfa until the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) conducted a legally required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Four years later, upon completing the EIS —which determined unregulated GE alfalfa would contaminate natural alfalfa, cause the loss of U.S. export markets, dramatically increase pesticide use, and drive the rise of Roundup-resistant superweeds— USDA announced plans to again deregulate GE alfalfa. In response, Beyond Pesticides along with other environmental and farming organizations filed a suit challenging the agency’s deregulation. In 2012, a U.S. District Judge in San Francisco ruled that USDA’s decision to deregulate GE alfalfa was not unlawful.

The explosion of GE crops on the market has led to growing pest and weed resistance, which has resulted in increased pesticide use. This treadmill threatens wildlife, particularly sensitive species. A 2012 study found the herbicide Roundup (glyphosate), which is sprayed on thousands of acres of Roundup Ready corn and soybeans, to induce morphological changes in three species of frogs. GE crop-induced herbicide applications are also indirectly affecting the health of beneficial species. Widespread applications of Roundup destroy sanctuary land and the plant species that support beneficial insects and other wildlife.

The best way to stop the planting of genetically engineered crops in the U.S. is to purchase foods that have the USDA certified organic seal. Under organic certification standards, genetically modified organisms and their byproducts are prohibited from food production. For more information on this issue, see Beyond Pesticides’ webpage on genetic engineering and see our related Daily News entries.

To mark World Food Day, GM-Free Maharashtra screens film on agri giant

To mark World Food Day, GM-Free Maharashtra screens film on agri giant

The World According to Monsanto, a film by Marie-Monique Robin was screened by GM-Free Maharashtra (a group created across the state to inform, discuss and take collective action whenever required to keep the seed, crop and tree cultivation and distribution in Maharashtra GM-free) to mark the occasion of World Food Day. The screening took place at Comet Media Foundation, Mumbai, on Wednesday.

The film provided an indepth look at the domination of the agriculture industry by one of the world’s largest sustainable agriculture company called Monsanto. The company has been facing a lot of flak from across the world for genetically-modified (GM) offerings.

The film combined various secret documents with first-hand accounts by victims, scientists, and politicians, and attempted to expose why the company had become the world’s poster child for malignant corporate influence in government and technology. 

The film further showcased how various regions from different countries faced issues because of the use of generic trans fats produced by Monsanto. It pointed out how various products by the company adversely affected human health and biodiversity. One of them being PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls).

It also threw light on India and the situation in Vidarbha region of Maharashtra. FnBnews

At the end of the screening, there was a group discussion on the film in which Geeta Jhamb, and Shaheen Contractor, researcher, The LEAF Initiative, were among those who participated. Jhamb said, “Such companies, which bring and promote GM products, don’t really intend for green revolution in India, in fact, what they do can be called as gene revolution.”

Food security: feeding the future

Rajni Bakshi is Gandhi Peace Fellow at Gateway House: Indian Council on Global Relations. 

The war over genetically modified organisms is a part of a larger and increasingly complicated global struggle

A controversy surrounding the World Food Prize (WFP) highlights how the fault-lines of power struggles are no longer essentially between nations. Civil society organizations across the world are taking on corporations and governments over who will secure our food future.

Interestingly, both WFP and its counter, an activist initiative known as the Food Sovereignty Prize, are based in the US. This year’s WFP is being shared by three biotechnology scientists for their work on genetically modified foods—two of them senior executives of agri-industry giants Monsanto and Syngenta. The Food Sovereignty Prize has gone to a peasant organization in Haiti with honourable mentions to a farmers group in Spain, one in Mali and the Tamil Nadu Women’s Collective in India.

WFP, which has sometimes been referred to as the Nobel for agriculture, was founded in 1987. It was instituted by Nobel Laureate Norman E. Borlaug, commonly known as the father of the Green Revolution.

The Food Sovereignty Prize, in contrast, is the work of an activist network called the US Food Sovereignty Alliance. Members of this alliance include a wide range of groups working to end poverty, rebuild local food economies, and assert democratic control over the food system.

This tableau easily lends itself to a one-dimensional narrative. Proponents of genetically modified organisms (GMO) dismiss the protesters as being anti-science and anti-growth. The protesters condemn GMO as a Frankenstein technology than endangers both human health and bio-diversity. Both sides accuse each other of endangering future food security.

Over the last decade this polarization has manifested itself in most countries, including India. There is an urgent need to at least look beyond, if not overcome, this stalemate.

There are two dimensions to this dispute. One is over what is good science and how we might make choices about technology. The other has to do with the clash between command-and-control business models versus more equitable models that foster economic democracy.

Interestingly, Borlaug is best known for integrating various streams of agricultural research into viable technologies. Today, a plurality of approaches to agri-technology is the bone of contention. The “GMO war”, which tends to generate the loudest headlines, is one part of a larger and increasingly complicated global struggle.

There is no dispute about the need to accelerate responsible agriculture and lift millions of people out of poverty. But how is this goal to be met?

This is why the World Bank and the Food and Agriculture Organization in 2002 initiated the International Assessment on Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technologies for Development (IAASTD) as an initiative involving scientists, government officials and private sector representatives from 110 countries.

The IAASTD report, released in April 2008, concluded that current models of industrial agriculture cannot ensure future food security. While the report did not reject GMO, it clearly concluded that there is no basis for saying that future food security depends on GMO. The US, Canada and Australia were conspicuous among countries that refused to be signatories to the final report. However, the UK and France joined numerous developing nations in adopting the IAASTD report.

This means that all claims about GMO—for or against—need closer scrutiny. Anyone who suggests that science has settled the matter is not quite telling the truth.

It is, however, concerns about economic democracy that drive much of the opposition to the agri-business tilt of WFP. Entities such as the US Food Sovereignty Alliance are essentially opposed to business models that are privatizing seeds and promoting chemical-dependent agriculture that becomes more and more capital intensive. In particular, they are opposed to patent regimes that ensure that more and more of the surplus generated benefits a handful of firms.

These fears have grown following the US Supreme Court judgement, earlier this year, in the case of Monsanto vs Bowman. In a unanimous ruling, the court said that farmers cannot replant harvest from Monsanto’s patented genetically-altered soybeans without paying the company a fee. Though the legal implications of the ruling are said to be limited, it has nevertheless strengthened the case of those who oppose corporate control of agriculture.

It is not clear how this power struggle between big agri-business and other models of agriculture will be resolved. But the events in Des Moines this week may have a silver lining.

Ghana’s cardinal Peter Turkson, who is also president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, has been invited to speak at WFP ceremony. He also plans to appear at an event hosted by the Occupy the World Food Prize campaign. Turkson has earlier described economic dependence on agri business as a new form of slavery because “…if poor farmers have to buy every seed that they plant then it limits their ability and freedom to plant and grow food.” There is a need for many more leaders who, like Turkson, are keen to find a solution acceptable to both sides. Mint

Washington state sues lobbyists over campaign against GMO labeling

A lobbying group for major U.S. food manufacturers has violated campaign finance laws in its attempt to block a measure that would require labeling of genetically modified foods in Washington state, according to a lawsuit filed Wednesday by the state's attorney general.

State Attorney General Bob Ferguson alleges that the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA) illegally collected and spent more than $7 million while shielding the identity of its contributors.

GMA, which represents some of the largest food and beverage companies in the world, has been heavily lobbying against ballot initiative 522, set for a public vote in Washington state on November 5. The measure requires labels of goods containing ingredients made from genetically engineered crops as well as labeling of genetically engineered seeds and seed products sold in the state.

"Truly fair elections demand all sides follow the rules by disclosing who their donors are and how much they are spending to advocate their views," Ferguson said in a statement.

GMA is the largest donor to a "No on I-522" campaign, and the Attorney General's office said that the group set up a "Defense of Brands Strategic Account" within its organization and asked members to pay assessments that would be used to oppose the GMO labeling initiative. GMA then funded opposition efforts while shielding contributors' names from public disclosure, the attorney general alleges.

More than 300 companies are listed as members on GMA's website.

The attorney general's office said it would seek a temporary restraining order asking the court to order the GMA to immediately comply with state disclosure laws. The attorney general's office also said it would request civil penalties.

The group said in a statement that it was surprised by the lawsuit.

"GMA takes great care to understand and comply with all state election and campaign finance laws," the group said. "GMA will review its actions in Washington state and relevant statutes and continue to cooperate with state authorities to fully resolve the issue as promptly as possible."

The Yes on 522 campaign, which is pushing for labeling of GMO foods, said it was heartened by the lawsuit. The proponents of labeling are being heavily outspent in advertising and other campaigning efforts leading up to the election.

The latest campaign finance data reported to the state shows opponents raising more than $17 million and spending more than $13 million, compared to the proponents of labeling, who have raised about $5.5 million and spent about $5.4 million.

"It's clear that they broke the law," said Elizabeth Larter, spokeswoman for the Yes campaign. "They don't want to tell us who is funding the No on 522 campaign just like they don't want Washington consumers to know what is in their food." Reuters

World Food Prize takes on biotech, global warming

The World Food Prize Foundation is confronting both opposition to genetically modified crops and the divisive issue of global warming as experts and national leaders gather this week to talk about feeding a growing global population.

This year's prize was awarded to three biotechnology pioneers, including   scientist who works for Monsanto, which donates to the foundation.

The news infuriated environmental groups and opponents of large-scale farming.

The Occupy World Food Prize organization vows to protest again this year; several members were arrested last year.

The group claims genetically modified crops and large-scale farms supported by corporations are destroying family farms and the environment.

The World Food Prize attracts about 1,000 scientists, policy experts, and political leaders. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to attend this year. AP

New bill would block expansion of GMOs in Costa Rica

New bill would block expansion of GMOs in Costa Rica

Several lawmakers are supporting a bill that would place stringent controls on the growth of GMO crops. Costa Rica is the Central American country that most scrutinizes GMOs, and many Ticos oppose the use of biotech crops.

Costa Rican lawmakers proposed a bill Wednesday that would put a moratorium on the production of GMOs. Biotech companies say the move is "unnecessary." 

Environmentalists spread corn kernels and beat drums 

outside of San José's Legislative Assembly on Wednesday as four lawmakers announced their support for a bill that would place a moratorium on the expansion of genetically modified organisms in Costa Rica.

“This moratorium is urgent,” said José María Villalta, a lawmaker with the Broad Front Party and one of the bill’s sponsors. “GMOs pose risks to life and biodiversity, while only benefitting large corporations.”

The bill would prohibit the creation of new GMO projects or the expansion of those currently in Costa Rica. Companies that already have permission to grow or use GMOs could continue, but any genetically modified material would have to be contained indoors.

While environmental groups applauded the bill, biotechnology firms called a moratorium “unnecessary.”

“It is important to stress that countries resort to moratoriums when there is a reasonable doubt about a new technology,” said Martín Zúñiga, executive director for biotechnology company CropLife Latin America. “Agricultural biotechnology is a science that has been sufficiently investigated and proven to be positive for the world."