GM Free Churches - A Project of Berea Gardens Agriculture Center

GM Soybean Receives USDA Deregulation

2012-01-04T07:41:00.000-05:00

MON 87705, a genetically modified soybean traded as Monsanto's Vistive®Gold oybeans has received deregulation approval by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The GM soybean produces soybean oil with increased levels of monounsaturated fat while significantly lowering saturated fat.
"With the availability of Vistive®Gold soybeans, farmers will soon be able to deliver an economical and sustainable source of nutritionally improved soybean oil to consumers and food companies," said Joe Cornelius, Monsanto global technology lead for food quality traits.
This USDA deregulation completes the regulatory processes in the United States, that would allow field testing and seed production within the United States, under strict stewardship guidelines until Monsanto has obtained the necessary regulatory approvals in the key soybean export markets. The Food and Drug Administration completed the consultation process in January 2011. The trait has also been approved for use in Canada.
See the news release at http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/vistive-gold-usda-deregulation The Registry can be viewed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-16/pdf/2011-32323.pdf

Don't like the term GMO? How about "Molecular Breeding?"

2012-01-04T07:39:00.000-05:00

Vivienne M Anthony and Marco Ferroni of Syngenta Foundation for Sustainable Agriculture, Switzerland reported the potential role of agricultural biotechnology in improving crop yields of farmers from developing countries. There has been rapid adoption of biotech crops by smallholder farmers in developing countries especially in China, India, and other Asian, African, and Central/South American countries. Molecular breeding has helped several research breakthroughs but release of new varieties has been slow at the same time. Thus, the authors recommend improvements in seed systems which are vital for enhanced crop genetics to reach farmers.
Read more at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0958166911007312.

Tell the FDA to Label Genetically Modified Food

2011-10-05T07:04:00.003-04:00

GM Biotech Revenues Increase in U.S.

2011-09-03T16:56:00.003-04:00

Biodesic 2011 Bioeconomy Update reports that "within the United States, more than 50% of cropland is now planted in genetically modified (GM) seed resulting in 2010 revenues of nearly $110 billion." Biodesic is an engineering, design and consulting firm based in Seattle, Washington.

For 2010, total revenues from GM products including those of biologics and industrial biotechnology exceeded $300 billion or the equivalent of more than 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The report further notes that "revenues from GM crops are growing rapidly and are substantially larger than generally reported."

GM corn, soy, and cotton earned $100 billion in U.S. farm scale revenues in 2010. GM sugar beets contributed over $1.5 billion while GM papaya, canola, and other crops gave another billion dollars. "Continued increases in GM crop acreage in the next few years will certainly raise the total, with revenues from GM alfalfa contributing $1-2 billion dollars next year," the report added.

The full report can be downloaded at http://www.biodesic.com/library/Biodesic_2011_Bioeconomy_Update.pdf.

Monsanto rolls out GMO sweet corn

2011-08-21T00:00:00.002-04:00

NOTE: This press release was issued by "The Packer," a fresh produce industry publication for industrial food crops.

08/17/2011 9:57:17 AM
Andy Nelson

Vegetable seed giant Monsanto Co. is entering the genetically modified sweet corn market earlier than expected, but how soon consumers will get over their fear of GMOs remains to be seen.

Creve Coeur, Mo.-based Monsanto will sell GMO sweet corn for plantings this fall, said Danielle Stuart, a company spokeswoman. Originally, rollout of the product was slated for 2012.

The seed, to be sold under Monsanto’s Seminis Performance Series label, protects against European corn borers, corn earworms, fall army worms and corn rootworm larvae and is resistant to Roundup weed control herbicides, Stuart said.

Boise, Idaho-based Rogers Brand Vegetable Seeds, a division of Basel, Switzerland-based Syngenta International AG, introduced its Attribute brand GMO sweet corn seed in 1998.

Even after 13 years, however, consumer resistance to GMO sweet corn remains high, grower-shippers say.

E. Miedema & Sons, Byron Center, Mich., uses GMO seed on about 100 of its 700 sweet corn acres, said Dave Miedema, the company’s president.

GMO seed provides good disease and pest protection, Miedema said, but consumer resistance has checked category growth.

“It definitely has a place, but you always have to be careful,” he said. “Certain customers won’t accept it.”

GMO sweet corn has been the victim of propaganda, not legitimate criticism, Miedema said.

“It’s just PR,” he said. “It’s silly. It’s just people’s perceptions.”

Miedema said consumers’ attitudes toward GMOs haven’t changed much in recent years.

Those attitudes will likely change, but it hasn’t happened yet, said John Gill, owner of Hurley, N.Y.-based Gill Corn Farms Inc.

Because of consumer resistance, Gill Corn Farms doesn’t grow any GMO sweet corn.

People already eat plenty of GMO foods, including grains and chicken, Gill said. That’s one of the reasons he thinks they’ll eventually come around on sweet corn and other produce commodities.

GMO foods are not only safe, Gill said. They’re also environmentally friendly, since they require fewer pesticides.

Biotech Country Facts and Trends

2011-07-11T09:12:00.002-04:00

Biotech Country Facts and Trends are one- to two-page summaries that highlight the commercialization of biotech crops in the developing countries. Data on biotech crop commercialization (hectarage and adoption), approvals and planting, benefits and future prospects in each country are presented in a brief and easily understandable manner. The contents are all based on the annual ISAAA Brief on the Global Report of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, authored by Clive James.

Genetically modified food labels don't sit well in U.S.

2011-07-10T15:55:00.000-04:00

By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

July 10, 2011

Activists rejoiced last week when a hard-fought battle over international standards for labeling genetically modified food came to an end — finally — after decades of debate.

But the agreement, which many say opens the door for labels to be placed on such foods, will probably have little effect on food labels in the U.S. for the foreseeable future.

And that could be a good thing, some scientists said.

"The public gets bogged down on whether [crops are] genetically engineered or not. We think that's a distraction," said Pamela Ronald, a professor of plant pathology at UC Davis. "The consumer needs to know: Is it safe to eat?"

Delegates to the so-called Codex Alimentarius Commission, a body created in 1963 by the United Nations to set voluntary standards for food safety and handling, have been arguing over labels for genetically engineered food for the better part of 20 years.

Concerned that the biotech food is not adequately tested and could be unsafe for people or the environment, some countries, particularly ones in Europe, have pushed for mandatory labeling. Others, including the U.S., have argued that such labels are misleading because the genetically modified products that are on the market have been thoroughly tested and deemed safe.

Requiring that genetically engineered foods be labeled as such would be unfair, said Nathan Field, director of biotechnology and economic analysis at the National Corn Growers Assn. in St. Louis, echoing the feelings of many in the food production industry.

"There is no nutritional content difference between the products," he said. Genetic engineering "doesn't affect the environment or food or feed quality in any way. If there's no evidence they're different, there shouldn't be a label."

But some consumer advocates argue that chronic effects of eating genetically engineered foods could go undetected by what they see as lax oversight.

"Consumers have a legitimate right to be skeptical, given the imperfections of our safety system," said Doug Gurian-Sherman, a senior scientist at the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C.

On Tuesday in Geneva, Codex delegates agreed on guidance that had been cobbled together to give each side of the debate a little bit of what they wanted.

The document declared on the one hand that "different approaches regarding labeling of foods derived from modern biotechnology are used" around the world. And, in what was probably a concession to the U.S., it also declared that it "is not intended to suggest or imply that foods derived from modern biotechnology are necessarily different from other foods." The document then pointed to 10 existing Codex standards that countries should comply with in food labeling.

Though this might seem like a very modest achievement after 20 years of consideration, it broke up a logjam and — simply by laying out some ground rules — legitimized the practice of labeling genetically modified foods.

"This is a major victory and milestone for consumer rights," said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for the Consumers Union, a consumer advocacy organization in Yonkers, N.Y.

Still, the agreement fell short of what many activists, including Halloran, wanted because it didn't call for mandatory labeling. Countries are free to do what they want.

In some Latin American and African countries — "battlegrounds" where consumer groups are fighting for labeling laws, Halloran said — that might very well mean new labeling policies. But the Codex decision is highly unlikely to affect practices in places like the U.S. and Canada, where many genetically engineered crops are grown and products are consumed. In the U.S., more than 70% of processed foods contain genetically engineered or biotech ingredients.

Labeling here is voluntary; what labeling exists is mostly used to declare that a food has no genetically modified ingredients. Products labeled organic, for instance, fall into this category.

The official acknowledgement that genetically modified foods can be labeled does at least mean that countries that label such foods shouldn't have to worry about sparking trade disputes, Halloran said. "It seems to us a major step forward."

In Europe, where modified foods are labeled, the European Union Parliament is taking steps to go much further: It voted last week on draft legislation to give countries greater authority to ban such crops altogether.

While critics of genetically modified foods said they believed oversight in the U.S. is too lax, many scientists say that ample studies have demonstrated the items are safe.

"People have been eating products from genetically modified crops for almost 15 years," said UCLA molecular biologist Bob Goldberg, who helped develop a genetically engineered canola plant that is widely planted in Canada and produces more oil than conventional canola. "They've been more tested than any food product you can imagine, without even a sneeze."

Ronald of UC Davis, who is married to an organic farmer and whose lab has genetically engineered rice for resistance to diseases and flooding, wonders why more consumers don't worry about unintended consequences arising from conventionally bred crops. One type of celery, for example, was conventionally bred to resist insects. But it caused allergic reactions in farmworkers during the harvest.

"Everything we eat has been genetically improved by some method," she said. When crops are altered by genetic engineering, she added, the process is regulated. Conventional breeding methods are not.

"The most important aspect isn't how the seed is developed — but can it be used to increase food security, reduce insecticide use, foster good soil and improve the lives of farmers and communities?" she said. "I would like to see barcode labeling where you see, 'This conventionally bred cotton shirt was grown using insecticides. This genetically engineered cotton shirt was not.' But I don't see us getting that information."

eryn.brown@latimes.com

China Ratifies 7 GM Crops

2011-07-03T08:59:00.002-04:00

China has issued biological safety certificates to seven GM crops including cotton and papaya. Aside from GM cotton, other GM crops have been planted in small-scales in China such as delayed-ripening tomatoes, phytase corn, pest-resistant rice, and disease-resistant peppers.

China's national agricultural GM biosafety evaluation authority ratified imports of genetically modified cotton, soybean, corn, and rape. China only allows imported cotton to be used for planting, and the other three imports can only be used as materials for processing. Most GM imports of China come from the U. S., Canada, Brazil, and Argentina.

Read the original article at http://english.cri.cn/6909/2011/06/28/189s645259.htm.

USDA Announces Decision to Deregulate Genetically Engineered Corn Seed

2011-07-03T08:56:00.002-04:00

The USDA in its Federal Register recently issued a non-regulated status to Pioneer Hi-Bred International's GM corn event DP32138-2. The line has been genetically engineered to produce male-sterile/female inbred plants to generate non-transgenic hybrid corn. The decision is based on evaluation data and on the comments received from the public in response to public solicitations on the environmental assessment and plant pest risk assessment. Documents on the written determination and findings of no significant impact are now available to the public.

See http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/2011/06/engineered_corn_seed.shtml for complete details

House Moves to Ban GE Salmon, Ag Debates Continue

2011-06-16T20:21:00.000-04:00

by Helena Bottemiller | Jun 16, 2011

The House of Representatives continued debate yesterday on an agriculture appropriations bill that affects key food safety programs. The bill still contains significant cuts to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service, but has yet to be adopted by the lower chamber.

Lawmakers spent the better part of Tuesday and Wednesday debating a series of amendments affecting a wide variety of programs--from federal nutrition to conservation to food safety.

Late Wednesday, the House approved an amendment by Congressman Don Young (R-AK) that would bar the FDA from spending money to approve an application for controversial genetically-engineered (GE) salmon. If the agency were to approve the GE fish--which grow rapidly, reducing cost of production--it would be the first GE animal approved for human consumption.

The measure passed the Republican-controlled House by voice vote.

AquaBounty, the company that developed the salmon technology, insists the salmon pose no threat to human health and will be kept out of wild salmon populations; but consumer groups and much of the seafood industry remain staunchly opposed to the idea.

The modified fish, formally known as AquaAdvantage salmon, are essentially Atlantic salmon with an inserted growth gene from a Chinook salmon and an antifreeze gene from an ocean pout. They grow twice as fast as typical Atlantic salmon and require approximately 10 percent less feed to achieve the same weight.

Lawmakers from salmon states--who often call GE salmon "alien fish," "frankenfish" or "monsters"-- have been fighting for months to pass legislation to block FDA's expected approval of the fish.

"Frankenfish threatens our wild stocks, their habitat, our food safety, and would bring economic harm to Alaska's wild salmon fishermen," said Senator Begich (D-AK) in February, when a similar measure was introduced in the upper chamber, adding that he believes the modified fish are "risky, unprecedented and unnecessary."

AquaBounty argues that its Salmon would complement, not harm, existing wild fisheries.

"The availability of AquAdvantage Salmon can help meet demand for a safe and sustainable food by providing a US-grown farmed Atlantic salmon, without stressing the valuable and finite Alaskan fisheries, preserving their markets," the company has stated.

However, members of Congress from several key salmon states, on both sides of the aisle, have now signed onto bills to block the salmon. The Senate has not yet voted on the matter.

The House is expected to continue debate on the agriculture appropriations and to vote on the spending bill this week.

China Genetically Modifying Cows To Produce Human Breast Milk

2011-06-09T06:58:00.000-04:00

Updated: Wednesday, 08 Jun 2011, 7:54 AM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 08 Jun 2011, 7:54 AM EDT

BY NEWSCORE

BEIJING - Chinese scientists have genetically modified dairy cows to produce human breast milk, and hope to be selling it in supermarkets within three years.

The milk produced by the transgenic cows is identical to the human variety, with the same immune-boosting and antibacterial qualities as breast milk, scientists at China's Agricultural University in Beijing said.

The transgenic herd of 300 was bred by inserting human genes into cloned cow embryos which were then implanted into surrogate cows. The technology used was similar to that used to produce Dolly the sheep, the first mammal to be cloned by scientists, in Scotland.

The milk is still undergoing safety tests, but with government permission it will be sold to consumers as a more nutritious dairy drink than cow's milk.

Workers at the university's dairy farm have already tasted the milk -- and said it is sweeter and stronger than the bovine variety, according to Sky News .

"It's good," said worker Jiang Yao. "It's better for you because it's genetically modified."
The scientists have also produced animals that are resistant to mad cow disease, as well as beef cattle that are genetically modified to produce more nutritious meat.

The director of the research project, Professor Li Ning, said Western concerns about the ethics of genetic modification are misplaced.

"There are 1.5 billion people in the world who don't get enough to eat," he said. "It's our duty to develop science and technology, not to hold it back. We need to feed people first, before we consider ideals and convictions."

Bill to Accelerate Biotech Approvals in U.S.

2011-06-07T06:49:00.000-04:00

Representative Stephen Fincher, a congressman from Tennessee, USA, introduced a legislation to speed up the process of approval for biotech crops. Fincher, who is also a farmer, called the bill as 'Expediting Agriculture Through Science (EATS) Act'. The legislation would allow Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to have 180 days "to approve or deny a petition for non-regulated status, with an additional 60 days if needed to ensure the safety of the environment and compliance is met before deeming the petition approved."

Fincher emphasized the need for a more efficient approval process to keep the U.S. farmers leaders in biotech crop production.

The original news is available at http://brownfieldagnews.com/2011/05/31/bill-would-accelerate-biotech-approvals/.

The problem with GM nutritionally enhanced plants - study

2011-05-10T20:17:00.002-04:00

Perspective: The Problem with Nutritionally Enhanced Plants
David R. Schubert
Cellular Neurobiology Laboratory, The Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, California
JOURNAL OF MEDICINAL FOOD
J Med Food 11 (4) 2008, 000–000
http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jmf.2008.0094

ABSTRACT Among the next generation of genetically modified (GM) plants are those that are engineered to produce elevated levels of nutritional molecules such as vitamins, omega-3 fatty acids, and amino acids. Based upon the U.S. current regulatory scheme, the plants and their products may enter our food supply without any required safety testing. The potential risks of this type of GM plant are discussed in the context of human health, and it is argued that there should be very careful safety testing of plants designed to produce biologically active molecules before they are commercially grown and consumed. This will require a mandatory, scientifically rigorous review process.

CONCLUSIONS
The above paragraphs summarize published data that clearly show the following: (1) Compounds structurally related to a common small molecule can have a lethal effect when present as even a minor contaminant in a food supplement. (2) The GM enhancement of a metabolic pathway by the overexpression of genes for that pathway can have unpredictable consequences in the form of synthesizing a toxin. (3) Finally, in the case of golden rice, it is argued that biologically active compounds derived from aberrant plant carotenoid synthesis could have profound effects on human development. Similar arguments can be made for NEP-derived fatty acids that are directly incorporated into brain lipids and about NEPs overproducing vitamin E. Aberrant fatty acid composition of brain lipids is implicated in Alzheimer's disease, and vitamin E has a role similar to RA in mammalian development. The excess consumption of a nutrient can also have negative effects. For example, a clinical trial with vitamin E supplementation showed that a relatively small dose increased the risk of heart failure, and smokers who supplemented their diet with -carotene had an increased risk of lung cancer. Therefore, there is a potential for nutrient toxicity in NEPs because upper tolerable levels of many nutrients are not well established and are likely to vary between individuals and lifestyles.

The information presented here shows that not only the potential harm of the product should be considered for risk assessment, but the GM process itself. The data clearly invalidate the argument that "the regulatory trigger for risk assessment should be based upon the physical features of the product rather than the process by which the product was generated." While it is true that traditional breeding methods can give rise to potentially hazardous products, the most recent assessment of GM food safety by the National Research Council stated that GM "has a higher probability of producing unanticipated changes than some genetic modification methods", but it curiously concludes by stating that the risk of GM technology is no greater than conventional breeding methods. There are, in fact, no data comparing the food safety profiles of GM versus conventional breeding, and the ubiquitous argument that since there is no evidence that GM products make people sick, they are safe (see, for example, McHughen and Smyth, Bradford et al., and Miller et al.) is both illogical and false. There are, again, simply no data or even valid assays to support this contention. Without proper epidemiological studies, most types of harm will not be detected, and no such studies have been conducted. The necessity of labeling all GM products and particularly NEPs is therefore critical if there is any hope of monitoring adverse health consequences due to their consumption. For example, it would have been impossible to identify the source of the toxic tryptophan supplement if the product were not traceable through labeling.

It follows that before NEPs producing biologically active molecules such as beta -carotene, omega-3 fatty acids, or vitamin E are introduced into the food chain, great care must be taken to do rigorous, multigenerational animal safety assessments with the hope of identifying risks to health (for methods, see, for example, the 2007 publication by the National Toxicology Program and Pusztai and Bardocz). In addition, the products must be labeled and traceable, and the unpredictable and unintended metabolic changes that may occur in NEPs require the thorough testing of the entire edible portion of the plant, not just the designated product as is almost always done by biotech companies. To date there is essentially no multigenerational animal safety testing published for GM plants and no required labeling in the United States for any GM product. In an excellent review of our current GM regulatory process, Mandel concluded that for second-generation GM products, like NEPs, "it is necessary to establish a comprehensive, efficient and scientifically rigorous regulatory system." As discussed herein there are very valid scientific concerns to support this conclusion.

USDA Decision on Deregulation of GM Plums

2011-04-21T07:19:00.000-04:00

Scientists in West Virginia have planted purple-black HoneySweet plums, which are one of the two transgenic fruit trees approved by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). This genetically engineered (GE) fruit has been developed by the scientists of USDA to fight the emerging, invasive plum pox virus, which has infected 100 million trees in Europe and surfaced in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New York during the past 12 years.

"We couldn't find a gene for plum pox resistance in any plums, so we turned to genetic engineering," says Ralph Scorza, a horticulturist and lead scientist at the USDA's Appalachian Fruit Research Station. "We've had test-field plantings in Europe since 1996 and the U.S. since 1995, and we've never had a single tree infected."

HoneySweet plums have been in the GM approval pipeline for eight years and will clear final regulatory hurdles this year. Scorza said that he does not expect farmers to plant the GE plum since plum pox can still be managed. But when the pathogen causes outbreaks in the U.S., especially in California which is the largest producer of prunes, HoneySweet will be of great help to producers.
For more details, read http://audubonmagazine.org/features1103/biotech.html.

Seed saving, seed banks, Monsanto and Gates

2011-04-17T01:00:00.000-04:00

Seed Saving and Seed Banks
By Andrew Kimbrell, Executive Director
Center For Food Safety
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/campaign/save-our-seeds/seed-saving-and-seed-banks/

My first experience with the perils of large scale seed banks was the scandal that erupted over the Fort Collins collection in the mid 1980s. Journalists had published stories dramatically detailing the grossly negligent manner in which deposits to the seed bank were treated. Numerous seed deposits were spilling out onto the floors of the facility, the facility was woefully understaffed, there was no testing of the seed and a virtually complete failure of required regeneration - in short a seed saving disaster. A legal petition by my organization to rectify the decision seemed to get the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) attention. But when no real action resulted we litigated. I was a very active member of that legal team. As such I reviewed much of the material in the case that documented USDA’s complete disregard for the safety and integrity of the seeds under its care. This litigation ultimately forced a settlement where USDA agreed to do an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and conditions at the seed bank improved somewhat.

Since that first experience I learned that bigger is definitely not better or safer when it comes to seed saving. As noted elsewhere on this site, the Center for Food Safety (CFS) strongly advocates for in situ protection of plant diversity, and when ex situ seed saving is required it should reside at the most local and ecologically appropriate level. This has been one of the bases for CFS’ longstanding concerns about the Svalbard Global Seed Vault. Not surprisingly these fears have recently been justified. In December 2010 NordGen, the entity overseeing Svalbard, fired its Director Jessica Kathle. Some at NordGen believed that she was a “scapegoat” for the seed bank’s well known problems including continuing deficits, significant understaffing, and failure to do routine tests on the deposited seed to determine viability. (http://dagendresen.wordpress.com/about/Dot.) Sadly it seems like the Fort Collins fiasco redux.

There is however yet another important concern about Svalbard. The Global Crop Diversity Trust (GCDT), which supports the operational costs of Svalbard, has received almost $30 million dollars in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (Global Diversity Trust, “Funding Status 1-1-2011.” http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php) This is by far the largest support of any non-governmental entity. As is well known, the Gates Foundation has very close working ties to Monsanto. The Gates Foundation invested $23 million in Monsanto in 2010 to help the company through some financial woes, and has been a determined supporter of spreading Monsanto’s genetically engineered crops throughout the developing world. In 2006 the Gates Foundation hired Rob Horsch, a former Monsanto Vice President and a key scientist involved in the creation of the company’s Round Up Ready crops in the 1980s, as their Senior Program Officer for their International Agriculture Development Program. This Monsanto connection to Svalbard is very troubling as the corporation owns almost a quarter of all the world’s commercial seeds and is the world’s leader in the genetic engineering of crops and the patenting of plant genetics (including plant genes, cells and seeds). Monsanto has also had a decade long history of persecuting and prosecuting thousands of farmers for saving seeds.

Svalbard’s ties to the Gates Foundation and Monsanto are not the only issue. Only two private corporations have donated to the GCDT. Dupont/Pioneer Seeds has donated $1 million as has Syngenta. (Global Diversity Trust, “Funding Status 1-1-2011.” http://www.croptrust.org/main/funds.php)Together these two companies own another 25% of the world’s commercial seeds and are also among the leaders in agriculture biotechnology and in patenting of plant genetics. So a major question looms. Why this interest by these biotech companies and their surrogates in paying the operational costs of Svalbard? These companies have no record of altruistic concern for the integrity and diversity of seeds and have in fact been destroying that diversity through genetic engineering and patenting for decades. The most obvious hypothesis is that these corporations see in Svalbard an opportunity to gain further control of the world’s plant genetics — being able to utilize the seed bank as a resource for germplasm that can be used for creating patentable hybrid or genetically engineered seed varieties.

To test that hypothesis I requested that the CFS legal team investigate the deposit agreements at Svalbard. The point of this analysis was to see if in some way the contract between Svalbard and depositors created an advantage for these corporations in their efforts to control and patent seed genetics. As the legal memorandum reveals, the answer to the question is “yes.” The Svalbard agreement does provide corporations seeking to patent plant genetics additional advantages in their efforts.

Determining this, however, turned out to be no easy task. As the following legal memorandum indicates, the Svalbard deposit agreement is extremely complicated, opaque, at times downright misleading and involves difficult questions and interpretations of international law. The very complexity of this deposit agreement is another major red flag with Svalbard. Numerous seed banks only require a simple Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with depositors. This allows for informed consent by the depositors. By contrast, there is little chance that some seed banks and collections, especially those that are local, smaller scale and/or from developing countries, have the legal expertise, or funding to hire attorneys to decipher the myriad complications of the Svalbard contract. Meanwhile the GCDT, and its supporting biotech companies and their surrogates, are advertising how they are spending millions of dollars trying to acquire local and smaller seed collections from developing countries for Svalbard. As noted, these local collectors have little chance to understand, much less give informed consent, to what can happen to their deposits. As will be discussed in the Memorandum, this informed consent problem, and the issue of corporate patenting of the genetics of the seeds deposited in Svalbard, can only be resolved through major revisions in the Agreement.

CFS will continue to monitor both the operational and legal aspects of the Svalbard Global Seed Vault and provide on this website new material and analysis on an ongoing basis.

View CFS Legal Memorandum
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Legal-Memorandum.FINAL_.pdf

For an alarming example of the damage that the usurping of local seed saving by Svalbard advocates can cause, and for a trenchant critique of Svalbard, please see a recent speech given by Kent Whealy at Wes Jackson’s Land Institute on what happened to the Seed Savers Exchange which he founded and tended for more than three decades.

Kent Whealy Speech
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Land-Inst-Svalbard-portion.pdf

Kent Whealy Response
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Response-Final.pdf

ORGANIC FARMERS AND SEED SELLERS SUE MONSANTO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM PATENTS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED

2011-03-30T21:04:00.002-04:00

Preemptive Action Seeks Ruling That Would Prohibit Monsanto From Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Contaminated By Roundup Ready Seed
http://www.pubpat.org/osgatavmonsantofiled.htm

NEW YORK – March 29 2011 – On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant's patents on genetically modified seed.   The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald.   Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's transgenic seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT's Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”

Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of contamination. Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa now face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too. Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.

In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto's genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto's patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don't meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT's Ravicher, plaintiffs' lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false.

“Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that's not possible, and it's actually in Monsanto's financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher. “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB's and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”

The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm's Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature's Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.

Many of the plaintiffs made statements upon filing of the suit today.

Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association based in Montrose, Colorado, said, "Today is Independence Day for America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto's threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto's genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace - to decide what kind of food they will feed their families - and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose.   Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops for our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto's genetic contamination and without harassment by a reckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food."

Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, “Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs. On behalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and risk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice.”

Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, “The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers livelihood, public health and people’s right to non GMO food contamination.”

Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, “It's outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing 'Buy Local' market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto.”

David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, “Vermont’s farmers have worked hard to meet consumers’ growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them that Monsanto’s continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and regional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods.”

Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, "For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination."

Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, “The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them for some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive. The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation.”

David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, “None of Monsanto’s original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto’s patented genes can blow onto another farmer’s fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto’s team of belligerent lawyers. Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and biologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy.”

Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, “Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary branch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts. Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington. We need to court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their 'technology,' can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country.   It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted.”

More information about PUBPAT's suit against Monsanto's seed patents can be found at PUBPAT > Monsanto Seed Patents.

Scientists Discover New Route for GM-gene 'Escape'

2011-03-06T19:49:00.000-05:00

ISIS Report 02/03/11

Genetically modified genes can jump species via wounds, yes horizontal gene transfer happens, and at high frequencies; it is the greatest, most underestimated hazard from GMOs released into the environment Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

Gene “escape” a misnomer for horizontal gene transfer

Scientists at Bristol University in the UK announced the discovery of [1] “a previously unknown route” whereby “GM genes may escape into the natural environment.” “Escape” is a misnomer. There is no need for the GM (genetically modified) genes to “escape”, when genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been released in great abundance and with gay abandon into the environment over the past 17 years. At issue is how fast and how widely the GM genes can spread, and what dire consequences could arise.

The “escape” referred to is horizontal gene transfer – the spread of GM genes by infection and multiplication (literally like a virus) regardless of species barriers; hence the rate of spread is much more rapid, and the extent virtually unlimited. New combinations of genetic material are created at unprecedented speed; affecting species the most that reproduce the fastest, i.e., bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. Horizontal gene transfer and recombination is indeed a main route for generating new strains of bacteria and viruses that cause diseases. Genetic modification and release of GMOs into the environment is nothing if not greatly facilitated horizontal gene transfer and recombination. It has created highways for gene trafficking in place of narrow by-ways and occasional footpaths that previously existed.

Some of us have long considered horizontal gene transfer to be the most serious hidden and underestimated hazard of genetic engineering, and have alerted regulators accordingly, time and again, since GMOs were first released (see for example [3, 4] (Gene Technology and Gene Ecology of Infectious Diseases, ISIS scientific publication; Genetic Engineering Dream or Nightmare, ISIS publication). The recent “emergency” warning sent by a senior US Department of Agriculture scientist to US Secretary of Agriculture on a suspected pathogen “new to science” associated with GM crops may prove to be a case in point [5] (Emergency! Pathogen New to Science Found in Roundup Ready GM Crops? SiS 50).

Plant wounds hotspots for gene trafficking

The researchers at Bristol University showed that plant wounds, that could be created by insect bites, abrasion and other mechanical damage, are hotspots for gene trafficking due to the wound hormones produced by the plant. Under such circumstances, the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which causes crown gall disease in plants, could enlarge its host range to infect fungi, and insert foreign genes into the fungi’s genome [2]. This has large implications on the safety of GMOs already widely released into the environment.

A. tumefaciens is probably unique among natural plant pathogens in carrying out trans-Kingdom horizontal gene transfer during an infection, and it is this ability that has been widely exploited for creating GM crops, grown on an estimated 134 million hectares worldwide in 2009, and “jumped’ another 10 percent in 2010, according to industry-funded International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) [6].

Research commissioned by the UK Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in the 1990s had already revealed that it is very difficult, if not impossible to get rid of the Agrobacterium vector used in creating the transgenic plant [7], and the bacterium is likely to remain dormant even after the transgenic plants are transplanted into the soil. Hence, it is expected to facilitate horizontal gene transfer, in the first instance, to wild-type Agrobacterium in the soil, and further afield.

Disease-causing strains of A. tumefaciens have an extrachromosomal Ti (tumour-inducing) plasmid that enables the horizontal transfer of a segment of the Ti plasmid, the T-DNA, into the plant cell genome when the bacterium’s virulence (disease causing) system is activated by hormones produced by the wounded plant. This feature is exploited in creating genetically modified organisms (GMOs), by disarming the bacterium, and incorporating the virulence genes in a ‘binary’ vector that has to be used in conjunction with the disarmed Agrobacterium strain.

In the 1990s, it was shown that the range of organisms transformed by Agrobacterium could be extended if the wound hormone acetosyringone was used to induce the virulence system.
The researchers at Bristol University reasoned that as A. tumefaciens is a soil-dwelling pathogen that often infects plants through wounds, it is conceivable that the bacterium could encounter numerous species of microorganisms, including pathogenic fungi that the same method to gain entry into the plant. The wound sites are likely to be exuding wound hormones such as acetosyringone, so the bacteria are primed for T-DNA transfer.

Experiments confirmed their suspicion in full

They carried out their investigation using the wilt-causing fungus Verticillium albo-atrum, a strong candidate for encounters with Agrobacterium in the plant, as it has a similar wide host range in plants, infecting both root and crown. Previous lab experiments have shown that V. albo-atrum cannot be transformed by Agrobacterium in the absence of acetosyringone. So, if it is presented with Agrobacterium on plant tissue, and transformation does occur, it must be the plant that supplies the wound hormone.

Peeled and sliced potato tubers and carrots, leave- and stem-sections from tobacco plants were used as the plant tissues for testing. After sterilization, they were inoculated with both A. tumefaciens and V. albo-atrum and left at room temperature in a covered agar dish for a minimum of 8 days and a maximum of 42 days.

Successful transformants of V. albo-atrum were obtained from every kind of plant tissue. 2 out of 17 potato slices, 1 out of 15 carrot slices; 14 out of 42 dishes each with 3-5 leaf pieces, and 10 out of 31 stem sections (without agar plate, so as to be as close to the natural condition as possible). These transformants were confirmed with molecular genetic analyses.

Implications on risk assessments of GMOs still understated

The researchers concluded [2]: “This work therefore raises interesting questions about whether the host range of A. tumefaciens in nature is greater than just plants. It is possible that evidence of such events could be looked for retrospectively in the increasing number of genome sequences becoming available....

“In addition, the result may well have implications for the risk assessment of GM plants generated via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, as Agrobacterium can survive within plant tissue through transformation and tissue culture and can therefore be found within regenerated transgenic plants...”

This is an understatement of a serious risk that has been known almost since the first release of Agrobacterium-transformed GMOs into the environment.

The risks are far greater than admitted

We have repeatedly drawn attention to the possibility of facilitated horizontal gene transfer from GMOs created with Agrobacterium vector, which is even stronger than originally envisaged due to other discoveries made since then. I reproduce what we wrote in 2008 [8] (Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen, SiS 38), which repeats an earlier account [9] (Living with the Fluid Genome , ISIS publication) (see Box).

Agrobacterium vector a vehicle for facilitated horizontal gene transfer [8, 9]

“We have ..provided evidence strongly suggesting that the most common method of creating transgenic plants may also serve as a ready route for horizontal gene transfer [9, 10].
“Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the soil bacterium that causes crown gall disease, has been developed as a major gene transfer vector for making transgenic plants. Foreign genes are typically spliced into the T-DNA - part of a plasmid of A. tumefaciens called Ti (tumour-inducing) – which ends up integrated into the genome of the plant cell that subsequently develops into a tumour.

“But further investigations revealed that the process whereby Agrobacterium injects T-DNA into plant cells strongly resembles conjugation, the mating process between bacterial cells.
Conjugation, mediated by certain bacterial plasmids requires a sequence called the origin of transfer (oriT) on the DNA that’s transferred. All the other functions can be supplied from unlinked sources, referred to as ‘trans-acting functions’ (or tra). Thus, ‘disabled’ plasmids, with no trans-acting functions, can nevertheless be transferred by ‘helper’ plasmids that carry genes coding for the trans-acting functions. And that’s the basis of a complicated vector system devised, involving Agrobacterium T-DNA, which has been used for creating numerous transgenic plants.

“It soon transpired that the left and right borders of the T-DNA are similar to oriT, and can be replaced by it. Furthermore, the disarmed T-DNA, lacking the trans-acting functions (virulence genes that contribute to disease), can be helped by similar genes belonging to many other pathogenic bacteria. It seems that the trans-kingdom gene transfer of Agrobacterium and the conjugative systems of bacteria are both involved in transporting macromolecules, not just DNA but also protein.

“That means transgenic plants created by the T-DNA vector system have a ready route for horizontal gene escape, via Agrobacterium, helped by the ordinary conjugative mechanisms of many other bacteria that cause diseases, which are present in the environment.

“In fact, the possibility that Agrobacterium can serve as a vehicle for horizontal gene escape was first raised in 1997 in a study sponsored by the UK Government [7, 12], which found it extremely difficult to get rid of the Agrobacterium in the vector system after transformation. Treatment with an armoury of antibiotics and repeated subculture of the transgenic plants over 13 months failed to get rid of the bacterium. Furthermore, 12.5 percent of the Agrobacterium remaining still contained the binary vector (T-DNA and helper plasmid), and were hence fully capable of transforming other plants.

“Agrobacterium not only transfers genes into plant cells; there is possibility for retrotransfer of DNA from the plant cell to Agrobacterium [13]. High rates of gene transfer are associated with the plant root system and the germinating seed, where conjugation is most likely [14]. There, Agrobacterium could multiply and transfer transgenic DNA to other bacteria, as well as to the next crop to be planted. These possibilities have yet to be investigated empirically.
“Finally, Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several human cell lines [15, 16] (Common plant vector injects genes into human cells ISIS News 11/12). In stably transformed HeLa cells (a human cell line derived originally from a cancer patient), the integration of T-DNA occurred at the right border, exactly as would happen when it is transferred into a plant cell genome. This suggests that Agrobacterium transforms human cells by a mechanism similar to that which it uses for transforming plants cells.

“The possibility that Agrobacterium is a vehicle for horizontal transfer of transgenic DNA remains unresolved to this day.”

Agrobacterium transfers genes into human cells

It is also worth reiterating our comment on the scientific paper [15] documenting that Agrobacterium can transfer genes into human cells [16].

“The paper shows that human cancer cells along with neurons and kidney cells were transformed with the Agrobacterium T-DNA. Such observations should raise alarm for those who use Agrobacterium in the laboratory.

“The integrated T-DNA will almost certainly act as a mutagen as it integrates into human chromosomes. Cancer can be triggered by activation of oncogenes (ie, cancer genes) or inactivation of cancer-suppressing genes. Furthermore, the sequences carried within the T-DNA in the transforming bacterium can be expressed in the transformed cells (the viral promoter CaMV has been found to be active in HeLa cells [17]) ….

“It is clear that little has been done to prevent environmental escape of the transforming bacteria or to quantify such releases. In conclusion, a study of cancer incidence among those exposed to Agrobacterium tumefaciens in the laboratory and in the field is needed. It would be worthwhile to screen workers for T-DNA sequences.”

To conclude

The discovery by the Bristol University researchers barely scratches the surface of the hidden hazards of GMOs from horizontal gene transfer. It is high time for a global ban to be imposed on further environmental releases of GMOs, and all those responsible for releasing them should be brought to book.

References

1. “Hazards of GMOS: Agrobacterium mediated transformation”http://www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2010/7279.html
2. Knight CJ, Bailey AM, Foster GD. Investigating Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Verticillium albo-atrum on plant surfaces. PLOS ONE 2010, 5(10): e13684. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013684
3. Ho MW. Gene technology and gene ecology of infectious diseases. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease 1998, 10, 33-59.
4. Ho MW. Genetic Engineering Dream of Nightmare? The Brave New World of Bad Science and Big Business, Third World Network, Gateway Books, MacMillan, Continuum, Penang, Malaysia, Bath, UK, Dublin, Ireland, New York, USA, 1998, 1999, 2007 (reprint with extended Introduction). http://www.i-sis.org.uk/genet.php
5. Ho MW. Emergency! Pathogen new to science found in Roundup Ready GM crops? Science in Society 50 (to appear).
6. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, 2009, ISAAA, http://www.isaaa.org/
7. Mc Nicol MJ, Lyon GD, Chen MY, Barrett C and Cobb E. Scottish Crop Research Institute. Contract No RG 0202.The Possibility of Agrobacterium as a Vehicle for Gene Escape. MAFF. R&D and Surveillance Report: 395.
8. Ho MW and Cummins J. Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen. Science in Society 38, 22-24, 2008
9. Ho MW. Living with the Fluid Genome, ISIS/TWN, London/Penanag, 2003. http://www.i-sis.org.uk/fluidGenome.php
10. Ferguson G and Heinemann J. Recent history of trans-kingdom conjugation . In Horizontal Gene Transfer 2^nd ed., Syvanen M and Kado CI. (eds.) Academic Press, San Diego, 2002.
11. Ho MW. Horizontal gene transfer, book review. Heredity 2003, 90, 6-7.
12. Barrett C, Cobb E, MacNicol R and Lyon G. A risk assessment study of plant genetic transformation using Agrobacterium and implication for analysis of transgenic plants.Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture 1997, 19,135-144.
13. Kado C. in Horizontal Gene Transfer 2^nd ed., Syvanen M and Kado CI. (eds.) Academic Press, San Diego, 2002.
14. Sengelov G, Kristensen KJ, Sorensen AH, Kroer N, and Sorensen SJ. Effect of genomic location on horizontal transfer of a recombinant gene cassette between Pseudomonas strains in the rhizosphere and spermosphere of barley seedlings. Current Microbiology 2001, 42, 160-7.
15. Kunik T, Tzfira T, Kapulnik Y, Gafni Y, Dingwall C, and Citovsky V. Genetic transformation of HeLa cells by Agrobacterium. PNAS USA, 2001, 98, 1871-87.
16. Cummins J. “Common plant vector injects genes into human cells. ISIS News 2002, 11/12, p. 10.
17. Ho MW, Ryan A and Cummins J. CaMV 35S promoter fragmentation hotspot confirmed and it is active in animals. Microbial Ecology in Health and Disease, 2000, 12, 189.

Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages

2011-02-21T13:17:00.000-05:00

Jill Richardson
La Vida Locavore, February 18 2011
http://www.lavidalocavore.org/diary/4523

A bombshell has been quietly dropped on the website of the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance. I should disclose, upfront, that the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is founded and run by my close friend Judith McGeary. Said bombshell is an open letter written by Dr. Don Huber, professor emeritus at Purdue University, to Tom Vilsack, presenting a finding of a correlation between either glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops and a new, previously unknown organism that may be the cause of animal miscarriages and infertility.

As the letter, printed below, notes, this research is still preliminary. However, Huber, who has 40 years experience working as a scientist for "professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks," believes this should be treated as an emergency until more research can confirm or disprove these initial findings.

Needless to say, the recent deregulation of GE alfalfa is something to think about, because that will dramatically increase the use of Roundup on animal feed and the feeding of Roundup Ready crops to our livestock. There is more to be said on this, but I want to tread carefully and stick to facts that I can confirm, so stay tuned.

Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn-suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup.   This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen's source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman's terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

A diverse set of researchers working on this problem have contributed various pieces of the puzzle, which together presents the following disturbing scenario:

Unique Physical Properties

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified. There is strong evidence that this infectious agent promotes diseases of both plants and mammals, which is very rare.

Pathogen Location and Concentration

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas.

Linked with Outbreaks of Plant Disease

The organism is prolific in plants infected with two pervasive diseases that are driving down yields and farmer income-sudden death syndrome (SDS) in soy, and Goss' wilt in corn. The pathogen is also found in the fungal causative agent of SDS (Fusarium solani fsp glycines).

Implicated in Animal Reproductive Failure

Laboratory tests have confirmed the presence of this organism in a wide variety of livestock that have experienced spontaneous abortions and infertility. Preliminary results from ongoing research have also been able to reproduce abortions in a clinical setting.

The pathogen may explain the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations. These include recent reports of infertility rates in dairy heifers of over 20%, and spontaneous abortions in cattle as high as 45%.

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

Recommendations

    In summary, because of the high titer of this new animal pathogen in Roundup Ready crops, and its association with plant and animal diseases that are reaching epidemic proportions, we request USDA's participation in a multi-agency investigation, and an immediate moratorium on the deregulation of RR crops until the causal/predisposing relationship with glyphosate and/or RR plants can be ruled out as a threat to crop and animal production and human health.

    It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen, or allowed it to cause greater harm to weakened plant and animal hosts. It is well-documented that glyphosate promotes soil pathogens and is already implicated with the increase of more than 40 plant diseases; it dismantles plant defenses by chelating vital nutrients; and it reduces the bioavailability of nutrients in feed, which in turn can cause animal disorders. To properly evaluate these factors, we request access to the relevant USDA data.

    I have studied plant pathogens for more than 50 years. We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem. It deserves immediate attention with significant resources to avoid a general collapse of our critical agricultural infrastructure.

    Sincerely,

    COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
    Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
    APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)

Genetic Engineering: Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup

2011-02-21T13:07:00.000-05:00

By Rady Ananda

Global Research, February 21, 2011

Urges USDA to rescind approval of genetically engineered alfalfa: “In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.”

A plant pathologist experienced in protecting against biological warfare recently warned the USDA of a new, self-replicating, micro-fungal virus-sized organism which may be causing spontaneous abortions in livestock, sudden death syndrome in Monsanto’s Roundup Ready soy, and wilt in Monsanto’s RR corn.

Dr. Don M. Huber, who coordinates the Emergent Diseases and Pathogens committee of the American Phytopathological Society, as part of the USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System, warned Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack that this pathogen threatens the US food and feed supply and can lead to the collapse of the US corn and soy export markets. Likewise, deregulation of GE alfalfa “could be a calamity,” he noted in his letter (reproduced in full below).

On January 27, Vilsack gave blanket approval to all genetically modified alfalfa. Following orders from President Obama, he also removed buffer zone requirements. This is seen as a deliberate move to contaminate natural crops and destroy the organic meat and dairy industry which relies on GM-free alfalfa. Such genetic contamination will give the biotech industry complete control over the nation's fourth largest crop. It will also ease the transition to using GE-alfalfa as a biofuel.

"My letter to Secretary Vilsack was a request to allocate necessary resources to understand potential nutrient-disease interactions before making (in my opinion) an essentially irreversible decision on deregulation of RR alfalfa," Huber told Food Freedom in an email.

But, he cautions:

"Although the organism has been associated with infertility and spontaneous abortions in animals, associations are not always evidence of cause in all cases and do not indicate what the predisposing conditions might be. These need to be established through thorough investigation which requires a commitment of resources.

"I hope that the Secretary will make such a commitment because many growers/producers are experiencing severe increases in disease of both crops and animals that are threatening their economic viability."

On Feb. 16, Paul Tukey of SafeLawn telephoned Dr. Huber who told him, “I believe we’ve reached the tipping point toward a potential disaster with the safety of our food supply. The abuse, or call it over use if you will, of Roundup, is having profoundly bad consequences in the soil. We’ve seen that for years. The appearance of this new pathogen may be a signal that we’ve gone too far.”

Tukey also conveyed that while Huber admits that much further study is needed to definitively confirm the link between Round-Up and the pathogen, “In the meantime, he said, it’s grossly irresponsible of the government to allow Roundup Ready alfalfa, which would bring the widespread spraying of Roundup to millions of more acres and introduce far more Roundup into the food supply.”

Huber, who has been studying plant pathogens for over 50 years and glyphosate for over 20 years, has noticed an increase in pathogens associated with the herbicide. In an interview with the Organic and Non-GMO Report last May, he discussed his team's conclusions that glyphosate can, “significantly increase the severity of various plant diseases, impair plant defense to pathogens and diseases, and immobilize soil and plant nutrients rendering them unavailable for plant use.”

(Image: Sudden Death Syndrome in soy where the right field was sprayed the previous year with glyphosate. Iowa, 2010. Photo by Don Huber)

This is because “glyphosate stimulates the growth of fungi and enhances the virulence of pathogens.” In the last 15-18 years, the number of plant pathogens has increased, he told the Non-GMO Report. “There are more than 40 diseases reported with use of glyphosate, and that number keeps growing as people recognize the association (between glyphosate and disease).”

In his undated letter to the USDA, Huber highlighted "the escalating frequency of infertility and spontaneous abortions over the past few years in US cattle, dairy, swine, and horse operations." He reported that spontaneous abortions occurred in nearly half the cattle where high concentrations of the pathogen were found in their feed. Huber notes that the wheat "likely had been under weed management using glyphosate."

Other Research Supports Huber's Warning

Last year, Argentine scientists found that Roundup causes birth defects in frogs and chickens. Publishing their paper, "Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling," in Chemical Research in Toxicology, Alejandra Paganelli, et al. also produced a large set of reports for the public at GMWatch:

"In Argentina and Paraguay, doctors and residents living in GM soy producing areas have reported serious health effects from glyphosate spraying, including high rates of birth defects as well as infertility, stillbirths, miscarriages, and cancers. Scientific studies collected in the new report confirm links between exposure to glyphosate and premature births, miscarriages, cancer, and damage to DNA and reproductive organ cells."

One of the researchers, Andrés Carrasco, told GM Watch, “The findings in the lab are compatible with malformations observed in humans exposed to glyphosate during pregnancy.”

When trying to present these findings to the public in August of last year, Dr. Carrasco and the audience were attacked by 100 thugs who beat them and their cars with clubs, leaving one person paralyzed, Amnesty International reported. Local police and a wealthy GM rice grower were implicated in that attack.

In a 2009 study, researchers linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto’s GM maize, based on Monsanto's trial data. As we reported last year, Gilles-Eric Séralini, et al., concluded that the raw data from all three GMO studies reveal that novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them.

In a 2005 paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives, Sophie Richard, et al. compared the toxicity of Roundup with that of just glyphosate, its active ingredient. They found Roundup to be more toxic, owing to its adjuvants. They also found that endocrine disruption increased over time so that one-tenth the amount prescribed for agriculture caused cell deformation. Citing other research, they also reported that Roundup adjuvants bond with DNA.

Such negative findings probably explain why Monsanto and other biotech firms so vociferously block independent research.

Tom Laskawy at Grist estimated that in 2008, nearly 200 million pounds of glyphosate were poured onto US soils. But, he notes that “exact figures are a closely guarded secret thanks to the USDA’s refusal to update its pesticide use database after 2007." This figure more than doubles what the EPA estimates was used in 2000.

Plants Cloned as Seeds

2011-02-19T20:36:00.000-05:00

Scientists at the University of California, Davis, have cloned plants as seeds for the first time. According to one of the scientists, Simon Chan, they were trying to make a hybrid that breeds true, that even if it undergoes sexual reproduction, the offspring would be genetically identical to one parent.

In a previous study conducted last year, Chan and his team were able to breed haploid Arabidopsis plants carrying chromosomes from only one parent. After fertilization, the chromosomes from one of the parents are discarded. In the new study they crossed these plants with two mutants that can produce diploid eggs. The results of the experiment showed that "in about one-third of the seeds produced, the diploid eggs were successfully fertilized, and the chromosomes from one parent were eliminated, leaving a diploid seed that was a clone of one of its parents."

The researchers hopes to produce crop plants that can fertilize themselves and yield clonal seeds.

Read the media release at http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/search/news_detail.lasso?id=9766.

USDA Approves Corn Amylase Trait

2011-02-19T20:35:00.000-05:00

The US Department of Agriculture had announced the full deregulation of Syngenta's corn amylase trait. The corn labeled as Enogen corn seed is the first genetically modified (GM) corn for the ethanol industry. It contains a gene that optimizes the action of the alpha-amylase enzyme on corn for efficient ethanol production.

Davor Pisk, Chief Operating Officer of Syngenta said that. "Enogen corn also reduces the energy and water consumed in the production process while substantially reducing carbon emissions."

The news release said that "the corn amylase trait in Enogen has already been approved for import into Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Philippines, Russia, and Taiwan, and for cultivation in Canada."

See the original news at http://www2.syngenta.com/en/media/mediareleases/en_110211.html and http://www2.syngenta.com/en/media/pdf/mediareleases/en/20110211-EN-USDA-approves-Enogen-Corn-Amylase-Trait-for-Enogen.pdf.

The OrganicGate Scandal

2011-01-29T22:21:00.000-05:00

Forbes

Jan. 29 2011 - 4:30 pm

Posted by Scott James

Frankencrop? Monsanto's alfalfa is genetically engineered.

Whole Foods has been nicknamed “Whole Paycheck” for years, given its perceived high prices on organic products. But it’s in danger of earning a new nickname, “Whole Traitor,” by the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) and others.

Whole Food Markets (WFM), Stonyfield Farms, and Organic Valley, three of the largest brands in the the natural foods sector, have joined forces to cut a deal with Monsanto. The rest of the organic industry is up in arms about it. That’s no surprise, given those folks view Monsanto on a par with the worst of the worst corporate citizens for behavior and ethics. Is Big Organic defecting from the organic movement to join forces with Big Ag?

At the source of the conflict is Medicago Sativa, known to you and me as common alfalfa. Monsanto’s version is no common crop. This is a genetically engineered (GE) wonder that works in concert with its favored pesticide, RoundUp. What’s the fuss about? Farmers and scientists alike are concerned about a GE perennial crop, particularly one tied to a pesticide that the Swedes have recently shown to double the cancer rate in both farm workers and nearby town folks.

OCA is leading a public cry of outrage, suggesting collusion at the CEO level among Stonyfield, WFM, and USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack, and the acceptance of “hush money.” The target? The largest clients of Big Organic, who are giants themselves and have valuable green halos from their own CSR efforts to protect. Brands like Wal-Mart, Kroger, Publix and Safeway.

Move over Wiki Leaks, the OrganicGate scandal is about to break.

Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto: Now We Continue the Fight, Together

2011-01-29T22:08:00.002-05:00

From the Non-GMO Project:

By Megan Westgate
I am no stranger to the rush of radical activism, to the satisfaction of identifying an enemy and throwing heart and soul into righteous indignation. In this complicated world, it’s tempting to reduce shades of gray to simple black and white. Sometimes that’s the only way to achieve a reassuring sense that we know where we stand (and therefore who we are). As a college student a decade ago, I devoted endless hours organizing protests against the Keck Graduate Institute, the first university in the world dedicated solely to biotechnology. When we successfully shut down their inaugural celebration, I wrote about it in the Earth First! Journal. In 2001 I attended the Ruckus Society’s “Biojustice” Action Camp, where I learned about the threats posed by the new science of genetic engineering, and how to scale a building or lock myself to the axle of a car if an action called for those skills.

It was all incredibly exhilarating, and my friends and I did accomplish some things of lasting value, including the protection of what remains one of the largest plots of endangered Coastal Sage Scrub habitat in Los Angeles County. As time passes, though, what I cherish most from my early activist days is not the rush of combat, but the satisfaction I experienced in collaborating with like-minded allies. The true power behind everything we accomplished came from our ability to work together as a team. In the wake of the USDA’s recent decision to deregulate genetically modified alfalfa, it is that power—the power of unification with like-minded allies—that we must seek. The understandable (and completely justified) feelings of anger, frustration and helplessness that the organic community is experiencing must be directed constructively. We are too small and up against too much for there to be any other way forward.

Leading up to the ruling, a broad coalition of organic organizations and companies were working around the clock in an attempt to influence the USDA’s decision. The USDA had already made it clear that alfalfa would be deregulated, but hope remained that there might be some way to soften the blow. Organic Valley, Whole Foods and Stonyfield Farm, along with many others in the organic community, were doing everything in their power to secure protections for organic farmers so that if their fields were contaminated once the GMO alfalfa was released, biotechnology companies for the first time would be held accountable for their pollution and would be forced to pay for the damages. These groups were also pushing for measures to protect seed purity so that non-GMO alfalfa supplies could be maintained. Unfathomably, these tireless organic organizations are now being criticized for their efforts. In total denial of the incontrovertible fact that the USDA was never even remotely considering a full ban on GMO alfalfa, some are suggesting that these group’s efforts to make the most of a bad situation *somehow* (though no one is very specific on how, exactly) signals corruption, and are even calling for boycotts. HOW ON EARTH is taking this out on 1200 organic family farmers going to help anything?! This is divisiveness we cannot afford.

Of the whole circular firing squad that’s been exploding in recent days, most shocking to me personally was a statement by Ronnie Cummins of the Organic Consumers Association that the Non-GMO Project “is basically a greenwashing effort.” Say what?! Cummins goes on to say that the Project is unnecessary for organic products, since they are already “basically free from GMOs,” while “failing to focus on so-called ‘natural’ foods.” Totally wrong on both counts!

First of all, the hard truth is that organic foods are not necessarily “free” of GMOs. While the National Organic Program (NOP) identifies genetic modification as an excluded method, GMOs are not a prohibited substance. This means that although GMO seeds are not supposed to be planted, and GMO ingredients are not supposed to be used, no testing is required under the NOP. With the majority of key crops like soy and corn being planted with GM varieties in North America, contamination of seeds and ingredients is a real risk, even for certified organic products. It is critical to understand that the ONLY way to identify (and control) GMO contamination is through testing, in combination with other best practices. The organic standards do not require testing; the Non-GMO Project Standard does. Over half of the companies participating in the Non-GMO Project produce certified organic products. These companies have chosen Non-GMO Project Verification in addition to their organic certification because they are committed to keeping their products non-GMO, and are concerned that organic certification is not adequate. Many organic companies joined the Project after their internal GMO testing indicated a growing risk of contamination.

With regard to natural products, there are literally thousands of them enrolled in the Non-GMO Project, so I fail to see how we are “failing to focus” on them. As an example, Whole Foods has their entire 365 product line, organic AND natural enrolled in the Non-GMO Project. This commitment means that they are requiring testing of every single GMO risk ingredient used in every single one of their house brand products, both organic and natural. As a founding member of the Non-GMO Project, Whole Foods made a point from the very beginning of ensuring that this program would be available for not only their organic products, but their natural ones, too. Their commitment is exemplary. In fact, it is exactly the sort of positive action step that Cummins called for in his recent article.

Okay, so I’ll admit it—this is where I got really confused. After talking trash about the Non-GMO Project and its founders, Cummins, whose support is important to me, says “We’ve got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products.” Oh hey, good idea! Let’s do that! I know: we can create a non-profit to oversee standards, third party verification, and consistent labeling so that consumers can have full transparency about companies’ non-GMO practices. We can call it the Non-GMO Project, and it can be the most effective tool in North America for stopping the unchecked flow of GMOs into natural and organic products.

Oh, wait a minute…
Yes, that’s right, how wonderful for everyone—all of that work has already been done. Yay! As a founding board member of the Non-GMO Project, and its first (and only) Executive Director, I have been working on exactly this strategy virtually non-stop for the last four years, along with a huge group of passionate, determined, and highly-principled people and organizations, and I have to admit I feel pretty darn good about what we are accomplishing. I am loath to even dignify the “greenwashing” accusation with a response, but I guess I should.

So please consider this: Since being handed my first article about the deadly impact of GMO corn pollen on monarch larvae in 1999, when I was 19 years old, I have been moved to action on the GMO issue. Following my activism in college, I worked as the Outreach Coordinator at the Food Conspiracy Co-op in Tucson, AZ, where I saw firsthand how much confusion there was in the public about GMOs, and how bad the situation was getting. With the government consistently ignoring consumer calls for labeling, and organic products increasingly at risk, a group of small retailers decided it was time to take matters into our own hands. That was the beginning of the Non-GMO Project, and those of who started it were motivated by one thing: the desire to make sure that Americans did not lose the right to eat non-GMO food. Our efforts are finally starting to pay off, though the battle is far from over. Because of the Non-GMO Project, hundreds of farmers, processors and manufacturers across North America are learning how to control GMO contamination as much as is possible, and consumers are finally being given an informed choice in the form of the “Non-GMO Project Verified” label. It’s just barely not too late.

I do this work because when I start having children in a few years, I want to make sure that they can eat non-GMO food for their whole lives. I am also doing this because I am a person of exceptional moral integrity who believes it is my duty to do what I can to serve the greater good, and food and health are my passion. This is not an easy undertaking, and it will not succeed without the full support of everyone who cares about stopping GMOs. Since Thursday’s ruling, far too much anger and blame has been directed in entirely the wrong direction. It’s time to take a step back, remember that we are all on the same team, and get smart about our next steps. For my part, I am going to make a donation to the Center for Food Safety, so that they can get the USDA back into court ASAP, and them I’m going to spend the weekend catching up on running the Non-GMO Project. I hope I don’t get waylaid by any more baseless criticism; none of us can afford it. The health of our children, our grandchildren, and our environment is at stake, so let’s take good care of each other and give this our best.

The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?

2011-01-29T21:54:00.000-05:00

By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, Jan 27, 2011
Straight to the Source

"The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well. True coexistence is a must." - Whole Foods Market, Jan. 21, 2011

In the wake of a 12-year battle to keep Monsanto's Genetically Engineered (GE) crops from contaminating the nation's 25,000 organic farms and ranches, America's organic consumers and producers are facing betrayal. A self-appointed cabal of the Organic Elite, spearheaded by Whole Foods Market, Organic Valley, and Stonyfield Farm, has decided it's time to surrender to Monsanto. Top executives from these companies have publicly admitted that they no longer oppose the mass commercialization of GE crops, such as Monsanto's controversial Roundup Ready alfalfa, and are prepared to sit down and cut a deal for "coexistence" with Monsanto and USDA biotech cheerleader Tom Vilsack.

In a cleverly worded, but profoundly misleading email sent to its customers last week, Whole Foods Market, while proclaiming their support for organics and "seed purity," gave the green light to USDA bureaucrats to approve the "conditional deregulation" of Monsanto's genetically engineered, herbicide-resistant alfalfa. Beyond the regulatory euphemism of "conditional deregulation," this means that WFM and their colleagues are willing to go along with the massive planting of a chemical and energy-intensive GE perennial crop, alfalfa; guaranteed to spread its mutant genes and seeds across the nation; guaranteed to contaminate the alfalfa fed to organic animals; guaranteed to lead to massive poisoning of farm workers and destruction of the essential soil food web by the toxic herbicide, Roundup; and guaranteed to produce Roundup-resistant superweeds that will require even more deadly herbicides such as 2,4 D to be sprayed on millions of acres of alfalfa across the U.S.

In exchange for allowing Monsanto's premeditated pollution of the alfalfa gene pool, WFM wants "compensation." In exchange for a new assault on farmworkers and rural communities (a recent large-scale Swedish study found that spraying Roundup doubles farm workers' and rural residents' risk of getting cancer), WFM expects the pro-biotech USDA to begin to regulate rather than cheerlead for Monsanto. In payment for a new broad spectrum attack on the soil's crucial ability to provide nutrition for food crops and to sequester dangerous greenhouse gases (recent studies show that Roundup devastates essential soil microorganisms that provide plant nutrition and sequester climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases), WFM wants the Biotech Bully of St. Louis to agree to pay "compensation" (i.e. hush money) to farmers "for any losses related to the contamination of his crop."

In its email of Jan. 21, 2011 WFM calls for "public oversight by the USDA rather than reliance on the biotechnology industry," even though WFM knows full well that federal regulations on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) do not require pre-market safety testing, nor labeling; and that even federal judges have repeatedly ruled that so-called government "oversight" of Frankencrops such as Monsanto's sugar beets and alfalfa is basically a farce. At the end of its email, WFM admits that its surrender to Monsanto is permanent: "The policy set for GE alfalfa will most likely guide policies for other GE crops as well True coexistence is a must."

Why Is Organic Inc. Surrendering?

According to informed sources, the CEOs of WFM and Stonyfield are personal friends of former Iowa governor, now USDA Secretary, Tom Vilsack, and in fact made financial contributions to Vilsack's previous electoral campaigns. Vilsack was hailed as "Governor of the Year" in 2001 by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and traveled in a Monsanto corporate jet on the campaign trail. Perhaps even more fundamental to Organic Inc.'s abject surrender is the fact that the organic elite has become more and more isolated from the concerns and passions of organic consumers and locavores. The Organic Inc. CEOs are tired of activist pressure, boycotts, and petitions. Several of them have told me this to my face. They apparently believe that the battle against GMOs has been lost, and that it's time to reach for the consolation prize. The consolation prize they seek is a so-called "coexistence" between the biotech Behemoth and the organic community that will lull the public to sleep and greenwash the unpleasant fact that Monsanto's unlabeled and unregulated genetically engineered crops are now spreading their toxic genes on 1/3 of U.S. (and 1/10 of global) crop land.

WFM and most of the largest organic companies have deliberately separated themselves from anti-GMO efforts and cut off all funding to campaigns working to label or ban GMOs. The so-called Non-GMO Project, funded by Whole Foods and giant wholesaler United Natural Foods (UNFI) is basically a greenwashing effort (although the 100% organic companies involved in this project seem to be operating in good faith) to show that certified organic foods are basically free from GMOs (we already know this since GMOs are banned in organic production), while failing to focus on so-called "natural" foods, which constitute most of WFM and UNFI's sales and are routinely contaminated with GMOs.

From their "business as usual" perspective, successful lawsuits against GMOs filed by public interest groups such as the Center for Food Safety; or noisy attacks on Monsanto by groups like the Organic Consumers Association, create bad publicity, rattle their big customers such as Wal-Mart, Target, Kroger, Costco, Supervalu, Publix and Safeway; and remind consumers that organic crops and foods such as corn, soybeans, and canola are slowly but surely becoming contaminated by Monsanto's GMOs.

Whole Food's Dirty Little Secret: Most of the So-Called "Natural" Processed Foods and Animal Products They Sell Are Contaminated with GMOs

The main reason, however, why Whole Foods is pleading for coexistence with Monsanto, Dow, Bayer, Syngenta, BASF and the rest of the biotech bullies, is that they desperately want the controversy surrounding genetically engineered foods and crops to go away. Why? Because they know, just as we do, that 2/3 of WFM's $9 billion annual sales is derived from so-called "natural" processed foods and animal products that are contaminated with GMOs. We and our allies have tested their so-called "natural" products (no doubt WFM's lab has too) containing non-organic corn and soy, and guess what: they're all contaminated with GMOs, in contrast to their certified organic products, which are basically free of GMOs, or else contain barely detectable trace amounts.

Approximately 2/3 of the products sold by Whole Foods Market and their main distributor, United Natural Foods (UNFI) are not certified organic, but rather are conventional (chemical-intensive and GMO-tainted) foods and products disguised as "natural."

Unprecedented wholesale and retail control of the organic marketplace by UNFI and Whole Foods, employing a business model of selling twice as much so-called "natural" food as certified organic food, coupled with the takeover of many organic companies by multinational food corporations such as Dean Foods, threatens the growth of the organic movement.

Covering Up GMO Contamination: Perpetrating "Natural" Fraud

Many well-meaning consumers are confused about the difference between conventional products marketed as "natural," and those nutritionally/environmentally superior and climate-friendly products that are "certified organic."

Retail stores like WFM and wholesale distributors like UNFI have failed to educate their customers about the qualitative difference between natural and certified organic, conveniently glossing over the fact that nearly all of the processed "natural" foods and products they sell contain GMOs, or else come from a "natural" supply chain where animals are force-fed GMO grains in factory farms or Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).

A troubling trend in organics today is the calculated shift on the part of certain large formerly organic brands from certified organic ingredients and products to so-called "natural" ingredients. With the exception of the "grass-fed and grass-finished" meat sector, most "natural" meat, dairy, and eggs are coming from animals reared on GMO grains and drugs, and confined, entirely, or for a good portion of their lives, in CAFOs.

Whole Foods and UNFI are maximizing their profits by selling quasi-natural products at premium organic prices. Organic consumers are increasingly left without certified organic choices while genuine organic farmers and ranchers continue to lose market share to "natural" imposters. It's no wonder that less than 1% of American farmland is certified organic, while well-intentioned but misled consumers have boosted organic and "natural" purchases to $80 billion annually-approximately 12% of all grocery store sales.

The Solution: Truth-in-Labeling Will Enable Consumers to Drive So-Called "Natural" GMO and CAFO-Tainted Foods Off the Market

There can be no such thing as "coexistence" with a reckless industry that undermines public health, destroys biodiversity, damages the environment, tortures and poisons animals, destabilizes the climate, and economically devastates the world's 1.5 billion seed-saving small farmers. There is no such thing as coexistence between GMOs and organics in the European Union. Why? Because in the EU there are almost no GMO crops under cultivation, nor GM consumer food products on supermarket shelves. And why is this? Because under EU law, all foods containing GMOs or GMO ingredients must be labeled. Consumers have the freedom to choose or not to choose GMOs; while farmers, food processors, and retailers have (at least legally) the right to lace foods with GMOs, as long as they are safety-tested and labeled. Of course the EU food industry understands that consumers, for the most part, do not want to purchase or consume GE foods. European farmers and food companies, even junk food purveyors like McDonald's and Wal-Mart, understand quite well the concept expressed by a Monsanto executive when GMOs first came on the market: "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it."

The biotech industry and Organic Inc. are supremely conscious of the fact that North American consumers, like their European counterparts, are wary and suspicious of GMO foods. Even without a PhD, consumers understand you don't want your food safety or environmental sustainability decisions to be made by out-of-control chemical companies like Monsanto, Dow, or Dupont - the same people who brought you toxic pesticides, Agent Orange, PCBs, and now global warming. Industry leaders are acutely aware of the fact that every single industry or government poll over the last 16 years has shown that 85-95% of American consumers want mandatory labels on GMO foods. Why? So that we can avoid buying them. GMO foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards. This is why Monsanto and their friends in the Bush, Clinton, and Obama administrations have prevented consumer GMO truth-in-labeling laws from getting a public discussion in Congress.

Although Congressman Dennis Kucinich (Democrat, Ohio) recently introduced a bill in Congress calling for mandatory labeling and safety testing for GMOs, don't hold your breath for Congress to take a stand for truth-in-labeling and consumers' right to know what's in their food. Especially since the 2010 Supreme Court decision in the so-called "Citizens United" case gave big corporations and billionaires the right to spend unlimited amounts of money (and remain anonymous, as they do so) to buy media coverage and elections, our chances of passing federal GMO labeling laws against the wishes of Monsanto and Food Inc. are all but non-existent. Perfectly dramatizing the "Revolving Door" between Monsanto and the Federal Government, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, formerly chief counsel for Monsanto, delivered one of the decisive votes in the Citizens United case, in effect giving Monsanto and other biotech bullies the right to buy the votes it needs in the U.S. Congress.

With big money controlling Congress and the media, we have little choice but to shift our focus and go local. We've got to concentrate our forces where our leverage and power lie, in the marketplace, at the retail level; pressuring retail food stores to voluntarily label their products; while on the legislative front we must organize a broad coalition to pass mandatory GMO (and CAFO) labeling laws, at the city, county, and state levels.

The Organic Consumers Association, joined by our consumer, farmer, environmental, and labor allies, has just launched a nationwide Truth-in-Labeling campaign to stop Monsanto and the Biotech Bullies from force-feeding unlabeled GMOs to animals and humans.

Utilizing scientific data, legal precedent, and consumer power the OCA and our local coalitions will educate and mobilize at the grassroots level to pressure giant supermarket chains (Wal-Mart, Kroger, Costco, Safeway, Supervalu, and Publix) and natural food retailers such as Whole Foods and Trader Joe's to voluntarily implement "truth-in-labeling" practices for GMOs and CAFO products; while simultaneously organizing a critical mass to pass mandatory local and state truth-in-labeling ordinances - similar to labeling laws already in effect for country of origin, irradiated food, allergens, and carcinogens. If local and state government bodies refuse to take action, wherever possible we must attempt to gather sufficient petition signatures and place these truth-in-labeling initiatives directly on the ballot in 2011 or 2012. If you're interesting in helping organize or coordinate a Millions Against Monsanto and Factory Farms Truth-in-Labeling campaign in your local community, sign up here: http://organicconsumers.org/oca-volunteer/

To pressure Whole Foods Market and the nation's largest supermarket chains to voluntarily adopt truth-in-labeling practices sign here, and circulate this petition widely: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_22309.cfm

The New GMO Swine Flu CornFlakes

2011-01-25T07:11:00.000-05:00

AMES, IOWA — Iowa State University researchers are putting flu vaccines into the genetic makeup of corn, which may someday allow pigs and humans to get a flu vaccination simply by eating corn or corn products.

“We’re trying to figure out which genes from the swine influenza virus to incorporate into corn so those genes, when expressed, would produce protein,” said Hank Harris, professor in animal science and one of the researchers on the project. “When the pig consumes that corn, it would serve as a vaccine.”

This collaborative effort project involves Mr. Harris and Brad Bosworth, an affiliate associate professor of animal science working with pigs, and Kan Wang, a professor in agronomy, who is developing the vaccine traits in the corn.

According to the researchers, the corn vaccine would also work in humans when they eat corn or even corn flakes, corn chips, tortillas or anything that contains corn, Mr. Harris said. The research is funded by a grant from Iowa State University’s Plant Sciences Institute, and is their Biopharmaceuticals and Bioindustrials Research Initiative.

If the research goes well, the corn vaccine may be possible in five to seven years. In the meantime, the team is trying to expedite the process. “While we’re waiting for Wang to produce the corn, we are starting initial experiments in mice to show that the vaccine might induce an immune response,” Mr. Bosworth said.

Mr. Harris said the team still needs more answers. “The big question is whether or not these genes will work when given orally through corn,” he added. “That is the thing we’ve still got to determine.”

Stability and safety are several advantages to the corn vaccine. Once the corn with the vaccine is grown, it can be stored for long-term without losing its potency, researchers claim. If a swine flu virus breaks out, the corn could be shipped to the location to try to vaccinate animals and humans in the area quickly. Because corn grain is used as food and feed, there is no need for extensive vaccine purification, which can be an expensive process.

Vatican scientists see “moral imperative” in GMO

2010-12-25T16:07:00.001-05:00

In a statement released at the end of November 2010, forty international scientists including seven Vatican advisors have called for the relaxation of “excessive, unscientific regulations” applied to genetically modified (GM) crops. The foundation of the statement lies in a week-long closed meeting held in May 2009 at the Vatican.

The scientists were brought together by Ingo Potrykus, one of the 80 members of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. The retired Professor of Plant Sciences at the Federal Institute of Technology (FIT) in Zurich developed what is known as ‘golden rice’, a bioengineered grain with enhanced levels of vitamin A to combat the childhood blindness that poses a problem in some developing countries in Asia.

Although an official endorsement of the statement has not been released, the Academy already had expressed provisional support for GM crops ten years ago and the seven Academy members present at the meeting included Chancellor Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo.

The statement consists of 31 articles. Citing the development of crops for “the public good”, its authors referred to the potential of newly-developed plants to reduce malnutrition and poverty while enhancing food security. Other advantages of GM crops would include increased independence from pesticides and herbicides as well as the development of new tools against global warming and other types of environmental damage linked to agriculture.

The scientists cited the “magnitude of challenges facing the world’s poor and undernourished” as “a matter of urgency” while pointing to current projects developing genetically improved tropical crops that will be “of direct benefit to the poor”. In the light of these considerations and of scientific findings, one may derive “...a moral imperative to make the benefits of GE [i.e. genetically engineered] technology available on a larger scale to poor and vulnerable populations”.

Specific routes to this goal would include a reassessment of the ten-year-old Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety that addresses potential environmental risks to regulate the movement of GM organisms between countries. According to the scientists, the risks in question have failed to materialise and the protocol contains regulatory hurdles that hinder the development of crops by anyone other than large multinational firms.

Dr Potrykus uses his own experience with golden rice as an example and states, “It took 10 years longer and $20 million more than a normal variety ... future use of [such] technology for the poor totally depends on reform of regulation.”

Chilean Scientists Develop Vaccine-Producing GM Tomatoes Against Hepatitis and Cholera

2010-12-25T16:05:00.000-05:00

Genetically modified (GM) tomato has been developed by scientists from the Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile that will produce vaccines against hepatitis and cholera. Patricio Arce, the lead researcher, explained that the tomato-derived vaccine is cheaper, will not require storage requirements, and can be eaten raw minimizing possible damage caused by cooking temperatures.

The scientists isolated the genes that encode key proteins from both pathogens, fused them as a single gene and introduced into tomato plants. The genes are made to express in both fruits and seeds and would be evaluated for recognition by the body's defenses. The GM tomato will be tested in mice in 2011 and if successful is planned for human testing in 2013.

See the news article in Spanish at http://fundacion-antama.org/cientificos-chilenos-desarrollan-tomate-transgenico-que-inmuniza-contra-la-hepatitis-y-el-colera/.

Biotechnology in fruit and vegetables: a lot of research, few approvals

2010-11-07T14:08:00.001-05:00

(GMO Compass 23 October 2010) A multitude of plants bearing fruit and vegetables is the subject of research world-wide. Many plants developed in this manner with new traits have been tested successfully in greenhouses and in field trials. However, few endeavours currently are made towards the commercial use of such types of fruit and vegetables, as indicated by a study published in the current issue of the professional journal Nature Biotechnology.

To date, the commercial use of plants with new, biotechnologically-conferred traits has been restricted world-wide to soybeans, maize, rapeseed, cotton and, for the past four years, sugar beets.

For other cultivated plants – yielding fruit, vegetables, nuts and flowers – genetically modified (GM) varieties have not yet reached the market. Exceptions are the virus-resistant papayas that have been farmed on Hawaii for years and which in the meanwhile occupy 90 per cent of local fields and the GM squash (similar to zucchini) grown regionally in the USA, as well as GM carnations.

Fruits, vegetables and other ‘specialties’ are all of great significance in agriculture. However, new varieties with traits achieved through biotechnological processes have played no role to date. The reasons for this have been investigated in a study by Jamie Miller and Kent Bradford, two scientists at the University of California (Davis, USA). To do so, they assessed publications in scientific magazines and field trials with GM plants in 24 countries during a time period of almost six years (January 2003 to October 2008).

World-wide, 313 publications were registered on research projects with fruit, vegetables and other plant types. According to Miller and Bradford, a majority of cases indicated that the particular approach to the transfer of a new trait functioned in principle. In addition to the USA, the list compiled by the scientists cites publications from research groups from Europe, India, Japan, China, Brazil, South Korea, Israel, Tunisia and many other countries. During the time period under scrutiny, more than 800 field trials with such plants were conducted in the USA alone.

According to the study, "biotechnological plant research" addressed 77 ‘specialty types’ and transferred 206 various individual traits. The majority of these were farm-related traits (known as ‘input traits’), such as resistance to diseases or to pests but also such as an enhanced tolerance of drought, salt or heat stress. Increasingly, research projects aim towards modified product characteristics (‘output traits’) of nutrient composition or of enrichment with compounds beneficial to health.

However, this multifaceted and ‘successful’ research does not lead to commercial applications. According to Miller and Bradford, the ‘bottleneck’ is formed by the approval procedures to which all GM plants are subject world-wide and that have become more elaborate and demanding in the past years. Approvals for GM fruits and vegetables – such as tomatoes – mostly lie more than ten years in the past and new applications have not been submitted.

From the point of view of companies, new GM varieties of fruit and vegetables hardly are financially attractive. In addition to the costs associated with research, GM plants – in contrast to new breeds produced through other methods – are subject to costs incurred by the approval procedure. Miller and Bradford indicate a cost of as much as 15 million dollars for each new GM plant (event). A further consideration is that the market for such plant varieties as a rule is significantly smaller than is the case for field produce such as maize or soy.

A secondary risk for companies is consumer acceptance of food from GM plants. Such acceptance is difficult to anticipate and the rejection of such food is very pronounced in some regions. Collectively, reliable experience hardly exists with regard to consumer reaction towards GM varieties of fruit and vegetables.

In the opinion of both Californian scientists, the market introduction of such varieties will remain financially risky as long as their possible advantages are not more highly considered during approval.

U.S. Says Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents

2010-11-01T19:32:00.002-04:00

ANDREW POLLACK
New York Times, October 29, 2010
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/30/business/30drug.html?_r=1&hp

Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry.

The new position was declared in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice late Friday in a case involving two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

"We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA," the brief said.

It is not clear if the position in the legal brief, which appears to have been the result of discussions among various government agencies, will be put into effect by the Patent Office.

If it were, it is likely to draw protests from some biotechnology companies that say such patents are vital to the development of diagnostic tests, drugs and the emerging field of personalized medicine, in which drugs are tailored for individual patients based on their genes.

"It's major when the United States, in a filing, reverses decades of policies on an issue that everyone has been focused on for so long," said Edward Reines, a patent attorney who represents biotechnology companies.

The issue of gene patents has long been a controversial and emotional one. Opponents say that genes are products of nature, not inventions, and should be the common heritage of mankind. They say that locking up basic genetic information in patents actually impedes medical progress. Proponents say genes isolated from the body are chemicals that are different from those found in the body and therefore are eligible for patents.

The Patent and Trademark Office has sided with the proponents and has issued thousands of patents on genes of various organisms, including on an estimated 20 percent of human genes.

But in its brief, the government said it now believed that the mere isolation of a gene, without further alteration or manipulation, does not change its nature.

"The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is 'isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth,” the brief said.

However, the government suggested such a change would have limited impact on the biotechnology industry because man-made manipulations of DNA, like methods to create genetically modified crops or gene therapies, could still be patented. Dr. James P. Evans, a professor of genetics and medicine at the University of North Carolina, who headed a government advisory task force on gene patents, called the government’s brief “a bit of a landmark, kind of a line in the sand.”

He said that although gene patents had been issued for decades, the patentability of genes had never been examined in court.

That changed when the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Patent Foundation organized various individuals, medical researchers and societies to file a lawsuit challenging patents held by Myriad Genetics and the University of Utah Research Foundation. The patents cover two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, and the over $3,000 analysis Myriad performs on the genes to see if women carry mutations that predispose them to breast and ovarian cancers.

In a surprise ruling in March, Judge Robert W. Sweet of the United States District Court in Manhattan ruled the patents invalid. He said that genes were important for the information they convey, and in that sense, an isolated gene was not really different from a gene in the body. The government said that that ruling prompted it to re-evaluate its policy.

Myriad and the University of Utah have appealed.

Saying that the questions in the case were "of great importance to the national economy, to medical science and to the public health," the Justice Department filed an amicus brief that sided with neither party. While the government took the plaintiffs' side on the issue of isolated DNA, it sided with Myriad on patentability of manipulated DNA.

Myriad and the plaintiffs did not comment on the government's brief by deadline for this article.

Mr. Reines, the attorney, who is with the firm of Weil Gotshal & Manges and is not involved in the main part of the Myriad case, said he thought the Patent Office opposed the new position but was overruled by other agencies. A hint is that no lawyer from the Patent Office was listed on the brief.

Machines of war - Blackwater, Monsanto, Gates

2010-10-19T20:04:00.000-04:00

Silvia Ribeiro and La Jornada, Pravda Ru
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=625026
Monday, 18 October 2010 21:17

A report by Jeremy Scahill in The Nation (Blackwater's Black Ops, 9/15/2010) revealed that [Monsanto bought the services of] the largest mercenary army in the world, Blackwater (now called Xe Services) ... Blackwater was renamed in 2009 after becoming famous in the world with numerous reports of abuses in Iraq, including massacres of civilians. It remains the largest private contractor of the U.S. Department of State "security services," that practices state terrorism by giving the government the opportunity to deny it.

Many military and former CIA officers work for Blackwater or related companies created to divert attention from their bad reputation and make more profit selling their nefarious services-ranging from information and intelligence to infiltration, political lobbying and paramilitary training - for other governments, banks and multinational corporations. According to Scahill, business with multinationals, like Monsanto, Chevron, and financial giants such as Barclays and Deutsche Bank, are channeled through two companies owned by Erik Prince, owner of Blackwater: Total Intelligence Solutions and Terrorism Research Center. These officers and directors share Blackwater.

One of them, Cofer Black, known for his brutality as one of the directors of the CIA, was the one who made contact with Monsanto in 2008 as director of Total Intelligence, entering into the contract with the company to spy on and infiltrate organizations of animal rights activists, anti-GM and other dirty activities of the biotech giant.

Contacted by Scahill, the Monsanto executive Kevin Wilson declined to comment, but later confirmed to The Nation that they had hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and 2009, according to Monsanto only to keep track of "public disclosure" of its opponents. He also said that Total Intelligence was a "totally separate entity from Blackwater."

However, Scahill has copies of emails from Cofer Black after the meeting with Wilson for Monsanto, where he explains to other former CIA agents, using their Blackwater e-mails, that the discussion with Wilson was that Total Intelligence had become "Monsanto's intelligence arm," spying on activists and other actions, including "our people to legally integrate these groups." Total Intelligence Monsanto paid $ 127,000 in 2008 and $ 105,000 in 2009.

No wonder that a company engaged in the "science of death" as Monsanto, which has been dedicated from the outset to produce toxic poisons spilling from Agent Orange to PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls), pesticides, hormones and genetically modified seeds, is associated with another company of thugs.

Almost simultaneously with the publication of this article in The Nation, the Via Campesina reported the purchase of 500,000 shares of Monsanto, for more than $23 million by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which with this action completed the outing of the mask of "philanthropy." Another association that is not surprising.

It is a marriage between the two most brutal monopolies in the history of industrialism: Bill Gates controls more than 90 percent of the market share of proprietary computing and Monsanto about 90 percent of the global transgenic seed market and most global commercial seed. There does not exist in any other industrial sector monopolies so vast, whose very existence is a negation of the vaunted principle of "market competition" of capitalism. Both Gates and Monsanto are very aggressive in defending their ill-gotten monopolies.

Although Bill Gates might try to say that the Foundation is not linked to his business, all it proves is the opposite: most of their donations end up favoring the commercial investments of the tycoon, not really "donating" anything, but instead of paying taxes to the state coffers, he invests his profits in where it is favorable to him economically, including propaganda from their supposed good intentions. On the contrary, their "donations" finance projects as destructive as geoengineering or replacement of natural community medicines for high-tech patented medicines in the poorest areas of the world. What a coincidence, former Secretary of Health Julio Frenk and Ernesto Zedillo are advisers of the Foundation.

Like Monsanto, Gates is also engaged in trying to destroy rural farming worldwide, mainly through the "Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa" (AGRA). It works as a Trojan horse to deprive poor African farmers of their traditional seeds, replacing them with the seeds of their companies first, finally by genetically modified (GM). To this end, the Foundation hired Robert Horsch in 2006, the director of Monsanto. Now Gates, airing major profits, went straight to the source.

Blackwater, Monsanto and Gates are three sides of the same figure: the war machine on the planet and most people who inhabit it, are peasants, indigenous communities, people who want to share information and knowledge or any other who does not want to be in the aegis of profit and the destructiveness of capitalism.

* The author is a researcher at ETC Group
Translated from the Spanish version by:
Lisa Karpova, Pravda.Ru

Monsanto and Blackwater's black ops

2010-09-18T23:03:00.000-04:00

NOTE: Internal company documents show Monsanto paid a Blackwater entity (Total Intelligence) over $200,000 to scan "activist blogs and websites", and suggest the issue of infiltration also arose.
---
---
Blackwater's Black Ops
Jeremy Scahill
The Nation, September 15 2010
http://www.thenation.com/article/154739/blackwaters-black-ops?page=0,0

Over the past several years, entities closely linked to the private security firm Blackwater have provided intelligence, training and security services to US and foreign governments as well as several multinational corporations, including Monsanto, Chevron, the Walt Disney Company, Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines and banking giants Deutsche Bank and Barclays, according to documents obtained by The Nation. Blackwater's work for corporations and government agencies was contracted using two companies owned by Blackwater's owner and founder, Erik Prince: Total Intelligence Solutions and the Terrorism Research Center (TRC). Prince is listed as the chairman of both companies in internal company documents, which show how the web of companies functions as a highly coordinated operation. Officials from Total Intelligence, TRC and Blackwater (which now calls itself Xe Services) did not respond to numerous requests for comment for this article.

One of the most incendiary details in the documents is that Blackwater, through Total Intelligence, sought to become the "intel arm" of Monsanto, offering to provide operatives to infiltrate activist groups organizing against the multinational biotech firm.

Governmental recipients of intelligence services and counterterrorism training from Prince's companies include the Kingdom of Jordan, the Canadian military and the Netherlands police, as well as several US military bases, including Fort Bragg, home of the elite Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), and Fort Huachuca, where military interrogators are trained, according to the documents. In addition, Blackwater worked through the companies for the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the US European Command.

On September 3 the New York Times reported that Blackwater had "created a web of more than 30 shell companies or subsidiaries in part to obtain millions of dollars in American government contracts after the security company came under intense criticism for reckless conduct in Iraq." The documents obtained by The Nation reveal previously unreported details of several such companies and open a rare window into the sensitive intelligence and security operations Blackwater performs for a range of powerful corporations and government agencies. The new evidence also sheds light on the key roles of several former top CIA officials who went on to work for Blackwater.

The coordinator of Blackwater's covert CIA business, former CIA paramilitary officer Enrique "Ric" Prado, set up a global network of foreign operatives, offering their "deniability" as a "big plus" for potential Blackwater customers, according to company documents. The CIA has long used proxy forces to carry out extralegal actions or to shield US government involvement in unsavory operations from scrutiny. In some cases, these "deniable" foreign forces don't even know who they are working for. Prado and Prince built up a network of such foreigners while Blackwater was at the center of the CIA's assassination program, beginning in 2004. They trained special missions units at one of Prince's properties in Virginia with the intent of hunting terrorism suspects globally, often working with foreign operatives. A former senior CIA official said the benefit of using Blackwater's foreign operatives in CIA operations was that "you wouldn't want to have American fingerprints on it."

While the network was originally established for use in CIA operations, documents show that Prado viewed it as potentially valuable to other government agencies. In an e-mail in October 2007 with the subject line "Possible Opportunity in DEA—Read and Delete," Prado wrote to a Total Intelligence executive with a pitch for the Drug Enforcement Administration. That executive was an eighteen-year DEA veteran with extensive government connections who had recently joined the firm. Prado explained that Blackwater had developed "a rapidly growing, worldwide network of folks that can do everything from surveillance to ground truth to disruption operations." He added, "These are all foreign nationals (except for a few cases where US persons are the conduit but no longer 'play' on the street), so deniability is built in and should be a big plus."

The executive wrote back and suggested there "may be an interest" in those services. The executive suggested that "one of the best places to start may be the Special Operations Division, (SOD) which is located in Chantilly, VA," telling Prado the name of the special agent in charge. The SOD is a secretive joint command within the Justice Department, run by the DEA. It serves as the command-and-control center for some of the most sensitive counternarcotics and law enforcement operations conducted by federal forces. The executive also told Prado that US attachés in Mexico; Bogotá, Colombia; and Bangkok, Thailand, would potentially be interested in Prado's network. Whether this network was activated, and for what customers, cannot be confirmed. A former Blackwater employee who worked on the company's CIA program declined to comment on Prado's work for the company, citing its classified status.

In November 2007 officials from Prince's companies developed a pricing structure for security and intelligence services for private companies and wealthy individuals. One official wrote that Prado had the capacity to "develop infrastructures" and "conduct ground-truth and security activities." According to the pricing chart, potential customers could hire Prado and other Blackwater officials to operate in the United States and globally: in Latin America, North Africa, francophone countries, the Middle East, Europe, China, Russia, Japan, and Central and Southeast Asia. A four-man team headed by Prado for countersurveillance in the United States cost $33,600 weekly, while "safehouses" could be established for $250,000, plus operational costs. Identical services were offered globally. For $5,000 a day, clients could hire Prado or former senior CIA officials Cofer Black and Robert Richer for "representation" to national "decision-makers." Before joining Blackwater, Black, a twenty-eight-year CIA veteran, ran the agency's counterterrorism center, while Richer was the agency's deputy director of operations. (Neither Black nor Richer currently works for the company.)

As Blackwater became embroiled in controversy following the Nisour Square massacre, Prado set up his own company, Constellation Consulting Group (CCG), apparently taking some of Blackwater's covert CIA work with him, though he maintained close ties to his former employer. In an e-mail to a Total Intelligence executive in February 2008, Prado wrote that he "recently had major success in developing capabilities in Mali [Africa] that are of extreme interest to our major sponsor and which will soon launch a substantial effort via my small shop." He requested Total Intelligence's help in analyzing the "North Mali/Niger terrorist problem."

In October 2009 Blackwater executives faced a crisis when they could not account for their government-issued Secure Telephone Unit, which is used by the CIA, the National Security Agency and other military and intelligence services for secure communications. A flurry of e-mails were sent around as personnel from various Blackwater entities tried to locate the device. One former Blackwater official wrote that because he had left the company it was "not really my problem," while another declared, "I have no 'dog in this fight.'" Eventually, Prado stepped in, e-mailing the Blackwater officials to "pass my number" to the "OGA POC," meaning the Other Government Agency (parlance for CIA) Point of Contact.

What relationship Prado's CCG has with the CIA is not known. An early version of his company's website boasted that "CCG professionals have already conducted operations on five continents, and have proven their ability to meet the most demanding client needs" and that the company has the "ability to manage highly-classified contracts." CCG, the site said, "is uniquely positioned to deliver services that no other company can, and can deliver results in the most remote areas with little or no outside support." Among the services advertised were "Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence (human and electronic), Unconventional Military Operations, Counterdrug Operations, Aviation Services, Competitive Intelligence, Denied Area Access...and Paramilitary Training."

The Nation has previously reported on Blackwater's work for the CIA and JSOC in Pakistan. New documents reveal a history of activity relating to Pakistan by Blackwater. Former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto worked with the company when she returned to Pakistan to campaign for the 2008 elections, according to the documents. In October 2007, when media reports emerged that Bhutto had hired "American security," senior Blackwater official Robert Richer wrote to company executives, "We need to watch this carefully from a number of angles. If our name surfaces, the Pakistani press reaction will be very important. How that plays through the Muslim world will also need tracking." Richer wrote that "we should be prepared to [sic] a communique from an affiliate of Al-Qaida if our name surfaces (BW). That will impact the security profile." Clearly a word is missing in the e-mail or there is a typo that leaves unclear what Richer meant when he mentioned the Al Qaeda communiqué. Bhutto was assassinated two months later. Blackwater officials subsequently scheduled a meeting with her family representatives in Washington, in January 2008.

Through Total Intelligence and the Terrorism Research Center, Blackwater also did business with a range of multinational corporations. According to internal Total Intelligence communications, biotech giant Monsanto—the world's largest supplier of genetically modified seeds—hired the firm in 2008–09. The relationship between the two companies appears to have been solidified in January 2008 when Total Intelligence chair Cofer Black traveled to Zurich to meet with Kevin Wilson, Monsanto's security manager for global issues.

After the meeting in Zurich, Black sent an e-mail to other Blackwater executives, including to Prince and Prado at their Blackwater e-mail addresses. Black wrote that Wilson "understands that we can span collection from internet, to reach out, to boots on the ground on legit basis protecting the Monsanto [brand] name.... Ahead of the curve info and insight/heads up is what he is looking for." Black added that Total Intelligence "would develop into acting as intel arm of Monsanto." Black also noted that Monsanto was concerned about animal rights activists and that they discussed how Blackwater "could have our person(s) actually join [activist] group(s) legally." Black wrote that initial payments to Total Intelligence would be paid out of Monsanto's "generous protection budget" but would eventually become a line item in the company's annual budget. He estimated the potential payments to Total Intelligence at between $100,000 and $500,000. According to documents, Monsanto paid Total Intelligence $127,000 in 2008 and $105,000 in 2009.

Reached by telephone and asked about the meeting with Black in Zurich, Monsanto's Wilson initially said, "I'm not going to discuss it with you." In a subsequent e-mail to The Nation, Wilson confirmed he met Black in Zurich and that Monsanto hired Total Intelligence in 2008 and worked with the company until early 2010. He denied that he and Black discussed infiltrating animal rights groups, stating "there was no such discussion." He claimed that Total Intelligence only provided Monsanto "with reports about the activities of groups or individuals that could pose a risk to company personnel or operations around the world which were developed by monitoring local media reports and other publicly available information. The subject matter ranged from information regarding terrorist incidents in Asia or kidnappings in Central America to scanning the content of activist blogs and websites." Wilson asserted that Black told him Total Intelligence was "a completely separate entity from Blackwater."

Monsanto was hardly the only powerful corporation to enlist the services of Blackwater's constellation of companies. The Walt Disney Company hired Total Intelligence and TRC to do a "threat assessment" for potential film shoot locations in Morocco, with former CIA officials Black and Richer reaching out to their former Moroccan intel counterparts for information. The job provided a "good chance to impress Disney," one company executive wrote. How impressed Disney was is not clear; in 2009 the company paid Total Intelligence just $24,000.

Total Intelligence and TRC also provided intelligence assessments on China to Deutsche Bank. "The Chinese technical counterintelligence threat is one of the highest in the world," a TRC analyst wrote, adding, "Many four and five star hotel rooms and restaurants are live-monitored with both audio and video" by Chinese intelligence. He also said that computers, PDAs and other electronic devices left unattended in hotel rooms could be cloned. Cellphones using the Chinese networks, the analyst wrote, could have their microphones remotely activated, meaning they could operate as permanent listening devices. He concluded that Deutsche Bank reps should "bring no electronic equipment into China." Warning of the use of female Chinese agents, the analyst wrote, "If you don't have women coming onto you all the time at home, then you should be suspicious if they start coming onto you when you arrive in China." For these and other services, the bank paid Total Intelligence $70,000 in 2009.

TRC also did background checks on Libyan and Saudi businessmen for British banking giant Barclays. In February 2008 a TRC executive e-mailed Prado and Richer revealing that Barclays asked TRC and Total Intelligence for background research on the top executives from the Saudi Binladin Group (SBG) and their potential "associations/connections with the Royal family and connections with Osama bin Ladin." In his report, Richer wrote that SBG's chair, Bakr Mohammed bin Laden, "is well and favorably known to both arab and western intelligence service[s]" for cooperating in the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Another SBG executive, Sheikh Saleh bin Laden, is described by Richer as "a very savvy businessman" who is "committed to operating with full transparency to Saudi's security services" and is considered "the most vehement within the extended BL family in terms of criticizing UBL's actions and beliefs."

In August Blackwater and the State Department reached a $42 million settlement for hundreds of violations of US export control regulations. Among the violations cited was the unauthorized export of technical data to the Canadian military. Meanwhile, Blackwater's dealings with Jordanian officials are the subject of a federal criminal prosecution of five former top Blackwater executives. The Jordanian government paid Total Intelligence more than $1.6 million in 2009.

Some of the training Blackwater provided to Canadian military forces was in Blackwater/TRC's "Mirror Image" course, where trainees live as a mock Al Qaeda cell in an effort to understand the mindset and culture of insurgents. Company literature describes it as "a classroom and field training program designed to simulate terrorist recruitment, training, techniques and operational tactics." Documents show that in March 2009 Blackwater/TRC spent $6,500 purchasing local tribal clothing in Afghanistan as well as assorted "propaganda materials—posters, Pakistan Urdu maps, etc." for Mirror Image, and another $9,500 on similar materials this past January in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

According to internal documents, in 2009 alone the Canadian military paid Blackwater more than $1.6 million through TRC. A Canadian military official praised the program in a letter to the center, saying it provided "unique and valid cultural awareness and mission specific deployment training for our soldiers in Afghanistan," adding that it was "a very effective and operationally current training program that is beneficial to our mission."

This past summer Erik Prince put Blackwater up for sale and moved to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. But he doesn't seem to be leaving the shadowy world of security and intelligence. He says he moved to Abu Dhabi because of its "great proximity to potential opportunities across the entire Middle East, and great logistics," adding that it has "a friendly business climate, low to no taxes, free trade and no out of control trial lawyers or labor unions. It's pro-business and opportunity." It also has no extradition treaty with the United States.

FEDERAL COURT RESCINDS USDA APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUGAR BEETS

2010-08-15T08:04:00.000-04:00

MICHAEL LIEDTKE
Associated Press, 14 August 2010
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ggF-I0WscO7Ejo_-2GgVKjVFe7XQD9HJFJ8O0

SAN FRANCISCO - A federal judge has revoked the government's approval of genetically altered sugar beets until regulators complete a more thorough review of how the scientifically engineered crops affect other food.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White Friday means sugar beet growers won't be able to use the modified seeds after harvesting the biotechnology beets already planted on more than 1 million acres spanning 10 states from Michigan to Oregon. All the seed comes from Oregon's Willamette Valley.

Additional planting won't be allowed until the U.S. Department of Agriculture submits an environmental impact statement. That sort of extensive examination can take two or three years.

White declined a request to issue an injunction that would have imposed a permanent ban on the biotech beets, which Monsanto Co. developed to resist its popular weed killer, Roundup Ready. Farmers have embraced the technology as a way to lower their costs on labor, fuel and equipment.

The Center for Food Safety, Organic Seed Alliance and Sierra Club have been trying to uproot the biotech beets since filing a 2008 lawsuit.

Andrew Kimbrell, the Center for Food Safety's executive director, hailed Friday's decision as a major victory in the fight against genetically engineered crops and chided the Agriculture Department for approving the genetically engineered seeds without a full environmental review.

"Hopefully, the agency will learn that their mandate is to protect farmers, consumers and the environment and not the bottom line of corporations such as Monsanto," Kimbrell said in a statement.

Attempts to reach the Agriculture Department for comment Saturday were unsuccessful. Monsanto, based in St. Louis, referred requests for comment to the America Sugarbeet Growers Association, which pointed to a Saturday statement from the Sugar Industry Biotech Council.

In the statement, the sugar beet council said it intends to help the Agriculture Department come up with "interim measures" that would allow continued production of the genetically altered seeds while regulators conduct their environmental review.

If a temporary solution isn't found, the planting restrictions are likely to cause major headaches for sugar beet growers and food processors.

The genetically altered sugar beets provide about one-half of the U.S. sugar supply and some farmers have warned there aren't enough conventional seeds and herbicide to fill the void. The scientific seeds account for about 95 percent of the current sugar beet crop in the U.S.

"The value of sugar beet crops is critically important to rural communities and their economies," the Sugar Industry Biotech Council said Saturday.

White expressed little sympathy for any disruption his decision might cause. He noted in his 10-page ruling that regulators had time to prepare for the disruption because he had already overturned the deregulation of the genetically altered beets in a decision issued last September.

The Agriculture Department "has already had more than sufficient time to take interim measures, but failed to act expediently," White wrote.

Organic farmers, food safety advocates and conservation groups contend genetically altered crops such as the sugar beets could share their genes with conventionally grown food, such as chard and table beets.

Those arguments helped persuade another federal judge in San Francisco to stop the planting of genetically altered alfalfa seeds in 2007 pending a full environmental review that still hasn't been completed.

Monsanto took that case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June overturned an injunction against the company's sale of the modified seeds.

Alarming effects in GM wheat

2010-08-04T22:47:00.000-04:00

Genetically engineered wheat shows unexpected ecological behaviour
Testbiotech, 26 July 2010
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/406

*Testbiotech calls for new concept in risk assessment

Munich - Recent research by Swiss scientists has shown some alarming effects in genetically engineered wheat. The wheat grew normally and had better resistance to a certain fungal disease in the greenhouse, but the metabolism of the plants went out of control after being exposed to environmental conditions. The plants were severely affected by the extremely toxic fungal disease (ergot disease) and yield was lowered by up to 50 percent. Testbiotech is calling for genetically engineered plants to undergo comprehensive 'stress tests' before they are released into the environment.

„The results from Switzerland show a huge gap in the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. So far, we don't know enough about how these plants behave under certain environmental conditions such as climate change. The technically inserted gene sequences are not under the control of the plants' genome regulation. Their stability needs to be tested systematically under various conditions,” says Christoph Then from the German expert group Testbiotech.

The observed effects are a general problem in genetically engineered plants. It is known that the regulation of a plants' genome can be disturbed by the invasive methods involved in genetic engineering. If these plants are exposed to environmental stress factors, their regulation can derail. Possible negative impacts can be a higher content of toxic or anti-nutritious compounds, a higher infestation of pests or loss of yield. So far very little has been published on the interrelation of environmental factors and possible unintended effects in genetically engineered plants.

Testbiotech does not agree with the Swiss researchers who are arguing for experimental field trials to explore the plants' reaction. As Christoph Then explains: ”Field trials are not appropriate for systematic testing of the plants' reaction to defined environmental conditions. There are too many random factors, depending on certain circumstances. The change of extreme climatic conditions can be simulated much better under greenhouse conditions than by just growing the plants on some field sites.” These tests should be mandatory for the risk assessment of genetically engineered plants. The expert group first defined their concept of what they call a 'crash test' in a publication in October 2009.

Publication Zeller S.et al (2010). Transgene × Environment Interactions in Genetically Modified Wheat: http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011405

Report of Testbiotech about risk assessment and concept of 'Crash-Test': http://www.testbiotech.org/node/96
Contact:

For further questions please contact Christoph Then: 0151 54638040

Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology
Frohschammerstr. 14,
80807 München
Fon: +49 (0)89-358 99 92 76
Fax: +49 (0)89-359 66 22
info@testbiotech.org
www.testbiotech.org

Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit

2010-08-02T19:16:00.000-04:00

NaturalNews.com printable article

Originally published July 30 2010
by Jeffrey M. Smith

(NaturalNews) At a biotech industry conference in January 1999, a representative from Arthur Anderson, LLP explained how they had helped Monsanto design their strategic plan. First, his team asked Monsanto executives what their ideal future looked like in 15 to 20 years. The executives described a world with 100 percent of all commercial seeds genetically modified and patented. Anderson consultants then worked backwards from that goal, and developed the strategy and tactics to achieve it. They presented Monsanto with the steps and procedures needed to obtain a place of industry dominance in a world in which natural seeds were virtually extinct.

This was a bold new direction for Monsanto, which needed a big change to distance them from a controversial past. As a chemical company, they had polluted the landscape with some of the most poisonous substances ever produced, contaminated virtually every human and animal on earth, and got fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. According to a former Monsanto vice president, "We were despised by our customers."

So they redefined themselves as a "life sciences" company, and then proceeded to pollute the landscape with toxic herbicide, contaminate the gene pool for all future generations with genetically modified plants, and get fined and convicted of deception and wrongdoing. Monsanto's chief European spokesman admitted in 1999, "Everybody over here hates us." Now the rest of the world is catching on.

"Saving the world," and other lies

Monsanto's public relations story about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are largely based on five concepts.

1. GMOs are needed to feed the world.
2. GMOs have been thoroughly tested and proven safe.
3. GMOs increase yield.
4. GMOs reduce the use of agricultural chemicals.
5. GMOs can be contained, and therefore coexist with non-GM crops.

All five are pure myths -- blatant falsehoods about the nature and benefit of this infant technology. The experience of former Monsanto employee Kirk Azevedo helps expose the first two lies, and provides some insight into the nature of the people working at the company.

In 1996, Monsanto recruited young Kirk Azevedo to sell their genetically engineered cotton. Azevedo accepted their offer not because of the pay increase, but due to the writings of Monsanto CEO Robert Shapiro. Shapiro had painted a picture of feeding the world and cleaning up the environment with his company's new technology. When he visited Monsanto's St. Louis headquarters for new employee training, Azevedo shared his enthusiasm for Shapiro's vision during a meeting. When the session ended, a company vice president pulled him aside and set him straight. "Wait a second," he told Azevedo. "What Robert Shapiro says is one thing. But what we do is something else. We are here to make money. He is the front man who tells a story. We don't even understand what he is saying." Azevedo realized he was working for "just another profit-oriented company," and all the glowing words about helping the planet were just a front.

A few months later he got another shock. A company scientist told him that Roundup Ready cotton plants contained new, unintended proteins that had resulted from the gene insertion process. No safety studies had been conducted on the proteins, none were planned, and the cotton plants, which were part of field trials near his home, were being fed to cattle. Azevedo "was afraid at that time that some of these proteins may be toxic."

He asked the PhD in charge of the test plot to destroy the cotton rather than feed it to cattle, arguing that until the protein had been evaluated, the cows' milk or meat could be harmful. The scientist refused. Azevedo approached everyone on his team at Monsanto to raise concerns about the unknown protein, but no one was interested. "I was somewhat ostracized," he said. "Once I started questioning things, people wanted to keep their distance from me. . . . Anything that interfered with advancing the commercialization of this technology was going to be pushed aside." Azevedo decided to leave Monsanto. He said, "I'm not going to be part of this disaster."

Monsanto's toxic past

Azevedo got a small taste of Monsanto's character. A verdict in a lawsuit a few years later made it more explicit. On February 22, 2002, Monsanto was found guilty for poisoning the town of Anniston, Alabama with their PCB factory and covering it up for decades. They were convicted of negligence, wantonness, suppression of the truth, nuisance, trespass, and outrage. According to Alabama law, to be guilty of outrage typically requires conduct "so outrageous in character and extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency so as to be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in civilized society."(1)

The $700 million fine imposed on Monsanto was on behalf of the Anniston residents, whose blood levels of Monsanto's toxic PCBs were hundreds or thousands of times the average. This disease-producing chemical, used as coolants and lubricants for over 50 years, are now virtually omnipresent in the blood and tissues of humans and wildlife around the globe. Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group says that based on Monsanto documents made public during a trial, the company "knew the truth from the very beginning. They lied about it. They hid the truth from their neighbors." One Monsanto memo explains their justification: "We can't afford to lose one dollar of business." Welcome to the world of Monsanto.

Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government

To get their genetically modified products approved, Monsanto has coerced, infiltrated, and paid off government officials around the globe. In Indonesia, Monsanto gave bribes and questionable payments to at least 140 officials, attempting to get their genetically modified (GM) cotton accepted.(2) In 1998, six Canadian government scientists testified before the Senate that they were being pressured by superiors to approve rbGH, that documents were stolen from a locked file cabinet in a government office, and that Monsanto offered them a bribe of $1-2 million to pass the drug without further tests. In India, one official tampered with the report on Bt cotton to increase the yield figures to favor Monsanto.(3) And Monsanto seems to have planted their own people in key government positions in India, Brazil, Europe, and worldwide.

Monsanto's GM seeds were also illegally smuggled into countries like Brazil and Paraguay, before GMOs were approved. Roberto Franco, Paraguay's Deputy Agriculture Ministry, tactfully admits, "It is possible that [Monsanto], let's say, promoted its varieties and its seeds" before they were approved. "We had to authorize GMO seeds because they had already entered our country in an, let's say, unorthodox way."

In the US, Monsanto's people regularly infiltrate upper echelons of government, and the company offers prominent positions to officials when they leave public service. This revolving door has included key people in the White House, regulatory agencies, even the Supreme Court. Monsanto also had George Bush Senior on their side, as evidenced by footage of Vice President Bush at Monsanto's facility offering help to get their products through government bureaucracy. He says, "Call me. We're in the 'de-reg' business. Maybe we can help."

Monsanto's influence continued into the Clinton administration. Dan Glickman, then Secretary of Agriculture, says, "there was a general feeling in agro-business and inside our government in the US that if you weren't marching lock-step forward in favor of rapid approvals of biotech products, rapid approvals of GMO crops, then somehow, you were anti-science and anti-progress." Glickman summarized the mindset in the government as follows:

"What I saw generically on the pro-biotech side was the attitude that the technology was good, and that it was almost immoral to say that it wasn't good, because it was going to solve the problems of the human race and feed the hungry and clothe the naked. . . . And there was a lot of money that had been invested in this, and if you're against it, you're Luddites, you're stupid. That, frankly, was the side our government was on. Without thinking, we had basically taken this issue as a trade issue and they, whoever 'they' were, wanted to keep our product out of their market. And they were foolish, or stupid, and didn't have an effective regulatory system. There was rhetoric like that even here in this department. You felt like you were almost an alien, disloyal, by trying to present an open-minded view on some of the issues being raised. So I pretty much spouted the rhetoric that everybody else around here spouted; it was written into my speeches."(4)

He admits, "when I opened my mouth in the Clinton Administration [about the lax regulations on GMOs], I got slapped around a little bit."

Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs

In the US, new food additives must undergo extensive testing, including long-term animal feeding studies.(5) There is an exception, however, for substances that are deemed "generally recognized as safe" (GRAS). GRAS status allows a product to be commercialized without any additional testing. According to US law, to be considered GRAS the substance must be the subject of a substantial amount of peer-reviewed published studies (or equivalent) and there must be overwhelming consensus among the scientific community that the product is safe. GM foods had neither. Nonetheless, in a precedent-setting move that some experts contend was illegal, in 1992 the FDA declared that GM crops are GRAS as long as their producers say they are. Thus, the FDA does not require any safety evaluations or labels whatsoever. A company can even introduce a GM food to the market without telling the agency.

Such a lenient approach to GM crops was largely the result of Monsanto's legendary influence over the US government. According to the New York Times, "What Monsanto wished for from Washington, Monsanto and, by extension, the biotechnology industry got. . . . When the company abruptly decided that it needed to throw off the regulations and speed its foods to market, the White House quickly ushered through an unusually generous policy of self-policing." According to Dr. Henry Miller, who had a leading role in biotechnology issues at the FDA from 1979 to 1994, "In this area, the U.S. government agencies have done exactly what big agribusiness has asked them to do and told them to do."

The person who oversaw the development of the FDA's GMO policy was their Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Michael Taylor, whose position had been created especially for him in 1991. Prior to that, Taylor was an outside attorney for both Monsanto and the Food Biotechnology Council. After working at the FDA, he became Monsanto's vice president. He's now back at the FDA, as the US food safety czar.

Covering up health dangers

The policy Taylor oversaw in 1992 needed to create the impression that unintended effects from GM crops were not an issue. Otherwise their GRAS status would be undermined. But internal memos made public from a lawsuit showed that the overwhelming consensus among the agency scientists was that GM crops can have unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects. Various departments and experts spelled these out in detail, listing allergies, toxins, nutritional effects, and new diseases as potential problems. They had urged superiors to require long-term safety studies.(6) In spite of the warnings, according to public interest attorney Steven Druker who studied the FDA's internal files, "References to the unintended negative effects of bioengineering were progressively deleted from drafts of the policy statement (over the protests of agency scientists)."(7)

FDA microbiologist Louis Pribyl wrote about the policy, "What has happened to the scientific elements of this document? Without a sound scientific base to rest on, this becomes a broad, general, 'What do I have to do to avoid trouble'-type document. . . . It will look like and probably be just a political document. . . . It reads very pro-industry, especially in the area of unintended effects."(8)

The FDA scientists' concerns were not only ignored, their very existence was denied. Consider the private memo summarizing opinions at the FDA, which stated, "The processes of genetic engineering and traditional breeding are different and according to the technical experts in the agency, they lead to different risks."(9) Contrast that with the official policy statement issued by Taylor, Monsanto's former attorney: "The agency is not aware of any information showing that foods derived by these new methods differ from other foods in any meaningful or uniform way."(10) On the basis of this false statement, the FDA does not require GM food safety testing.

Fake safety assessments

Monsanto participates in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA that is derided by critics as a meaningless exercise. Monsanto submits whatever information it chooses, and the FDA does not conduct or commission any studies of its own. Former EPA scientist Doug Gurian-Sherman, who analyzed FDA review records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, says the FDA consultation process "misses obvious errors in company-submitted data summaries, provides insufficient testing guidance, and does not require sufficiently detailed data to enable the FDA to assure that GE crops are safe to eat."(11)

But that is not the point of the exercise. The FDA doesn't actually approve the crops or declare them safe. That is Monsanto's job! At the end of the consultation, the FDA issues a letter stating:

"Based on the safety and nutritional assessment you have conducted, it is our understanding that Monsanto has concluded that corn products derived from this new variety are not materially different in composition, safety, and other relevant parameters from corn currently on the market, and that the genetically modified corn does not raise issues that would require premarket review or approval by FDA. . . . As you are aware, it is Monsanto's responsibility to ensure that foods marketed by the firm are safe, wholesome and in compliance with all applicable legal and regulatory requirements."(12)

The National Academy of Sciences and even the pro-GM Royal Society of London(13) describe the US system as inadequate and flawed. The editor of the prestigious journal Lancet said, "It is astounding that the US Food and Drug Administration has not changed their stance on genetically modified food adopted in 1992. . . . Governments should never have allowed these products into the food chain without insisting on rigorous testing for effects on health."(14)

One obvious reason for the inflexibility of the FDA is that they are officially charged with both regulating biotech products and promoting them -- a clear conflict. That is also why the FDA does not require mandatory labeling of GM foods. They ignore the desires of 90 percent of American citizens in order to support the economic interests of Monsanto and the four other GM food companies.

Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed

The unpublished industry studies submitted to regulators are typically kept secret based on the claim that it is "confidential business information." The Royal Society of Canada is one of many organizations that condemn this practice. Their Expert Panel called for "completely transparent" submissions, "open to full review by scientific peers" They wrote, "Peer review and independent corroboration of research findings are axioms of the scientific method, and part of the very meaning of the objectivity and neutrality of science."(15)

Whenever Monsanto's private submissions are made public through lawsuits or Freedom of Information Act Requests, it becomes clear why they benefit from secrecy. The quality of their research is often miserable, and would never stand up to peer-review. In December 2009, for example, a team of independent researchers published a study analyzing the raw data from three Monsanto rat studies. When they used proper statistical methods, they found that the three varieties of GM corn caused toxicity in the liver and kidneys, as well as significant changes in other organs.(16) Monsanto's studies, of course, had claimed that the research showed no problems. The regulators had believed Monsanto, and the corn is already in our food supply.

Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers

(17)
Monsanto has plenty of experience cooking the books of their research and hiding the hazards. They manufactured the infamous Agent Orange, for example, the cancer and birth-defect causing defoliant sprayed over Vietnam. It contaminated more than three million civilians and servicemen. But according to William Sanjour, who led the Toxic Waste Division of the Environmental Protection Agency, "thousands of veterans were disallowed benefits" because "Monsanto studies showed that dioxin [the main ingredient in Agent Orange] was not a human carcinogen." But his EPA colleague discovered that Monsanto had allegedly falsified the data in their studies. Sanjour says, "If they were done correctly, [the studies] would have reached just the opposite result."

Here are examples of tinkering with the truth about Monsanto's GM products:

• When dairy farmers inject cows with genetically modified bovine growth hormone (rbGH), more bovine growth hormone ends up in the milk. To allay fears, the FDA claimed that pasteurization destroys 90 percent of the hormone. In reality, the researchers of this drug (then owned by Monsanto) pasteurized the milk 120 times longer than normal. But they only destroyed 19 percent. So they spiked the milk with a huge amount of extra growth hormone and then repeated the long pasteurization. Only under these artificial conditions were they able to destroy 90 percent.

• To demonstrate that rbGH injections didn't interfere with cows' fertility, Monsanto appears to have secretly added cows to their study that were pregnant BEFORE injection.

• FDA Veterinarian Richard Burroughs said that Monsanto researchers dropped sick cows from studies, to make the drug appear safer.

• Richard Burroughs ordered more tests on rbGH than the industry wanted and was told by superiors he was slowing down the approval. He was fired and his tests canceled. The remaining whistle-blowers in the FDA had to write an anonymous letter to Congress, complaining of fraud and conflict of interest in the agency. They complained of one FDA scientist who arbitrarily increased the allowable levels of antibiotics in milk 100-fold, in order to facilitate the approval of rbGH. She had just become the head of an FDA department that was evaluating the research that she had recently done while an employee of Monsanto.

• Another former Monsanto scientist said that after company scientists conducted safety studies on bovine growth hormone, all three refused to drink any more milk, unless it was organic and therefore not treated with the drug. They feared the substantial increase of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) in the drugged milk. IGF-1 is a significant risk factor for cancer.

• When independent researchers published a study in July 1999 showing that Monsanto's GM soy contains 12-14 percent less cancer-fighting phytoestrogens, Monsanto responded with its own study, concluding that soy's phytoestrogen levels vary too much to even carry out a statistical analysis. Researchers failed to disclose, however, that they had instructed the laboratory to use an obsolete method of detection -- one that had been prone to highly variable results.

• To prove that GM protein breaks down quickly during simulated digestion, Monsanto uses thousands of times the amount of digestive enzymes and a much stronger acid than what the World Health Organization recommends.

• Monsanto told government regulators that the GM protein produced in their high-lysine GM corn was safe for humans, because it is also found in soil. They claimed that since people consume small residues of soil on fruits and vegetables, the protein has a safe history as part of the human diet. The actual amount of the GM corn protein an average US citizen would consume, however, if all their corn were Monsanto's variety, would be "about 30 billion to four trillion times" the amount normally consumed in soil residues. For equivalent exposure, people would have to eat as much as 22,000 pounds of soil every second of every day.

• Monsanto's high-lysine corn also had unusual levels of several nutritional components, such as protein and fiber. Instead of comparing it to normal corn, which would have revealed this significant disparity, Monsanto compared their GM corn to obscure corn varieties that were also far outside the normal range on precisely these values. On this basis, Monsanto could claim that there were no statistically significant differences in their GM corn content.

Methods used by Monsanto to hide problems are varied and plentiful. For example, researchers:

• Use animals with varied starting weights, to hinder the detection of food-related changes;
• Keep feeding studies short, to miss long-term impacts;
• Test Roundup Ready soybeans that have never been sprayed with Roundup -- as they always are in real world conditions;
• Avoid feeding animals the GM crop, but instead give them a single dose of GM protein produced from GM bacteria;
• Use too few subjects to obtain statistical significance;
• Use poor or inappropriate statistical methods, or fail to even mention statistical methods, or include essential data; and
• Employ insensitive detection techniques -- doomed to fail.

Monsanto's 1996 Journal of Nutrition study, which was their cornerstone article for "proving" that GM soy was safe, provides plenty of examples of masterfully rigged methods.

• Researchers tested GM soy on mature animals, not the more sensitive young ones. GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says the older animals "would have to be emaciated or poisoned to show anything."

• Organs were never weighed.

• The GM soy was diluted up to 12 times which, according to an expert review, "would probably ensure that any possible undesirable GM effects did not occur."

• The amount of protein in the feed was "artificially too high," which would mask negative impacts of the soy.

• Samples were pooled from different locations and conditions, making it nearly impossible for compositional differences to be statistically significant.

• Data from the only side-by-side comparison was removed from the study and never published. When it was later recovered, it revealed that Monsanto's GM soy had significantly lower levels of important constituents (e.g. protein, a fatty acid, and phenylalanine, an essential amino acid) and that toasted GM soy meal had nearly twice the amount of a lectin -- which interferes with the body's ability to assimilate nutrients. Moreover, the amount of trypsin inhibitor, a known soy allergen, was as much as seven times higher in cooked GM soy compared to a cooked non-GM control. Monsanto named their study, "The composition of glyphosate-tolerant soybean seeds is equivalent to that of conventional soybeans."

A paper published in Nutrition and Health analyzed all peer-reviewed feeding studies on GM foods as of 2003. It came as no surprise that Monsanto's Journal of Nutrition study, along with the other four peer-reviewed animal feeding studies that were "performed more or less in collaboration with private companies," reported no negative effects of the GM diet. "On the other hand," they wrote, "adverse effects were reported (but not explained) in [the five] independent studies." They added, "It is remarkable that these effects have all been observed after feeding for only 10 to 14 days."(18)

A former Monsanto scientist recalls how colleagues were trying to rewrite a GM animal feeding study, to hide the ill-effects. But sometimes when study results are unmistakably damaging, Monsanto just plain lies. Monsanto's study on Roundup, for example, showed that 28 days after application, only 2 percent of their herbicide had broken down. They nonetheless advertised the weed killer as "biodegradable," "leaves the soil clean," and "respects the environment." These statements were declared false and illegal by judges in both the US and France. The company was forced to remove "biodegradable" from the label and pay a fine.

Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage

• On July 3, 2003, Monsanto sued Oakhurst dairy because their labels stated, "Our Farmers' Pledge: No Artificial Growth Hormones." Oakhurst eventually settled with Monsanto, agreeing to include a sentence on their cartons saying that according to the FDA no significant difference has been shown between milk derived from rbGH-treated and non-rbGH-treated cows. The statement is not true. FDA scientists had acknowledged the increase of IGF-1, bovine growth hormone, antibiotics, and pus, in milk from treated cows. Nonetheless, the misleading sentence had been written years earlier by the FDA's deputy commissioner of policy, Michael Taylor, the one who was formerly Monsanto's outside attorney and later their vice president.

• Monsanto's public relations firm created a group called the Dairy Coalition, which pressured editors of the USA Today, Boston Globe, New York Times and others, to limit negative coverage of rbGH.

• A Monsanto attorney wrote a letter to Fox TV, promising dire consequences if the station aired a four-part exposé on rbGH. The show was ultimately canceled.

• A book critical of Monsanto's GM foods was three days away from being published. A threatening letter from Monsanto's attorney forced the small publisher to cancel publication.

• 14,000 copies of Ecologist magazine dedicated to exposing Monsanto were shredded by the printer due to fears of a lawsuit.

• After a ballot initiative in California established Mendocino County as a GM-free zone -- where planting GMOs is illegal, Monsanto and others organized to push through laws in 14 states that make it illegal for cities and counties to declare similar zones.

Monsanto's promises of riches come up short

Biotech advocates have wooed politicians, claiming that their new technology is the path to riches for their city, state, or nation. "This notion that you lure biotech to your community to save its economy is laughable," said Joseph Cortright, an Oregon economist who co-wrote a report on the subject. "This is a bad-idea virus that has swept through governors, mayors and economic development officials."(19) Indeed, The Wall Street Journal observed, "Not only has the biotech industry yielded negative financial returns for decades, it generally digs its hole deeper every year."(20) The Associated Press says it "remains a money-losing, niche industry."(21)

Nowhere in the biotech world is the bad-idea virus more toxic than in its application to GM plants. Not only does the technology under-deliver, it consistently burdens governments and entire sectors with losses and problems.

Under the first Bush administration, for example, the White House's elite Council on Competitiveness chose to fast track GM food in hopes that it would strengthen the economy and make American products more competitive overseas. The opposite ensued. US corn exports to Europe were virtually eliminated, down by 99.4 percent. The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) calculated that the introduction of GM corn caused a drop in corn prices by 13 to 20 percent.(22) Their CEO said, "The ACGA believes an explanation is owed to the thousands of American farmers who were told to trust this technology, yet now see their prices fall to historically low levels while other countries exploit US vulnerability and pick off our export customers one by one."(23) US soy sales also plummeted due to GM content.

According to Charles Benbrook, PhD, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences' Board on Agriculture, the closed markets and slashed prices forced the federal government to pay an additional $3 to $5 billion every year.(24) He says growers have only been kept afloat by the huge jump in subsidies.(25)

Instead of withdrawing support for failed GM crops, the US government has been convinced by Monsanto and others that the key to success is to force open foreign markets to GMOs. But many nations are also reeling under the false promise of GMOs.

Canola crashes on GM

When Canada became the only major producer to adopt GM canola in 1996, it led to a disaster. The premium-paying EU market, which took about one-third of Canada's canola exports in 1994 and one-fourth in 1995, stopped all imports from Canada by 1998. The GM canola was diverted to the low-priced Chinese market. Not only did Canadian canola prices fall to a record low,(26) Canada even lost their EU honey exports due to the GM pollen contamination.

Australia benefited significantly from Canada's folly. By 2006, the EU was buying 38 percent of Australia's canola exports.(27) Nonetheless, Monsanto's people in Australia claimed that GM canola was the way to get more competitive. They told farmers that Roundup Ready canola would yield up to 30 percent more. But when an investigator looked at the best trial yields on Monsanto's web site, it was 17 percent below the national average canola yield. When that was publicized, the figures quickly disappeared from the Monsanto's site. Two Aussie states did allow GM canola and sure enough, they are suffering from loss of foreign markets.

In Australia and elsewhere, the non-GMO farmers also suffer. Market prices drop, and farmers spend more to set up segregation systems, GMO testing, buffer zones, and separate storage and shipping channels to try to hold onto non-GMO markets. Even then, they risk contamination and lost premiums.

GM farmers don't earn or produce more

Monsanto has been quite successful in convincing farmers that GM crops are the ticket to greater yields and higher profits. You still hear that rhetoric at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a 2006 USDA report "could not find positive financial impacts in either the field-level nor the whole-farm analysis" for adoption of Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans. They said, "Perhaps the biggest issue raised by these results is how to explain the rapid adoption of [GM] crops when farm financial impacts appear to be mixed or even negative."(28)

Similarly, the Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) flatly states, "The claim that GM seeds make our farms more profitable is false."(29) Net farm incomes in Canada plummeted since the introduction of GM canola, with the last five years being the worst in Canada's history.

In spite of numerous advertising claims that GM crops increase yield, the average GM crop from Monsanto reduces yield. This was confirmed by the most comprehensive evaluation on the subject, conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in 2009. Called Failure to Yield, the report demonstrated that in spite of years of trying, GM crops return fewer bushels than their non-GM counterparts. Even the 2006 USDA report stated that "currently available GM crops do not increase the yield potential of a hybrid variety. . . . In fact, yield may even decrease if the varieties used to carry the herbicide tolerant or insect-resistant genes are not the highest yielding cultivars."(30)

US farmers had expected higher yields with Roundup Ready soybeans, but independent studies confirm a yield loss of 4 to 11percent.(31) Brazilian soybean yields are also down since Roundup Ready varieties were introduced.(32) In Canada, a study showed a 7.5 percent lower yield with Roundup Ready canola.(33)

The Canadian National Farmers Union (NFU) observed, "Corporate and government managers have spent millions trying to convince farmers and other citizens of the benefits of genetically-modified (GM) crops. But this huge public relations effort has failed to obscure the truth: GM crops do not deliver the promised benefits; they create numerous problems, costs, and risks. . . . It would be too generous even to call GM crops a solution in search of a problem: These crops have failed to provide significant solutions."(34)

Herbicide use rising due to GMOs

Monsanto bragged that their Roundup Ready technology would reduce herbicide, but at the same time they were building new Roundup factories to meet their anticipated increase in demand. They got it. According to USDA data, the amount of herbicide used in the US increased by 382.6 million pounds over 13 years. Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans accounted for 92 percent of the total increase. Due to the proliferation of Roundup resistant weeds, herbicide use is accelerating rapidly. From 2007 to 2008, herbicide used on GM herbicide tolerant crops skyrocketed by 31.4 percent.(35) Furthermore, as weeds fail to respond to Roundup, farmers also rely on more toxic pesticides such as the highly poisonous 2,4-D.

Contamination happens

In spite of Monsanto's assurances that it wouldn't be a problem, contamination has been a consistent and often overwhelming hardship for seed dealers, farmers, manufacturers, even entire food sectors. The biotech industry recommends buffer zones between fields, but these have not been competent to protect non-GM, organic, or wild plants from GMOs. A UK study showed canola cross-pollination occurring as far as 26 km away.(36)

But pollination is just one of several ways that contamination happens. There is also seed movement by weather and insects, crop mixing during harvest, transport, and storage, and very often, human error. The contamination is North America is so great, it is difficult for farmers to secure pure non-GM seed. In Canada, a study found 32 of 33 certified non-GM canola seeds were contaminated.(37) Most of the non-GM soy, corn, and canola seeds tested in the US also contained GMOs.(38)

Contamination can be very expensive. StarLink corn -- unapproved for human consumption -- ended up the US food supply in 2000 and resulted in an estimated price tag of $1 billion. The final cost of GM rice contamination in the US in 2006 could be even higher.

Deadly deception in India

Monsanto ran a poster series called, "TRUE STORIES OF FARMERS WHO HAVE SOWN BT COTTON." One featured a farmer who claimed great benefits, but when investigators tracked him down, he turned out to be a cigarette salesman, not a farmer. Another poster claimed yields by the pictured farmer that were four times what he actually achieved. One poster showed a farmer standing next to a tractor, suggesting that sales of Bt cotton allowed him to buy it. But the farmer was never told what the photo was to be used for, and said that with the yields from Bt, "I would not be able to buy even two tractor tires."

In addition to posters, Monsanto's cotton marketers used dancing girls, famous Bollywood actors, even religious leaders to pitch their products. Some newspaper ads looked like a news stories and featured relatives of seed salesmen claiming to be happy with Bt. Sometimes free pesticides were given away with the seeds, and some farmers who helped with publicity got free seeds.

Scientists published a study claiming that Monsanto's cotton increased yields in India by 70 to 80 percent. But they used only field trial data provided to them by Monsanto. Actual yields turn out to be quite different:

• India News(39) reported studies showing a loss of about 18 percent.

• An independent study in Andhra Pradesh "done on [a] season-long basis continuously for three years in 87 villages" showed that growing Bt cotton cost 12 percent more, yielded 8.3 percent less, and the returns over three years were 60 percent less.(40)

• Another report identified a yield loss in the Warangal district of 30 to 60 percent. The official report, however, was tampered with. The local Deputy Director of Agriculture confirmed on Feb. 1, 2005 that the yield figures had been secretly increased to 2.7 times higher than what farms reported. Once the state of Andhra Pradesh tallied all the actual yields, they demanded approximately $10 million USD from Monsanto to compensate farmers for losses. Monsanto refused.

In sharp contrast to the independent research done by agronomists, Monsanto commissioned studies to be done by market research agencies. One, for example, claimed four times the actual reduction in pesticide use, 12 times the actual yield, and 100 times the actual profit.(41)

In Andhra Pradesh, where 71 percent of farmers who used Bt cotton ended up with financial losses, farmers attacked the seed dealer's office and even "tied up Mahyco Monsanto representatives in their villages," until the police rescued them.(42)

In spite of great losses and unreliable yields, Monsanto has skillfully eliminated the availability of non-GM cotton seeds in many regions throughout India, forcing farmers to buy their varieties.

Farmers borrow heavily and at high interest rates to pay four times the price for the GM varieties, along with the chemicals needed to grow them. When Bt cotton performs poorly and can't even pay back the debt, desperate farmers resort to suicide, often drinking unused pesticides. In one region, more than three Bt cotton farmers take their own lives each day. The UK Daily Mail estimates that the total number of Bt cotton-related suicides in India is a staggering 125,000.

Doctors orders: no genetically modified food

A greater tragedy may be the harm from the dangerous GM foods produced by Monsanto. The American Academy of Environmental Medicine (AAEM) has called on all physicians to prescribe diets without GM foods to all patients.(43) They called for a moratorium on GMOs, long-term independent studies, and labeling. They stated, "Several animal studies indicate serious health risks associated with GM food," including infertility, immune problems, accelerated aging, insulin regulation, and changes in major organs and the gastrointestinal system. "There is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects. There is causation…"

Former AAEM President Dr. Jennifer Armstrong says, "Physicians are probably seeing the effects in their patients, but need to know how to ask the right questions." Renowned biologist Pushpa M. Bhargava believes that GMOs are a major contributor to the deteriorating health in America.

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

GM foods are particularly dangerous for pregnant moms and children. After GM soy was fed to female rats, most of their babies died -- compared to 10 percent deaths among controls fed natural soy.(44) GM-fed babies were smaller, and possibly infertile.(45)

Testicles of rats fed GM soy changed from the normal pink to dark blue.(46) Mice fed GM soy had altered young sperm.(47) Embryos of GM soy-fed parent mice had changed DNA.(48) And mice fed GM corn had fewer, and smaller, babies.(49)

In Haryana, India, most buffalo that ate GM cottonseed had reproductive complications such as premature deliveries, abortions, and infertility; many calves died. About two dozen US farmers said thousands of pigs became sterile from certain GM corn varieties. Some had false pregnancies; others gave birth to bags of water. Cows and bulls also became infertile.(50)

In the US, incidence of low birth weight babies, infertility, and infant mortality are all escalating.

Food that produces poison

Monsanto's GM corn and cotton are engineered to produce a built-in pesticide called Bt-toxin -- produced from soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis. When bugs bite the plant, poison splits open their stomach and kills them. Organic farmers and others use natural Bt bacteria spray for insect control, so Monsanto claims that Bt-toxin must be safe.

The Bt-toxin produced in GM plants, however, is thousands of times more concentrated than natural Bt spray, is designed to be more toxic,(51) has properties of an allergen, and cannot be washed off the plant.

Moreover, studies confirm that even the less toxic natural spray can be harmful. When dispersed by plane to kill gypsy moths in Washington and Vancouver, about 500 people reported allergy or flu-like symptoms.(52)(53) The same symptoms are now reported by farm workers from handling Bt cotton throughout India.(54)

GMOs provoke immune reactions

GMO safety expert Arpad Pusztai says changes in immune status are "a consistent feature of all the [animal] studies."(55) From Monsanto's own research to government funded trials, rodents fed Bt corn had significant immune reactions.(56)(57)

Soon after GM soy was introduced to the UK, soy allergies skyrocketed by 50 percent. Ohio allergist Dr. John Boyles says "I used to test for soy allergies all the time, but now that soy is genetically engineered, it is so dangerous that I tell people never to eat it."

GM soy and corn contain new proteins with allergenic properties,(58) and GM soy has up to seven times more of a known soy allergen.(59) Perhaps the US epidemic of food llergies and asthma is a casualty of genetic manipulation.

Animals dying in large numbers

In India, animals graze on cotton plants after harvest. But when shepherds let sheep graze on Bt cotton plants, thousands died. Investigators said preliminary evidence "strongly suggests that the sheep mortality was due to a toxin. . . . most probably Bt-toxin."(60) In one small study, all sheep fed Bt cotton plants died; those fed natural plants remained healthy.

In an Andhra Pradesh village, buffalo grazed on cotton plants for eight years without incident. On Jan. 3, 2008, 13 buffalo grazed on Bt cotton plants for the first time. All died within three days.(61) Monsanto's Bt corn is also implicated in the deaths horses, water buffaloes, and chickens in the Philippines.(62)

Lab studies of GM crops by other companies also show mortalities. Twice the number of chickens fed Liberty Link corn died; seven of 40 rats fed a GM tomato died within two weeks.(63) And a farmer in Germany says his cows died after exclusively eating Syngenta's GM corn.

GMOs remain inside of us

The only published human feeding study revealed that even after we stop eating GMOs, harmful GM proteins may be produced continuously inside of us; genes inserted into Monsanto's GM soy transfer into bacteria inside our intestines and continue to function.(64) If Bt genes also transfer, eating corn chips might transform our intestinal bacteria into living pesticide factories.

Hidden dangers

Biologist David Schubert of the Salk Institute says, "If there are problems [with GMOs], we will probably never know because the cause will not be traceable and many diseases take a very long time to develop." In the nine years after GM crops were introduced in 1996, Americans with three or more chronic diseases jumped from 7 percent to 13 percent.(65) But without any human clinical trials or post marketing surveillance, we may never know if GMOs are a contributor.

Un-recallable contamination

In spite of the enormous health dangers, the environmental impacts may be worse still. That is because we don't have a technology to fully clean up the contaminated gene pool. The self-propagating genetic pollution released into the environment from Monsanto's crops can outlast the effects of climate change and nuclear waste.

Replacing nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"

As Monsanto has moved forward with its master plan to replace nature, they have led the charge in buying up seed businesses and are now the world's largest. At least 200 independent seed companies have disappeared over 13 years, non-GMO seed availability is dwindling, and Monsanto is jacking up their seed prices dramatically. Corn is up more than 30 percent and soy nearly 25 percent, over 2008 prices.(66)

An Associated Press exposé (67) reveals how Monsanto's onerous contracts allowed them to manipulate, then dominate, the seed industry using unprecedented legal restrictions. One contract provision, for example, "prevented bidding wars" and "likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits 'shall be destroyed immediately.'"

With that restriction in place, the seed companies couldn't even think of selling to a company other than Monsanto. According to attorney David Boies, who represents DuPont -- owner of Pioneer Seeds: "If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things -- destroy things they paid for -- if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw." Boies was a prosecutor on the antitrust case against Microsoft. He is now working with DuPont in their civil antitrust lawsuit against Monsanto.

Monsanto also has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated:

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable,' said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades."

Monsanto also controls and manipulates farmers through onerous contracts. Troy Roush, for example, is one of hundreds accused by Monsanto of illegally saving their seeds. The company requires farmers to sign a contract that they will not save and replant GM seeds from their harvest. That way Monsanto can sell its seeds -- at a premium -- each season.

Although Roush maintains his innocence, he was forced to settle with Monsanto after two and a half years of court battles. He says his "family was just destroyed [from] the stress involved." Many farmers are afraid, according to Roush, because Monsanto has "created a little industry that serves no other purpose than to wreck farmers' lives." Monsanto has collected an estimated $200 million from farmers thus far.

Roush says, "They are in the process of owning food, all food." Paraguayan farmer Jorge Galeano says, "Its objective is to control all of the world's food production." Renowned Indian physicist and community organizer Vandana Shiva says, "If they control seed, they control food; they know it, it's strategic. It's more powerful than bombs; it's more powerful than guns. This is the best way to control the populations of the world."

Our food security lies in diversity -- both biodiversity, and diversity of owners and interests. Any single company that consolidates ownership of seeds, and therefore power over the food supply, is a dangerous threat. Of all the corporations in the world, however, the one we should trust the least is Monsanto. With them at the helm, the impact could be cataclysmic.

To learn more about the health dangers of GMOs, and what you can do to help end the genetic engineering of our food supply, visit www.ResponsibleTechnology.org.

To learn how to choose healthier non-GMO brands, visit www.NonGMOShoppingGuide.com.

Greenpeace finds evidence of GM rice contamination in China's emergency grain stores

2010-07-20T19:30:00.002-04:00

Jonathan Watts, Asia environment correspondent
The Guardian, 20 July 2010
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/20/china-gm-rice-contamination

*China's ban on GM rice questioned as environmental activists discover unapproved transgenic products at two grain sources

China's state grain reserves have been contaminated by illegal, genetically modified rice, according to an investigation by Greenpeace.

The environmental group says it has found tainted samples at two rice processing enterprises that source their products from the strategic food reserve.

It is feared the transgenic products, which have not been approved as safe for public consumption, will spread nationwide because the reserves sell food and distribute emergency supplies during floods, droughts and other disasters.

The affected rice is believed to have originated in Hubei province – a centre of grain production and the site of field tests for strains containing the Bt63 gene, which repels insects.

Earlier this year, Greenpeace activists said they had found batches of genetically modified rice seeds in Hubei and its neighbouring province, Hunan.

They also found illegal GM rice on sale at Wal-Mart and Zhongbai supermarkets.

While several provinces have screened rice supplies for illegal transgenic products, Hubei has been slow to do so.

The group called on the authorities to tighten inspections to staunch the spread of tainted rice.

"The ministry of agriculture have stated many times that China does not permit commercial farming or processing of transgenic rice," said Luo Yuannan, a food campaigner for Greenpeace. "Yet, obviously, Hubei hasn't taken effective measures to block the contamination of paddy fields by illegal transgenic rice."

The national grain reserve and the two processing companies were not available for comment.

China is in a quandary about whether to adopt genetically modified strains of its staple crop. While it is desperate to boost productivity to feed a fast-growing, urbanising population, it also fears the unknown health and biodiversity consequences of adopting transgenic rice on a nationwide scale.

Some environmental activists suspect scientists and biotechnology companies may be deliberating spreading genetically modified rice into seed supplies, paddy fields and supermarkets so they can declare de facto approval of the products.

EPA fines Monsanto $2.5 million for selling mislabeled bags of GMO cotton seeds

2010-07-09T16:29:00.002-04:00

ST. LOUIS (AP) - Monsanto Co., the world's biggest seed company, has agreed to pay the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency a $2.5 million penalty for selling mislabeled bags of genetically engineered seed.

The EPA says it is the largest fine ever imposed under a law that regulates pesticides and fungicides.

Between 2002 and 2007, Monsanto improperly sold its Bollgard and Bollgard II cotton seeds in 10 Texas counties where the seeds were banned, according to the EPA. The cotton seeds are regulated as pesticides because they kill insects, and the seeds were banned in parts of Texas to avoid growing pest resistance to them. The ban has since been lifted.

Monsanto informed the EPA it was selling seeds in the 10 Texas counties, even though the company was supposed to label the seeds as banned in those areas, the EPA said. Monsanto later changed its cotton seed labels to reflect the ban.

Modified genes found in wild plant, possibly cross between GMOs

2010-07-07T16:50:00.000-04:00

Kyodo News International, July 2 2010
http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/4274136

TOKYO -- A type of wild Cruciferae [brassica vegetables, of the mustard family or cabbage family] growing near a national highway in Mie Prefecture has been found to have genes of a genetically modified rapeseed, possibly a result of crossing between the wild plants and imported rapeseeds that had fallen during transportation, a survey by a civic group said Friday.

There have been cases of interbreeding between genetically modified rapeseeds and normal rapeseeds for horticultural purposes in the past, the group said, but the latest finding of crossing between the wild plant, whose academic name is Rorippa indica which grows in the Southeast Asia regions including Japan, and the artificially modified ones could be the first case of intercrossing found in the wild in Japan.

''As the possibility that modified genes could spread among wildlife emerged, we are concerned that it could have an impact not only to farming products but also to ecosystems,'' said Masaharu Kawata, a Yokkaichi University lecturer who was involved in the survey.

The group conducted the survey in mid- and late June by collecting 14 samples of cruciferous plants in areas along Route 23 and found 13 of them having genes and proteins of herbicide-resistant rapeseeds developed by chemical manufacturers like Monsanto Co. (NYSE:MON) and Bayer CropScience.

The state compiles a list of species that could interbreed and reviews the possible impact on the ecosystems. It has authorizing power for the use [import?] of such genetically modified plants but the plants in question have not been included in the list, according to the group.

The Environment Ministry's office for alien species management said if the interbreeding is officially confirmed, it will consider adding the plant to the list.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...." Hosea 4:6

2010-06-05T19:34:00.001-04:00

IFIC Survey: Consumers Favor Biotech Foods

The International Food Information Council (IFIC) recently released the result of their survey conducted last April 5 to 26, 2010 in a report entitled Consumer Perceptions of Food Technology. The survey was conducted in the USA and 750 adult respondents comprise the total sample. An overwhelming number of respondents favor the purchase of biotechnology-produced foods based on their environmental benefits and sustainable agricultural practices.

Several respondents claim that they will buy biotech food because they provide more helpful fats like Omega-3s (76%); others say they buy biotech foods to avoid trans fat (74%); some believe that biotech foods have improved taste and freshness (67%); and many also patronize wheat-flour products of biotechnology because more people are fed with less resources used in production. It is notable that there is low overall awareness of consumers regarding food biotechnology, but still, zero percent or none of them listed biotech food as something to be avoided.

Visit http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2010_Consumer_Perceptions_of_Food_Technology_Survey to download the survey results.

Genetically Modified Foods: More Reason to Avoid Them; Why They Threaten Organic Agriculture

2010-05-14T10:32:00.000-04:00

Genetically Modified Foods: More Reason to Avoid Them; Why They Threaten Organic Agriculture
Alliance for Natural Health, May 11, 2010
Straight to the Source

Last week the New York Times wrote about an upcoming report from The President's Cancer Panel. The paper was "astonish[ed] to learn that [the panel] is poised to join ranks with the organic food movement and declare: [these] chemicals threaten our bodies."

If you doubt that Genetically Modified (GM) foods threaten your body, here is a recent report from Russian biologists. They conducted what they thought would be a "routine" study of the long-term effects of the consumption of GM soy feed among a hamster population. For the first generation, the only untoward effects seemed to be constipation. The second generation didn't seem too much the worse for wear either. But the third generation showed serious ill effects and turned out to be completely sterile.

Hampsters are not human beings and more research needs to be done, but other studies also point to reproductive ill effects. Eating frankinfoods would not seem to be the best form of birth control! In addition to the unknown but increasingly documented risks of ingesting organisms that are completely new to the human body, we also need to worry about contaminants found in GM foods such as Monsanto's "Roundup Ready" herbicide.

It should also be noted that GM food issues have for the first time found their way to the US Supreme Court. A lawsuit brought by organic farmers and The Center for Food Safety pointed out that biotech alfalfa would spread uncontrollably and take over US pasturelands. True organic beef would become an impossibility since all cows would be potentially exposed to the GM alfalfa. A federal judge agreed and halted the sale of biotech alfalfa from Monsanto until the USDA could do a full-scale environmental impact study.

The Supreme Court will decide if the federal judge had the constitutional right to take this action and a decision is expected in late summer. If GM leads to human sterility in succeeding generations, would we like to see all beef products contaminated? Even vegetarians will face the consequences when they try to farm GM contaminated land. This is a big, big issue and our thanks to The Center for Food Safety for defending common sense and fighting Monsanto in the Supreme Court.

Earlier this month, The [international] Codex Committee on Food Labeling met to discuss whether Genetically Modified food could be labeled "organic". The decision remains to be made, but in this case the Europeans, whom we generally condemn for their ridiculously restrictive approach to supplements, are fighting the good fight and are expected eventually to carry the day.

Read the Full Article

Action Alert – Protect Your Right to Know Which Foods Contain GMOs

2010-05-03T23:55:00.000-04:00

Please send this URGENT message to U.S. Government leaders to protect your right to know which foods are made from genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Click and send an email today to the Secretaries of State (Clinton), Agriculture (Vilsack), and Health and Human Services (Sebelius). Please try to do this before Wednesday, May 5^th, but don’t stop until they come around.

They must stop U.S. negotiators at an international (Codex) conference from May 3-7, from pushing an agenda that could make it difficult for anyone, anywhere in the world to label foods as genetically modified (GM) – or even make non-GMO claims on their product’s label.

The U.S. is taking the ridiculous and unscientific position that GMOs are not different from conventional foods, claiming labels that say GMO or non-GMO are misleading.
If they succeed at the meeting, the U.S. may then file lawsuits through the World Trade Organization against any country that implements mandatory labeling of GMOs, or even allows non-GMO claims on packages.

This Is a Grave Threat to the Non-GMO Tipping Point – We Must Push Back Now!
The growing evidence and concern about health dangers of GMOs is making waves. A renowned US Medical organization (American Academy of Environmental Medicine) called on doctors to prescribe non-GMO diets for all patients. Consumers are seeking non-GMO brands, and the fastest growing claim among store brands in 2009 was “GMO-Free” (Neilson Survey). The trade journal Supermarket News predicts GMO concerns will erupt this year, specifically because consumers are now given choices by the new Non-GMO Shopping Guide website and the Non-GMO Project’s third-party verified standard for making non-GMO claims.

Most Americans (53%) say they would avoid GMOs if they were labeled. But even 5% would likely be enough to create a tipping point of consumer rejection, forcing all GM ingredients out of our food supply.

We can see the tipping point just over the horizon, but it is now threatened by the US position at Codex.

Tell our government leaders that you will not stand for this outrageous obstruction of our democracy and human rights. Demand that the U.S. support the right for countries everywhere to label GMOs. And remind them that 9 out of 10 Americans want mandatory GMO labeling, and that President Obama actually made a campaign pledge to implement it—which are all waiting for.

Send an email today >

The Institute for Responsible Technology, located at PO Box 469 - - Fairfield, IA 52556 - United States of America.

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

2010-04-26T07:08:00.000-04:00

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters
By Jeffrey Smith
Huffington Post, April 20, 2010
Straight to the Source

"This study was just routine," said Russian biologist Alexey V. Surov, in what could end up as the understatement of this century. Surov and his colleagues set out to discover if Monsanto's genetically modified (GM) soy, grown on 91% of US soybean fields, leads to problems in growth or reproduction. What he discovered may uproot a multi-billion dollar industry.

After feeding hamsters for two years over three generations, those on the GM diet, and especially the group on the maximum GM soy diet, showed devastating results. By the third generation, most GM soy-fed hamsters lost the ability to have babies. They also suffered slower growth, and a high mortality rate among the pups.

And if this isn't shocking enough, some in the third generation even had hair growing inside their mouths-a phenomenon rarely seen, but apparently more prevalent among hamsters eating GM soy.

The study, jointly conducted by Surov's Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security, is expected to be published in three months (July 2010)-so the technical details will have to wait. But Surov sketched out the basic set up for me in an email.

He used Campbell hamsters, with a fast reproduction rate, divided into 4 groups. All were fed a normal diet, but one was without any soy, another had non-GM soy, a third used GM soy, and a fourth contained higher amounts of GM soy. They used 5 pairs of hamsters per group, each of which produced 7-8 litters, totally 140 animals.

Surov told The Voice of Russia,

"Originally, everything went smoothly. However, we noticed quite a serious effect when we selected new pairs from their cubs and continued to feed them as before. These pairs' growth rate was slower and reached their sexual maturity slowly."

He selected new pairs from each group, which generated another 39 litters. There were 52 pups born to the control group and 78 to the non-GM soy group. In the GM soy group, however, only 40 pups were born. And of these, 25% died. This was a fivefold higher death rate than the 5% seen among the controls. Of the hamsters that ate high GM soy content, only a single female hamster gave birth. She had 16 pups; about 20% died.

Surov said "The low numbers in F2 [third generation] showed that many animals were sterile."

The published paper will also include measurements of organ size for the third generation animals, including testes, spleen, uterus, etc. And if the team can raise sufficient funds, they will also analyze hormone levels in collected blood samples.

Read the Full Article

"Strip GM mandate" from Global Food Security Act

2010-04-14T21:26:00.000-04:00

Global Food Security Act
1.The press release
2."Dear Senator" letter

URGENT ACTION: The Senate is expected to vote on this soon. If in U.S., please email your Senators directly on this:
http://action.panna.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=2901

NOTE: As the press release (item 1) notes, no farming methods or technologies other than GM crops are mentioned anywhere in the Global Food Security Act. And the bill's GMO mandate essentially amounts to a "stealth corporate giveaway" embedded in a foreign aid bill. Not surprisingly, Monsanto has lobbied more than any other interest in support of this bill.
---
---
1.100+ Groups Join Scientists and Development Experts in Urging Senate to "Strip the GM Mandate" from the Global Food Security Act
(Posted April 13 2010)
http://www.foodfirst.org/en/node/2882

Controversial language said more likely to feed biotech corporations than the world's poor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE – 13 April 2010

[SAN FRANCISCO and JOHANNESBURG] -- Experts, scientists and advocates from around the world petitioned the U.S. Senate today in a concerted attempt to strip what they term a "stealth corporate giveaway" embedded in a foreign aid bill which is expected to hit the Senate floor soon. The "Global Food Security Act" (S.384), sponsored by Senators Casey (D-PA) and Lugar (R-IN), is intended to reform aid programs to focus on longer-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. While lauding the bill's intentions, the petitioners object to a clause earmarking one agricultural technology (genetically modified - GM crops) for potentially billions of dollars in federal funding. $7.7 billion in U.S. funds are associated with the bill and no other farming methods or technologies are mentioned.

Monsanto has lobbied more than any other interest in support of this bill. The company is one of two or three dominant corporations in the increasingly concentrated biotechnology industry likely to benefit from the new research funding stream as well as from future profits from their patented products (both seeds and pesticides).

Today, scientists, development experts spanning a dozen countries, and 100+ groups representing anti-hunger, family farm, farmworker, consumer and sustainable agriculture delivered a letter urging the Senate to reject the "Global Food Security Act" until the bill is made technology-neutral. Their specific concern: language in the bill that would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to read "Agricultural research carried out under this Act shall . . . include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including gm technology."

"The bill's focus on genetically modified technology simply makes no sense," stated Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist at Pesticide Action Network. "Independent science tells us that genetically modified (GM) crops have neither increased yield nor reduced hunger in the world. The most credible and comprehensive assessments of agriculture to date say that if we want to end global poverty and hunger, we'll need to focus on increasing the biodiversity and ecological resilience of small-scale farming systems."

"Here in Africa, pressure to import GM crops is wreaking havoc on our local economies," explained Mariam Mayet of the African Center for Biosafety. "In South Africa, we are now dumping GM corn into other countries, disrupting local markets and undermining the livelihoods of family farmers there. As a result, Zimbabwe has imposed a ban on GM corn imports, and Kenya—which has a bumper crop of GM-free corn and doesn't need any imports—is now grappling with a massive, illegal and unwanted shipment of 280,000 metric tons of GM corn from South Africa. A handful of powerful agribusinesses' obsession with GM is pitting African countries against each other, with Monsanto and international grain traders reaping the benefits and ordinary farmers losing out. The last thing we need from the U.S. is a bill legislating yet more money for GM crops."

Concerned groups and individuals note that if Congress singles out one technology and attaches it to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure on developing countries to ignore other priorities and scientifically valid options—and to open their markets to that one technology—will be substantial.

“At the end of the day, the GM mandate has more to do with breaking open markets for American biotech corporations than fighting hunger," explained Annie Shattuck of the Institute for Food and Development Policy. "To get at the root of the global hunger crisis, we need to tackle poverty, something no technological silver bullet can ever do.”

Ben Burkett, National Family Farm Coalition president and Mississippi family farmer, added, "Corporate control over inputs and the free trade agenda have destroyed the livelihoods of so many farmers at home and abroad. That's why farmers worldwide are calling for food sovereignty—the right to choose fair and sustainable farming practices that protect our local food and livelihood security. This is what works best for our farms and communities."

The letter delivered to senators today calls for agricultural research funding to be focused on addressing local challenges faced by small-scale farmers, instead of mandating a specific and narrow technological fix—particularly one with little prospect of success and increasingly rejected by countries around the world.

The bill was passed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 31, 2009 and the Senate is expected to vote on it soon.

CONTACTS:

Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, PhD, Pesticide Action Network North America, 415-981-6205, ext.325; mie@panna.org

Annie Shattuck, Food First/Institute for Food & Development Policy, 510-654-4400, ext.223; shattuck@foodfirst.org

Kathy Ozer, National Family Farm Coalition, 202-543-5675, kozer@nffc.net

Mariam Mayet, African Centre for Biosafety, cell +27 83 269 4309; land +27 11 646 0699, mariammayet@mweb.co.za
---
---
2."Dear Senator" letter

April 13, 2010

Dear Senator:

The Global Food Security Act (S. 384), co-sponsored by Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Richard Lugar (R-IN), is intended to reform aid programs to focus on longer-term agricultural development, and restructure aid agencies to better respond to crises. With more people than ever before going hungry each day, this focus is commendable. The bill however inappropriately mandates one agricultural technology (genetically modified crops) for federal funding under the Foreign Assistance Act. This mandate is inappropriate and undermines the good intentions behind the broader focus on hunger. We are writing today to ask that you oppose the Global Food Security Act until the bill is made technology-neutral.

We are specifically concerned with section 202 of the Global Food Security Act on Agricultural Research. That language would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to read "Agricultural research carried out under this Act shall ….. . . . include research on biotechnological advances appropriate to local ecological conditions, including gm technology." Proposed changes to this language, which may insert "...including but not limited to gm technology" would not materially change the language or the meaning of the bill that passed out of committee.

The current language mandates one highly controversial type of technology (transgenics), dominated by two or three companies (most notably Monsanto), to get both taxpayer cash and, by virtue of its raised profile, favored treatment under a bill ostensibly designed to help the poor and hungry. As one might expect, Monsanto (the world’s largest purveyor of GM seeds) has done more lobbying on the Casey- Lugar Act than any other interest. The company spent over $8.6 million directly lobbying Congress last year alone.

The trouble with a mandate for GM crops is simple: it will not solve world hunger. USAID has spent millions of dollars on developing genetically modified crops over the past two decades, with not one success story to show for all the taxpayer dollars spent.

The current controversy in India over Bt brinjal (eggplant) is a good example. Bt brinjal was developed in part with funding from USAID. After ten years in development, the product caused such an outcry from citizens, scientists and state government ministers upon its commercialization that the Indian national government put an indefinite moratorium on the crop. Other GM projects have failed to help farmers on the ground, but have succeeded in creating opportunity for the US biotech industry. A partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya, for example, failed to deliver a useful product for farmers. After fourteen years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials. The project did, however, help establish a regulatory environment favorable to other commercial biotech applications.

If Congress singles out one technology and attaches it to a pool of foreign aid money, the pressure on developing countries to ignore local priorities and other scientifically valid options—and to open their markets to that one technology—will be substantial. Exerting such intense pressure on developing countries undermines the spirit of respect with which the US wishes to engage the rest of the world.

An alternative approach to global food security exists. In 2008, the World Bank and four UN agencies completed a four-year study conducted by more than 400 scientists and development experts from over 80 countries. Endorsed by 58 governments, the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) concluded that expensive, short-term technical fixes — including GM crops — are unlikely to adequately address the complex challenges that farmers face. Instead, the IAASTD highlighted the need to tackle the underlying causes of poverty. IAASTD priorities for future agricultural research include supporting biodiverse, ecological farming practices; increasing investments in agroecological science; and fostering collaboration between farmers and interdisciplinary teams of scientists to achieve locally, culturally and ecologically appropriate solutions.

By focusing on long term agricultural development, the Casey- Lugar Act takes one step toward addressing some of the more complex issues raised in the IAASTD. But mandating a specific and narrow technological fix—particularly one with little prospect of success and increasingly rejected by countries around the world—will undermine the more worthy efforts in this legislation.

As scientists and anti-hunger, religious, family farming, sustainable agriculture, environmental and consumer groups, we believe farmers and communities working with scientists—not Congress—should identify what technologies are most appropriate locally and what research is needed to meet socially and environmentally sustainable development goals. We ask that the mandate for GM crop research be stricken, eliminating Section 202 of the Global Food Security Act. This will keep agricultural research funding under the Foreign Assistance Act appropriately focused on the priorities and local conditions of small-scale farmers.

Please oppose S. 384 until the bill is made technology-neutral.

Respectfully,
Agricultural Missions (NY)
Alaska Community Action on Toxics (ACAT) (AK)
California Food and Justice Coalition (CA)
Californians for GE-Free Agriculture (CA)
Californians for Pesticide Reform (CA)
Center for Environmental Health (CA)
Center for Food Safety (DC)
Clean and Healthy New York, Inc. (NY)
Community Alliance for Global Justice (WA)
The Cornucopia Institute (WI)
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice (TN)
Dakota Resource Council (ND)
EConsulting (KY)
Eden Foods, Inc. (MI)
Environmental Partnerships (MA)
Everybody Eats! (CO)
Family Farm Defenders (WI & National)
Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (TX)
Farmworker Association of Florida (FL)
Food & Water Watch (DC & National)
Food Chain Workers Alliance (CA & National)
Food Democracy Now! (IA)
Food Empowerment Project (CA)
Friends of the Earth US (DC & National)
Full Belly Farm (CA)
Galveston Baykeeper (TX)
Grassroots International (MA)
Greenpeace US (National)
Health Care Without Harm (National)
Indiana Toxics Action (IN)
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (DC, MN & National)
Institute for a Sustainable Future (MN)
Institute for Food and Development Policy/Food First (CA)
Institute for Responsible Technology (CA & IA)
International Society for Ecology and Culture (CA)
Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement (IA)
Jacobs Farm / Del Cabo (CA)
Justice from Farm to Plate (VT)
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (ME)
Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns (DC & National)
Minnesota Food Association (MN)
National Family Farm Coalition (DC & National)
National Organic Coalition (National)
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility of United Church of Christ (TN)
Non-GMO Project (CA)
Northeast Organic Farming Association Interstate Council (CT)
Northeast Organic Farming Association Massachusetts chapter, Inc. (MA)
Northwest Atlantic Marine Alliance (ME)
Ohio Conference on Fair Trade (OH)
Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility (OR)
Oregon Toxics Alliance (OR)
Organic Consumers Association (MN)
Organic Seed Alliance (WA)
Permaculture Activist Magazine (IN)
Partners for the Land & Agricultural Needs of Traditional Peoples (WV)
Pesticide Action Network North America (CA & National)
Pesticide Free Zone, Inc (CA)
Physicians for Social Responsibility - Los Angeles (CA)
Safe Alternatives for our Forest Environment (CA)
Science and Environmental Health Network (IA)
Sierra Club (CA, DC, & National)
Slow Food USA
Southeastern Efforts Developing Sustainable Spaces (NC)
Sustainable Living Systems (MT)
Taos County Economic Development Corp (NM)
TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) (CO)
The Oakland Institute (CA)
The Victory Garden Initiative (WI)
TransAfrica Forum (DC, national)
Washington Biotechnology Action Council (WA)
Western Organization of Resource Councils (ND, SD, WY, MT, CO, ID & OR)
WhyHunger (NY)
Women's Environmental Institute (MN)

Development organizations (outside the US)

African Centre for Biosafety (South Africa)
Agrar Koordination (Germany)
Biowatch South Africa (South Africa)
Butere Focused Women in Development (Kenya)
Center of Arab Women for Training and Research (Tunisia)
Consumers Union of Japan (Japan)
Eco-TIRAS Intl Env Assn of River Keepers (Moldova)
Ekogaia Foundation (South Africa)
ETC Group/Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration (Canada)
Farmer-Scientist Partnership for Development (MASIPAG) (Philippines)
GMWatch (UK)
Green Foundation (India)
Kasisi Agricultural Training Centre (Zambia)
Nature's Path Foods Inc. (Canada)
Ng’ombe na Mahindi (NGMOA) (Kenya)
NO! GMO Campaign (Japan)
Organisation Béninoise pour la Promotion de l'Agriculture Biologique (OBEPAB) (Benin)
Pesticide Action Network Africa (Senegal)
Pesticide Action Network Asia and the Pacific (Malaysia)
Pesticide Action Network UK
Pestizid Aktions-Netzwerk (Germany)
Plaguicidas y Sus Alternativas de América Latina RAPAL-PAN Internacional (Latin America)
Practical Action (UK)
Red de Acciòn en Plaguicidas y sus Alternativas para América Latina (RAP-AL) - PAN Latin America
Safe Food Coalition (South Africa)
Save Our Seeds (EU)
Servicio de Información Mesoamericana sobre Agricultura Sostenible (SIMAS) (Nicaragua)
South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (South Africa)
Southeast Asian Council for Food Security & Fair Trade (SEACON) (Malaysia)
Third World Network (Malaysia & International)
Uganda Network on Toxic Free Malaria Control (UNETMAC) (Uganda)
Women for Sustainable Development (Tunisia)
49th Parallel Biotechnology Consortium (Intl)

Independent scientists and development experts*

Dr. Hans Herren, President Millennium Institute* and Co-Chair, IAASTD
Dr. Molly D. Anderson, College of the Atlantic,* IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, North America & Europe Report (USA)
Dr. Philip Bereano, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington* (USA)
Rachel Berger, Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development* (UK)
Dra. Michelle E. Chauvet Sánchez Pruneda, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana*, IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author Latin America & Caribbean Report (Mexico)
Elenita Dano, Participatory Enhancement and Development of Genetic Resources in Asia* IAASTD Lead Author, East Asia & Pacific Report (Philippines)
Barbara Dinham, IAASTD Review Editor, North America & Europe Report (UK)
Dr. Bruce Ferguson, El Colegio de la Frontera Sur San Cristóbal de Las Casas* (Mexico)
Prof. Catherine Finnoff, University of Massachusetts Amherst* (USA)
Dr. Harriet Friedmann, University of Toronto,* IAASTD Review Editor, North America & Europe Report (Canada)
Dr. Mario Giampietro, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona,* Institute of Environmental Science and Technology*, IAASTD Lead Author Global Report (Spain/Italy)
Dr. Tirso Gonzales, The University of British Columbia Okanagan,* IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, Latin America & Caribbean Report (Canada/Peru)
Dr. Falguni Guharay, IAASTD Lead Author, Latin America & Caribbean Report (Nicaragua)
Benedikt Haerlin, IAASTD Advisory Bureau (Germany)
Dr. Jack Heinemann, University of Canterbury,* IAASTD Lead Author Synthesis Report (New Zealand)
Dr. S. Ryan Isakson, Saint Mary's University,* (Canada)
Dr. JoAnn Jaffe, University of Regina,* IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, North America & Europe Report (Canada)
Christopher Jones, Agricultural Christian Fellowship* (UK)
Dr. Jack Kloppenburg, University of Wisconsin*
Dr. Carol Landry, Ohio State University* (USA)
Dr. Kathleen McAfee, San Francisco State University* (USA)
Dr. Philip McMichael, Cornell University* USA
Khaddouja Mellouli, Center of Arab Women for Training and Research, IAASTD Advisory Bureau member (Tunisia)
Dr. Douglas Murray, Colorado State University,* IAASTD Review Editor, Global Report
Dr. Gerardo Otero, Simon Fraser University* (Canada)
Dr. Ivette Perfecto, University of Michigan,* IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, Latin America & Caribbean Report (USA)
Dr. Romeo F. Quijano, College of Medicine, University of the Philippines, IAASTD Advisory Bureau (Philippines)
Catherine Rutivi, IAASTD Advisory Bureau member, Sub Saharan Africa (Senegal)
Dr. Gerald Smith, University of Michigan*
Dr. William Stafford, Proteapermaculture (South Africa)
Dr. Koa Tasaka, Pesticide Action Network Japan
Dale Jiajun Wen, International Forum on Globalization, IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, East Asia & Pacific Report (US/China)
Dr. Angus Wright, California State University, Sacramento,* IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, North America & Europe Report (USA)
Dr. Susan Wright, University of Michigan Ann Arbor*   (USA)
Dr. Rym Ben Zid, Tunisia, IAASTD Coordinating Lead Author, Central West Asia & North Africa Report (Tunisia)
* Institutional affiliation provided for identification purposes only.
Cc: Members of the Senate
Please direct return correspondence to: Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, Senior Scientist, Pesticide Action Network, mie@panna.org (415) 981-6205 ext 325 and Annie Shattuck, Policy Analyst, Institute for Food and Development Policy, shattuck@foodfirst.org, (510) 654-4400 ext. 223. We will forward your response to the groups and individuals signing this letter.

Foreign aid bill mandates genetic engineering

2010-04-05T19:38:00.000-04:00

PANUPS, April 2 2010
http://www.panna.org/resources/panups/panup_20100402#3

The "Global Food Security" bill is back. After its introduction in the Senate a year ago, Bill Gates and Bill Clinton have been quietly pressing for this piece of legislation that aims to fight global hunger with one hand while orchestrating a giant taxpayer subsidy to pesticide and ag biotech companies with the other. The bill, also known as the Lugar-Casey Act -- for Senators Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Robert Casey (D-PA) -- would refocus aid programs on agricultural development, with a caveat: public funding of genetically engineered (GE) seeds is what this bill means by “agricultural development.”

Last spring Pesticide Action Network joined Food First, Union of Concerned Scientists and other partners in commending the overall intention of the bill, while calling for the removal of the corporate give-away clause buried in its language. The Lugar-Casey Act directs some $7.7 billion to agricultural research and development, much of which could go directly into the coffers of corporations like Monsanto because of one clause mandating that research funds “shall” go towards GE crop research. Monsanto (the world’s largest purveyor of GM seeds) has done more lobbying on the Lugar-Casey Act than any other interest.

USAID would be responsible for implementing the bill. Over the last two decades, this agency has spent millions of taxpayer dollars on developing GE crops, with not one success story to show for it. A highly touted partnership between USAID and Monsanto to develop a virus-resistant sweet potato in Kenya failed to deliver anything useful for farmers. After fourteen years and $6 million, local varieties vastly outperformed their genetically modified cousins in field trials.

“At the end of the day, GE crops don’t have much to offer — especially to farmers in the developing world,” notes PAN senior scientist Dr. Marcia Ishii-Eiteman. The bill’s single-minded focus on promoting GMOs runs directly counter to the scientific findings from the most comprehensive analysis of world agriculture to date, the IAASTD. This landmark report highlights the need to strengthen agroecological research to support small-scale farmers, while decreasing corporate control of seeds and the food system. “We will be working with partners in the coming weeks to mobilizing a strong message to the Senate reiterating our call to strip the GM clause from the bill,” adds Ishii-Eiteman.

GM Bananas Premier in Australia

2010-03-31T21:09:00.000-04:00

Genetically modified bananas with increased levels of pro-vitamin A have been selected and grown in north Queensland, Australia. The GM bananas were planted in the South Johnstone area of Queensland as a part of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation project to address mineral and vitamin deficiencies in human nutrition in East Africa. Eastern African bananas are recipients of the pro-vitamin A genes in breeding studies conducted by the Australian Queensland University of Technology and the Ugandan Agriculture Research Organization (NARO). Succeeding research efforts will be geared towards iron accumulation in the fruit. The researchers headed by Professsors James Dale and Wilberforce Tushemereirwe are optimistic that micronutrient-enriched bananas will be in East African tables within five years.
For details of the article, see http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/news/498.docu.html

Genetically engineered corn causes new plant pest

2010-03-26T09:07:00.002-04:00

Testbiotech warns that fields will turn into battlefields
Munich / Bremen, 25 March 2010
http://www.testbiotech.org/en/node/356

Large-scale cultivation of genetically engineered corn is causing the spread of a new pest in the US Corn Belt. The western bean cutworm infests the tips of the corncobs. Massive damage is being reported from those regions where the corn MON810 (sold as YieldGard by company of Monsanto) is grown on large scale.

The genetically engineered corn is clearly suppressing the competitor of the western bean cutworm and thus creating an ecological niche for this insect. At an international conference in Bremen, Germany this Friday, Testbiotech will present a report giving an overview of the current situation.

"Several reports show that the damage is increasing from year to year," explains Christoph Then, executive director of Testbiotech and author of the report. "But not much information is given to the farmers about the causes. The agrochemical companies are mainly interested in using this as an opportunity to sell other genetically engineered corn and insecticides that are highly toxic."

On behalf of Greenpeace, Testbiotech analysed many reports on the spread of the western bean cutworm and exchanged opinions with several experts. The cause of the spread of the new pest is hardly known to farmers in US, despite the fact that the western bean cutworm has spread through the whole Corn Belt since the year 2000. Farmers have only been told how to identify infestation and which insecticides they can use. No warnings were given on the dangers of large- scale MON810 cultivation. Instead, companies like Monsanto are trying to sell new varieties of genetically engineered corn such as 'SmartStax' that produces six different insecticides in its plant tissue.

Martin Hofstetter from Greenpeace, Germany, the organization that commissioned the report, has drawn the conclusion that: "There is a race going on in the fields which will lead to an increasing use of insecticides and the cultivation of more and more genetically engineered plants. There is a huge risk of causing ecological damage. Farmers are likely to lose the race by being forced to invest more and more in chemicals and high priced seed without being able to increase their yields. Industry's solution doesn't appear to be either sustainable or ecologically sound. It will just foster extremely industrialized agriculture."

The report will be available for downloading on Friday, 26 march on www.testbiotech.org

International Conference "Second International Conference on Implications of GM Crop Cultivation at Large Spatial Scales" in Bremen: http://www.gmls.eu/index.php?home=ja
Contact:

For further information please call:

Christoph Then, executive director, Tel.: +49 (0)151 54 63 80 40 and

Martin Hofstetter, Greenpeace, 040 30 61 84 31

or Andrea Reiche, Testbiotech office: +49 (0)89 35 89 92 76
Testbiotech e. V.
Institute for Independent Impact Assessment in Biotechnology
Frohschammerstr. 14, 80807 München
Fon: +49 (0)89-358 99 92 76
Fax: +49 (0)89-359 66 22
info@testbiotech.org
www.testbiotech.org
Executive Director: Christoph Then

GM potatoes: BASF at work

2010-03-20T20:58:00.004-04:00

After a nod by the European Commission to cultivation of the controversial genetically modified (GM) potato developed by the BASF chemical company and known as Amflora, a speaker for the company has announced plans to apply for approval for two further varieties of GM potato.

The company stated its intention to seek approval presently for a successor to Amflora. This new variety also produces amylopectin starch that is advantageous for specific industrial processes such as the manufacture of paper.

For the Amflora successor, a different variety of potato was genetically modified. A BASF spokesperson indicated application "soon" for approval of this yet-unnamed potato. BASF also intends to apply for approval of its ‘Fortuna’ potato by the end of the year. Fortuna has been genetically modified towards resistance to a mould disease that repeatedly has led to high harvest losses. The potato is intended for use in the industrial manufacture of foodstuff such as potato chips and crisps.

Beginning in April, Amflora will be planted on 20 hectares in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, on 80 hectares in Sweden and on 150 hectares in the Czech Republic. According to media reports, the fields in Mecklenburg-West Pomerania and Sweden are dedicated to seed production. The fields in the Czech Republic are used for commercial aims with an unnamed partner.

Eli Lilly's Desperate, Deceptive Campaign to Boost Bovine Growth Hormone

2010-03-20T20:56:00.002-04:00

By Melanie Warner
B Net, March 16, 2010
Straight to the Source

With sales and public perception of bovine growth hormone dropping fast in the U.S., it’s not easy to find reputable scientific organizations willing to endorse such a controversial genetically modified additive. So, in a shameless and desperate maneuver, Eli Lilly (LLY) decided to make some up.

At a Montreal animal science meeting in July 2009, Eli Lilly’s Elanco division sponsored a press release masquerading as a scientific paper that concluded — surprise, surprise — that bovine growth hormone is perfectly safe for cows and humans. Tucked into page two of the eleven-page Q&A document is a claim that “more than 20 leading health organizations in the United States” have endorsed the safety of the synthetic hormone, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Cancer Society and the American Medical Association.

The fact that none of these three groups have ever come close to singing the praises of bovine growth hormone — known variously as rBST or rBGH — went unnoticed until last month when a biotech watchdog called the Bioscience Resource Project got wind of the report and started making a few calls. A spokesperson for the American Academy of Pediatricians told the group that the AAP “does not endorse the safety of rBGH.” Ditto for the ACA and AMA.

It turns out that the eight so-called medical and dairy science experts who were paid to write the paper for Eli Lilly came up with a very creative interpretation of the word “endorsement.” One of the authors admitted to the Bioscience Resource Project that the endorsements are “technically untrue.”

“We counted endorsement as failure to oppose rBGH”, said David Clemmons, a professor at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine and a paid consultant for Eli Lilly.

By this twisted standard, as Michael Hansen of Consumers Union points out, the Federal Reserve and the American Automobile Association are also big supporters of bovine growth hormone. Hell, BNET endorses it.

Eli Lilly certainly doesn’t have any easy job trying to lift the fortunes of bovine growth hormone. More than half of the nation’s 100 largest dairies have completely or partially discontinued the use of rBGH, including the largest, Dean Foods (DF). Starbucks (SBUX) and Chipotle (CMG) have gone completely rBGH-free and Walmart (WMT) and Kroger (KR) have banned it from their store brand milk.

>>> Read the Full Article

No Technical Impediments to Biotech Rice

2010-03-04T19:52:00.002-05:00

Recombinant DNA technology and methods for generating biotech rice are available thus assuring that there are no technical impediments to the widespread adoption of biotech rice by rice-growing countries. Dr. John Bennett, honorary professor of the School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney, Australia, predicts that there will be further increases in the efficiency of biotech rice production with the introduction of (1) floral spray inoculation of Agrobacterium to avoid tissues culture; (2) homologous recombination to insert genes in a targeted rather than random manner, and (3) plastome transformation to permit alteration of key photosynthetic genes in the chloroplast.

In Biotech Rice-Present Status and Future Prospects, a special feature in Brief 41 on the Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops 2009 published by the International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications, Bennett notes however, that several potential impediments arise from the regulation of biotech crops in the major rice-growing countries. He said that two major rice-growing countries, China and India, would benefit from more transparency in devising and costing the tests for food safety and environmental protection. A major challenge will be to enhance yield potential and yield stability and to give high priority to issues such as climate change.

A copy of Brief 41 can be purchased online at http://www.isaaa.org.

Canada to approve GM 'enviropigs'

2010-02-22T06:15:00.000-05:00

OTTAWA, Feb. 19 (UPI) -- A Canadian government department is poised to approve genetically modified pigs for the food supply, the Canwest News Service reported Friday.

Sources told the agency Environment Canada will announce approval of the strain known as "enviropigs" Saturday.

The strain would then need approval from Health Canada before the pigs enter the food market.
The Yorkshire pigs were developed by researchers in Ontario at the University of Guelph, who spliced in genes from mice to decrease the amount of phosphorus produced in the pigs' dung, the report said.

The genetic modification means the new strain of pigs produce 30 to 65 percent less phosphorus in their waste, which has been problematic in surface and groundwater around large livestock operations, Canwest said.

Steven Liss, associate vice-president for research at the University of Guelph, said an application has also been sent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, but he had no idea how long it would take to get a response.

Monsanto 'faked' data for approvals claims its ex-chief

2010-02-19T14:45:00.000-05:00

Dinesh C. Sharma, New Delhi, February 9, 2010

The debate on genetically modified (GM) brinjal variety continues to generate heat. Former managing director of Monsanto India, Tiruvadi Jagadisan, is the latest to join the critics of Bt brinjal, perhaps the first industry insider to do so.

Jagadisan, who worked with Monsanto for nearly two decades, including eight years as the managing director of India operations, spoke against the new variety during the public consultation held in Bangalore on Saturday.

On Monday, he elaborated by saying the company "used to fake scientific data" submitted to government regulatory agencies to get commercial approvals for its products in India.
The former Monsanto boss said government regulatory agencies with which the company used to deal with in the 1980s simply depended on data supplied by the company while giving approvals to herbicides.

"The Central Insecticide Board was supposed to give these approvals based on the location and crop-specific data from India. But it simply accepted foreign data supplied by Monsanto. They did not even have a test tube to validate the data and, at times, the data itself was faked," Jagadisan said.

"I retired from the company as I felt the management of Monsanto, USA, was exploiting our country," Jagadisan, 84, said from his home in Bangalore.

"At that time, Monsanto was getting into the seed business and I had information that a 'terminator gene' was to be incorporated in the seeds being supplied by the firm. This meant that the farmer had to buy fresh seeds from Monsanto at heavy cost every time he planted the crop," he said.

Jagadisan said the parent company also retracted from the assurance given to then minister for chemicals and fertilisers, Vasant Sathe, on setting up a manufacturing unit in collaboration with Hindustan Insecticides for the herbicide butachlor.

"The negotiations went on for over a year and in the meantime, Monsanto imported and sold large quantities of the product and made huge profits," he said.

Asked to comment on Jagadisan's allegations, a Monsanto spokesperson said: "We have full faith in the Indian regulatory system, which has its checks and measures in place to ensure accuracy and authenticity of data furnished to them." On approval of GM crops, the spokesperson said the regulatory process was stringent and "no biotech crops are allowed in the market until they undergo extensive and rigid crop safety assessments, following strict scientific protocols".

Field Testing Genetically Engineered Eucalyptus: Environment Assessment Still Inadequate

2010-02-17T16:02:00.002-05:00

USDA/APHIS aims to support widely dispersed field trials with reckless disregard for safety and in flagrant violation of the precautionary principle
Prof. Joe Cummins

This report has been submitted to the USDA/APHIS on behalf of ISIS
Please circulate widely, and make your own submissions online at http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2008-0059 or by post: two copies to Docket No. APHIS-2008-0059, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, on or before 18 February 2010
The US forest biotechnology company ArborGen has had considerable success in getting permission from USDA/APHIS (United States Department of Agriculture/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) to undertake open field trials of the companies genetically modified (GM) eucalyptus (note: GM, transgenic, and genetically engineered are used interchangeably throughout). The first field test of modified eucalyptus was undertaken in Alabama and reached a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). ISIS objected to the application for an earlier field test [1] ( GM Eucalyptus Environmental Assessment Irregular , SiS 35). Further field tests were carried out in Florida. Now, ArborGen proposes a gigantic follow-up by submitting two applications for field testing on 29 sites ranging in size from 0.5 to 20 acres located in Alabama, Florida, Texas and Louisiana [2].
USDA/APHIS has prepared a Revised Draft Environmental Assessment in response to the applications, to continue research on the transgenic Eucalyptus trees currently permitted, to be issued permits to plant additional trees, and for the environmental release of transgenic eucalyptus trees that will be allowed to flower on 28 of the 29 proposed sites. These plants are a clone, coded EH1, derived from a hybrid of Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla , and have been genetically engineered with different constructs. The purpose of the environmental release is to assess the effectiveness of gene constructs intended to confer cold tolerance, to alter lignin biosynthesis; and to alter fertility. In addition, the trees have been engineered with a selectable marker gene.
The two combined permits requested by ArborGen would allow flowering on up to 330 acres across all 28 locations, in fields ranging from 0.5 to 20 acres [ 2]. .

Gene used as selectable marker

The kanamycin resistance selectable marker gene ( nptII ) engineered into the trees is accepted as being safe according to APHIS. In a number of instances, plants transformed with this gene have been deregulated by APHIS (e.g. corn, rapeseed, cotton, and papaya in past petitions). It should be pointed out that the food and feed crops deregulated by APHIS were not labelled and there has been no effort to study the impact of the antibiotic resistance gene on the human population or for that matter farm animals. Therefore, the gene is essentially untested, and APHIS has no ground in assuming that the use of that gene has no significant impact.

The cold hardiness modification

The most significant modification is the introduction of genes for cold hardiness. The genes introduced include a protein transcription factor called C-Repeat Binding Factor (CBF) driven by a cold hardy stress - inducible promoter. The transcription factor regulated the expression of a number of genes conferring frost hardiness. Using the stress-inducible promoter to drive CBF transgene expression significantly improves freeze tolerance without negatively impacting other agronomically important traits. The cold-inducible promoter causes the gene to be expressed under cold temperatures, thus mitigating the potential of reduced growth at low temperatures. A constitutive promoter such as that of CaMV used to drive CBF transgene would reduce plant growth. A patent application submitted by ArborGen reports the CBF gene sequences employed by ArborGen in GM Ecalyptus [3]. Given the propensity of the CBF transgenes to produce detrimental growth impacts when controlled by a constitutive promoter, it is advisable make a fuller study of the proteome (the entire set of proteins expressed by a genome, cell, tissue or organism) of the plants modified with CBF and the stress inducible promoter. The presumption that the effects of transgenic CBF and its cold inducible promoter has no harmful side effects is unwarranted without a fuller study.

Gene for altered fertility

According to APHIS, the barnase gene has been engineered into several other crops that have been previously reviewed and addressed in multiple environmental assessments by APHIS, and granted non-regulated status: Male sterile corn (USDA APHIS petitions for deregulation 95-288-01p, 97-342-01p and 98-349-01p), rapeseed (petitions 98-278-01p and 01-206-01p) and chicory (petition 97-148-01p). There is no reason to believe that the function and expression of this gene will be any different from the plants in which it has been previously assessed. In greenhouse tests using tobacco and an early flowering model Eucalyptus ( E. occidentalis ), the applicant has found that the barnase gene demonstrated 100 percent efficacy in preventing pollen formation. In developing flower buds from field grown transgenic Eucalyptus lines containing this cassette, 90 percent of lines showed complete pollen ablation. Recent observations from the replicated field study being conducted in Alabama under the approved BRS permit (BRS # 06-325-111r-a1) confirm that cold tolerant trees grown at the site and allowed to flower did not produce any viable pollen. APHIS concluded that barnase will have no significant impact on the environment.
APHIS ignores the fact that the product of the barnase gene is barnase ribonuclease, a powerful cell toxin poisoning humans, small mammals and bird [4]. The same toxin has been engineered to kill cancer cells [5]. A patent application submitted by ArborGen in 2009 [6] stated: “Accordingly, there exists a need for a reproductive ablation system having reduced barnase induced toxicity and minimal leaky expression in a plant's vegetative tissues.” The leakiness and toxicity of barnase was not mentioned in the APHIS assessment.

Gene for altered lignin

According to APHIS, in a small set of experiments the CBF and barnase genes are also being tested in combination with unspecified genes introduced to alter lignin biosynthesis (claimed as CBI, confidential business information). In addition, the trees have been engineered with a common selectable marker gene ( nptII ) that confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin. The lignin gene has been engineered into other crops that have been previously released into the environment under both notifications and permits. The gene engineered into the plants in these field tests has been previously tested in ArborGen field trials for more than two years. There might be a concern that altered lignin could lead to an increase in insect or disease susceptibility as lignin is often associated with resistance to insects and disease organisms , but the results of field tests with this particular gene have shown no differences in plant pest susceptibility. Growth measurements have indicated that trees containing this gene had normal to a moderately reduced growth phenotype. However, if during the tests there is evidence of increase disease or insect susceptibility, the applicant is required to report such unanticipated (including excessive mortality or morbidity) to APHIS under the terms of the permit [2].
The claim that the l ow lignin trees are not susceptible to diseases caused by insect predation, fungus virus , or bacteria needs independent verification. It would be advisable to subject some trees to pathogens and insect pests to evaluate their resistance to the pests or pathogens directly, and in controlled comparison to wild - type trees. Low lignin trees often have reduced mechanical strength, which causes problems during wind storms, ice, rain or heavy wet snow. That problem does not seem to have been considered in the environment assessment.
It is unfortunate that the genetic construction of the transgenic trees has been deemed CBI as is the locations of the field tests. The CBI designation seems inappropriate because a patent as well as four patent applications by ArborGen reveal the entire genetic modifications used to alter eucalyptus trees. Patents and patent applications are public information and the information within those applications should not be designated CBI(7) . Withholding public information under CBI designations is frivolous and prevents local authorities and neighbouring residents from recognizing and pinpointing untoward side effects of the genetically modified trees being tested.

Potential Impacts to Human Health

According to APHIS, the eucalyptus field tests could be a source of Cryptococcus neoformans gattii , a fungal pathogen hosted by a variety of Eucalyptus species and other tree species. It causes systemic fungal infections in humans, leading to fungal meningitis and death. C. neoformans gattii has been found on a number of Eucalyptus hosts, some of which are being grown in commercial plantations and imported and exported for ornamental use. People have contracted and died from cryptococcosis in India, Africa, Taiwan, South America and California. C. neoformans infections are found particularly in AIDS patients due to their weak immune systems. Infections with this fungus are rare in those with fully functioning immune systems. For this reason, C. neoformans is sometimes referred to as an opportunistic fungus. It is unlikely that the trees that are the subject of the proposed field release can be a source that might introduce the pathogen into the US, as the trees were derived from sterile tissue culture lines. APHIS concluded that an increase of additional acreage planted to Eucalyptus would not impact the likelihood that these field trials should lead to a higher incidence of C. gattii in the U.S. and therefore should not pose an unnecessary risk to human or animal health. APHIS did not consider the fact that the transgenic eucalyptus could subsequently become infected and serve as hosts to the fungus.
In realilty, Cryptococcus fungus (a yeast) is a serious pathogen that infects both plants and animals including humans. APHIS' discussion of the pathogen seemed to represent the approach of lawyers for the corporation developing the transgenic eucalyptus trees. APHIS did not take a precautionary approach but instead demanded absolute proof of hazard in the absence of which, they would gleefully release any and all transgenic organism of dubious safety to the environment.
For example, APHIS omitted an important study showing that pigeon droppings are a significant source of Cryptococcus pathogen causing human illness. Pigeons droppings can deposit pathogenic yeast on eucalyptus trees [8], and cryptococal disease is increasingly global [9]. The mating of the pathogenic yeast takes place on the eucalyptus leaf surfaces, and is enhanced by a plant hormone. The product of mating, the fungal hyphae is pathogenic to plants and animals [10]. APHIS has preferred to ignore and discount the role of eucalyptus in spreading the yeast infection and to ignore the possibility that extending the range of eucalyptus will extend the range of Cryptococcus yeast infection in the United States.

Horizontal Gene Transfer to Other Organisms

Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is any process in which an organism incorporates genetic material from another organism without being the offspring of that organism. According to APHIS, HGT is a common phenomenon among bacteria but is not common between higher organisms and HGT and expression of DNA from these plant species to bacteria is unlikely. APHIS concludes that horizontal gene transfer poses no significant environmental risk. APHIS' position on HGT ignores a wealth of evidence in the scientific literature, which ISIS reviewed most recently in 2008 [11] ( Horizontal Gene Transfer from GMOs Does Happen , SiS 38).

Conclusion

APHIS' Revised Draft Environmental Assessment is highly inadequate. It is aimed at supporting widely dispersed field trials with reckless disregard for safety and in flagrant violation of the precautionary principle. APHIS is demanding high levels of proof of harm while ignoring or omitting findings that raise concerns over safety. ISIS remains opposed to the releases transgenic eucalyptus, as indeed of all transgenic trees, on account of the crucial role that forests plays in stabilizing climate [12 ] ( Moratorium on all GM Trees and Ban on GM Forest Trees , SiS 35), especially as new research has now shown that it is evapotranspiration pump of forest trees that draws rain from oceans to the land, in the tropics as well as temporate and boreal regions [13] (The Real Importance of the Amazon Rain Forest , SiS 46)
This is number 43 of ISIS' submission to the USDA.

References

Cummins J and Ho MW. GM eucalyptus environmental assessment irregular. Science in Society 35 , 50, 2007.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)Biotechnology Regulatory Services Permit applications 08-011-106rm and 08-014-101rm received from ArborGen LLC Field testing of genetically engineered Eucalyptus grandis X Eucalyptus urophylla Revised Draft Environmental Assessment December 17, 2009, 97 pages
United States Patent Application 20090229008 Transcription Factors by Blocksberg LN et al., ArborGen, LLC, 10 September 2009.
Prior TI, Kunwar S, Pastan I. Studies on the activity of barnase toxins in vitro and in vivo . Bioconjug Chem. 1996, 7(1), 23-9.
Balandin TG, Edelweiss E, Andronova NV, Treshalina EM, Sapozhnikov AM, Deyev SM. Antitumor activity and toxicity of anti-HER2 immunoRNase scFv 4D5-dibarnase in mice bearing human breast cancer xenografts. Invest New Drugs 2009 Sep 30. [Epub ahead of print]DOI10.1007/s10637-009-9329-2
United States Patent Application 20090075326 Reproductive ablation constructs , Rottman WH et al., ArborGen, LLC, 19 March 2009.
United States Patent 7,456,338 Modification of plant lignin content Forster ,R. , et al. Arborgen, LLC (Summerville, SC) 5 November 2008.
Garcia-Hermoso D, Mathoulin-Pélissier S, Couprie B, Ronin O, Dupont B, Dromer F DNA typing suggests pigeon droppings as a source of pathogenic Cryptococcus neoformans serotype D . J Clin Microbiol . 1997, 35(10), 2683-5.
Springer DJ, Chaturvedi V. Projecting global occurrence of Cryptococcus gattii . Emerg Infect Dis . 2010, 16(1), 14-20.
Xue C, Tada Y, Dong X, Heitman J. The human fungal pathogen Cryptococcus can complete its sexual cycle during a pathogenic association with plants. Cell Host Microbe . 2007, 1(4), 263-73.
Ho MW and Cummins J. Horizontal gene transfer from GMOs does happen Science in Society 38 , 22-24, 2008.
Cummins J and Ho MW. Moratorium on all GM trees and ban on forest trees. Science in Society 35 , 32-34, 2007.
Bunyard P. The real importance of the Amazon rain forest. Science in Society 46 (to appear).

Chinese Experts Assure Safety of GM Foods

2010-02-15T13:59:00.000-05:00

Until now, no evidence has proved that products obtained from genetically modified crops are harmful for people and the environment, said Chinese food and agricultural experts. In an interview by the Xinhua News Agency, Huang Dafang, director of Biotechnology Research Institute under the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences (CAAS), noted that GM crops are of great significance to the sustainable development of agriculture and China's competitiveness in global arena. "We are technically advantageous in hybrid rice planting. The genetically modified technology could ensure China's superiority in food production," Huang told the news agency.

Huang's views were echoed by Wu Yongning, a scientist at the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "I am not ruling out all possible risks, but those risks of genetically-modified food are no greater than that of traditional ones, given the heavy use of pesticide in growing traditional food," Wu said. He emphasized further that "food have to pass scrupulous testing in order to get on shelves, including laboratory and field studies, toxicity and allergy tests."

The original story is available at http://english.cas.cn/Ne/CN/201002/t20100208_50788.shtml

Researchers Develop Tomatoes that can Stay Fresh for Over a Month

2010-02-15T13:56:00.000-05:00

Soggy, moldy tomatoes could be a thing of the past. Researchers at India's National Institute of Plant Genome Research announced that they have developed transgenic tomato plants that can retain ripeness and a firm texture for over a month. The researchers employed RNA interference (RNAi) to suppress the production of α-mannosidase (α-Man) and β-D-N-acetylhexosaminidase (β-Hex) in ripening fruits, enzymes that perform linchpin roles in N-glycan processing.

Several studies have linked N-glycan processing in the ripening process.
"Analysis of transgenic tomatoes revealed ≈2.5- and ≈2-fold firmer fruits in the α-Man and β-Hex RNAi lines, respectively, and ≈30 days of enhanced shelf life," the researchers wrote in a paper published by PNAS. Normal tomatoes start to wilt just after 15 days. Overexpression of the α-Man and β-Hex genes, on the other hand, resulted in excessive fruit softening.

The researchers noted that postharvest losses of fruits and vegetables in the developing countries account for almost 50 percent of the produce. They also said that the technique could potentially be used in bananas, papayas, mangoes, and other fruits.

The paper published by PNAS is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0909329107

Genetically Modified Forest Planned for U.S. Southeast

2010-02-05T09:51:00.000-05:00

By Paul Voosen
Scientific American, January 29, 2010
Straight to the Source

Genetic engineering is coming to the forests.

While the practice of splicing foreign DNA into food crops has become common in corn and soy, few companies or researchers have dared to apply genetic engineering to plants that provide an essential strut of the U.S. economy, trees.

But that will soon change. Two industry giants, International Paper Co. and MeadWestvaco Corp., are planning to transform plantation forests of the southeastern United States by replacing native pine with genetically engineered eucalyptus, a rapidly growing Australian tree that in its conventional strains now dominates the tropical timber industry.

The companies' push into genetically modified trees, led by their joint biotech venture, ArborGen LLC, looks to overcome several hurdles for the first time. Most prominently, they are banking on a controversial gene splice that restricts trees' ability to reproduce, meant to allay fears of bioengineered eucalyptus turning invasive and overtaking native forests.

If such a fertility control technology -- which has come under fire in farming for fear seed firms will exploit it -- is proven effective, it could open the door to many varieties of wild plants, including weedy grasses, to be genetically engineered for use in energy applications like biomass and next-generation biofuels without fear of invasiveness.

The use of such perennial plants -- so named because, unlike annual farm crops, they live and grow for many years -- has long interested business and government, including the Energy Department, which has collaborated with ArborGen. The plants, which include many grasses targeted for cellulosic ethanol, can be harvested when needed and, given their hardiness, grow on marginal land.

>>> Read the Full Article

US Funding for Plant Genome Projects Reaches All-Time High

2010-02-05T09:49:00.000-05:00

Funding for plant genome research in the US has reached an all time high, according to an article published by Nature Biotechnology. In 2009, the National Science Foundation (NSF) doled out USD 101.6 million to 32 plant genome research projects focusing on "economically important crop plants" ranging from West African cultivated rice to poplar trees. These projects, the NSF said, will better define plant responses to changing environments and contribute to understanding of genetic processes in economically important plants. The project led by the Boyce Thompson Institute for Plant Research/USDA-ARS to complete the sequence of the tomato genome received the largest award, worth more than $10.4 million over four years.
Read the original story at http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v28/n1/full/nbt0110-10b.html

Biotech mint necessary, researcher says

2010-01-21T17:19:00.000-05:00

'Super' plant could dramatically increase yields, help growers compete with China
By MITCH LIES
Capital Press

The thought in mint circles these days is it's only a matter of time before mint joins corn and soybeans as being produced largely from genetically modified plants.

Rob Croteau, a Washington State University biologist, said that's the only way mint growers can compete with producers in China and India, where labor and land costs are a pittance compared to costs in the U.S.
With funding from mint grower associations, Croteau has used genetic modification to develop what he calls a "super mint" plant that yields twice as much oil as current commercial varieties.
Croteau believes breeders easily could stack another gene onto the mix to boost yields another 25 percent.
If grower groups decide they want to pursue the higher-yielding genetically modified lines, Croteau said researchers could have mint lines ready for growers in a year or two.
"We have a good 10 years' experience of doing this," he said of the genetic breeding work, "so it should go pretty fast if grower groups decide they want to develop these lines commercially."
Regulatory hurdles could slow the release of the plants, he said. But in three to five years, Croteau believes growers could have access to the genetically modified plants.
Growers are debating whether to incorporate resistance to verticillium wilt into the mix, he said.
Verticillium fungi are extremely destructive to mint plants, are next to impossible to control and can survive in soil without a host for 10 years, he said.
The disease ran the mint industry out of the Midwest in the last century and has reduced ground available to mint in the Northwest, Croteau said.
Scientists have isolated genes that show resistance to verticillium in potatoes and strawberries. Croteau believes the verticillium resistance also could be incorporated into mint.
Tim Butler, chairman of the Oregon Essential Oil Growers League, said growers are concerned about consumer backlash to genetically modified mint.
But toothpaste and other products that use mint oil already contain sweetener from genetically modified corn plants, Butler said.
And, Croteau said, potential concerns over ingestion of genetically modified mint oil would be misplaced given that mint oil produced from genetically modified mint plants contains no biotech gene.
Only the plant contains the biotech gene, Croteau said.
Researchers are working to develop a marker gene to include in all genetically modified mint, Croteau said.
That would enable companies to use only mint from non-genetically modified mint plants if they so desire, he said.

Scientist Discusses Negative Impacts of Roundup Ready GM Crops

2010-01-15T07:15:00.000-05:00

The Organic & Non-GMO Report, January 10, 2010
Straight to the Source

Robert Kremer is a microbiologist with the US Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service and an adjunct professor in the Division of Plant Sciences at the University of Missouri. He is co-author of one of five papers published in the October 2009 issue of The European Journal of Agronomy that found negative impacts of Roundup herbicide, which is used extensively with Roundup Ready genetically modified crops. Kremer has been studying the impacts of glyphosate, the primary ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, since 1997.

The Organic & Non-GMO Report interviewed Mr. Kremer about his research and the reluctance of the USDA to publicize the findings of the five papers.

Please give me an overview of your research RK: We started in 1997 wanting to see if this new system, Roundup Ready, would change the production of nematodes in soybean. We started looking at organisms in soybean roots and saw microorganisms colonizing the roots. We suspected that glyphosate was having an impact. There was a root fungi problem that seemed to be encouraging sudden death syndrome (SDS). We saw the increase of these fungi in the Roundup Ready (genetically modified) system, both soybeans and corn.

What types of things are you seeing in the Roundup Ready system? RK: This system is altering the whole soil biology. We are seeing differences in bacteria in plant roots and changes in nutrient availability. Glyphosate is very systemic in the plant and is being released through the roots into the soil. Many studies show that glyphosate can have toxic effects on microorganisms and can stimulate them to germinate spores and colonize root systems. Other researchers are showing that glyphosate can immobilize manganese, an essential plant micronutrient.

What are glyphosate's impacts on beneficial soil bacteria? RK: The most obvious impact is on rhizobia, a bacterium that fixes nitrogen. It has been shown that glyphosate can be toxic to rhizobia. (Nitrogen fixing bacteria are important to soils because nitrogen is the most commonly deficient nutrient in many soils.)

What about research showing increased incidence of Fusarium in Roundup Ready GM crops? RK: We've taken field surveys and seen an increase in Fusarium with the use of glyphosate. Some Roundup Ready varieties even without using glyphosate tend to be more susceptible to being impacted by Fusarium. It could be an unintended consequence of genetic manipulation that could make it more susceptible.

Your paper also mentioned the potential of glyphosate to contaminate groundwater. RK: Yes, under certain circumstances. The big assumption for claims that glyphosate is benign is that it isn't immediately absorbed by the soil. But research is showing that isn't necessarily true; that it is still available in the soil. If soil is full of phosphorous, glyphosate could leach into ground water. For example, farmers may use manure from confined animal feeding operations as a fertilizer. The soil will then contain high amounts of phosphorus, which overwhelms the soil. Any glyphosate that hits the soil will be a potential contaminant. It can stay in the soil or it might run off into streams or waterways.

What about glyphosate resistant weeds? RK: We have eight different species of glyphosate resistant weeds in Missouri. Some species of Johnson Grass are found in fields where Roundup is used year after year. It is a very aggressive weed. To solve the problem of weed resistance, genetic engineers are developing soybeans that tolerate Roundup and Dicamba, another herbicide. They are incorporating another gene resistant to another herbicide. When resistance happens again, will they then develop a plant resistant to five or six herbicides? It's an illogical circle.

With so much glyphosate being used, what types of long-term impacts do you think could occur? RK: We are already seeing glyphosate-resistant weeds. If we continue to use glyphosate in the same fields year after year, it's a matter of time until microbial communities in the soil will shift to more detrimental species. The use of glyphosate stimulates detrimental pathogens in the growing season but they go back down after the growing season. Eventually, they may build up in the soil and not go back down.

Are many researchers looking at the possibly negative impacts of glyphosate or Roundup Ready crops? RK: There are a handful of researchers. There is more research looking at the production of these crops.

The papers published in the European Journal of Agronomy received no publicity in the United States. Why is that? RK: I was working with USDA-ARS to publish a news release about these studies. I've gone all the way to the administrators, but they are reluctant to put something out. Their thinking is that if farmers are using this (Roundup Ready) technology, USDA doesn't want negative information being released about it. This is how it is. I think the news release is still sitting on someone's desk.

What about your future research? RK: We're looking at some methods that could be used to overcome negative effects if we continue to use Roundup Ready crops, such as supplementation of nutrients by foliar application. I'm more interested in sustainable agriculture. More farmers are interested in using cover cropping to maintain soil quality and other organic amendments. But it's a steep learning curve for them.

APHIS Seeks Comment on GE Corn Deregulation

2010-01-15T07:14:00.002-05:00

The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is seeking public comment on a petition submitted by Syngenta Biotech Inc. to deregulate its insect-resistant genetically engineered (GE) corn.
APHIS has regulated this variety of corn through its notification and permitting process since 1999. If APHIS grants the petition for deregulation, the GE corn and its progeny can be planted freely without the requirement of permits. An Environmental Assessment draft has been prepared by the agency to determine whether deregulating the GM corn would have a significant impact on the environment.
Visit http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/content/2010/01/gecrnmet.shtml for information on how to submit comments.

Safety of GM Sugar Beets Subject of Hearing

2010-01-11T08:58:00.000-05:00

by Eric Burkett | Jan 11, 2010

Could a federal judge in San Francisco who has already found the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) lacking when it comes to making sure genetically modified sugar beets are safe end up blocking planting of Roundup Ready sugar beets this spring?

The schedule for ongoing litigation between Monsanto, Forbes Magazine's Company of the Year and the maker of Roundup Ready sugar beet, and a list of opponents that includes the Center for Food Safety, the Organic Seed Alliance, High Mowing Organic Seeds, and the Sierra Club makes its less likely.

The parties, who have until Feb. 4 to hold a settlement conference on their own, are scheduled for a hearing on June 11th, well after most Roundup Ready sugar beets will be in the ground in the western and upper Midwestern states that grow them.

The collection of plaintiffs are hoping that discovery information the court expects to receive in March will convince Judge Jeffery White to halt planting of the next crop of GM sugar beets, expected to begin in April.

It was Judge White, appointed to the federal bench by former President George W. Bush, who last September ordered USDA to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the safety of Roundup Ready sugar beets.

That decision was seen as a "procedural win" for the plaintiff groups. The Sugar Industry Biotech Council found no issue with the safety of the Roundup Ready sugar beets, which are now favored by 95 percent of the acreage dedicated to sugar beets.

USDA deregulated Roundup Ready sugar beets in 2006, and the plaintiff groups filed their lawsuit in January 2008. The case was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Since the EIS decision, both sides have been shoring up their evidence and gathering evidence.

Judge White's order for USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is being reviewed by the agency, according to Suzanne Bond, the service's assistant director of public affairs.

Beets are among the most labor-intensive of crops and Roundup Ready sugar beets dramatically reduce the need for weeding and fuel, as well as water, said Luther Markwart, executive vice president of the American Sugar Beet Growers Association.

Introduced into the market in 2008, farmers apparently agreed and Roundup Ready sugar beets saw the fastest adoption rate by farmers of any genetically modified crop. Sugar beets account for more than half of the United States' sugar production, and since the GM beets were deregulated nearly four years ago, nearly 95 percent of sugar beets produced in the US are genetically modified.   

For organic seed growers like Frank Morton of Philomath, Ore., however, it's only made matters more complicated. Philomath is situated in Oregon's Willamette Valley where nearly all the country's sugar beet seeds--both conventional and organic--are produced.

"I was concerned that contamination events would begin to occur that would make my seed worthless," Morton told Capital Press, an agricultural newspaper, last December. Morton approached the Center for Food Safety in December, 2007 and they filed suit against the USDA the following month.   

Sugar beets, along with chard and table beets, are members of the Beta vulgaris family, and the three groups easily cross pollinate, a fact acknowledged by both Morton and Monsanto. In addition to the potential that genetically modified beets could cross pollinate with organic crops thereby destroying the organics' value, there is considerable worry about other dangers from genetically modified food crops.   

"For both organic and conventional consumers, they should be concerned because there are insufficient claims that say those products are safe," said Zelig Kevin Golden, staff attorney for CFS in San Francisco. Monsanto bases those claims on very short term studies, he said, and those studies were conducted over periods of time too short to really determine whether the sugar beets are truly safe Monsanto officials consider the plaintiffs' concerns overwrought.

"Activists are making some pretty dramatic claims, but that's why there are stewardship agreements," said Garrett Kasper, public affairs manager for Monsanto in St. Louis. "There's a lot of stewardship and training. Growing is by very well trained seed partners."

Activists' concerns go well beyond contamination of organic fields, however.   

"There are new studies coming out primarily in Europe that demonstrate genetically engineered corn varieties are toxic to organic functions," said CFS's attorney Golden. Genetically engineered soybeans have been shown to be toxic, he said.

"I wouldn't say they'll kill, no one actually knows that," said Golden. "We're being experimented upon because no one actually knows that."

Lundberg Products ‘Non-GMO Verified’

2010-01-07T17:45:00.002-05:00

RICHVALE, Calif.–Sixty-six of Lundberg Family Farms’ products are among the first to be officially “Non-GMO Verified” by the Non-GMO Project. The “Non-GMO Verified” seal means that verified Lundberg products have been produced according to rigorous best practices for GMO avoidance, which includes testing of risk ingredients.
“It is very important for the consumer to have an educated choice between food containing GMO's and those that are non-GMO,” says Grant Lundberg, CEO of Lundberg Family Farms. “It has been my pleasure to work with the Non-GMO Project and like-minded members of the natural foods community to draft the first comprehensive non-GMO standards in the United States.”
Grant Lundberg serves as one of 11 governing members of the Non-GMO Project's board of directors that has been involved in initiating, funding, and writing standards for the Non-GMO Project since its inception. The Non-GMO Project is a nonprofit organization, created by leaders representing all sectors of the organic and natural products industry in the United States and Canada, to offer consumers a consistent non-GMO choice for organic and natural products that are produced without genetic engineering or recombinant DNA technologies. As the Project evolved, it became clear that in order for the initial vision of standardized labeling to be possible, a third-party verification program was needed that would identify products compliant with a uniform, consensus-based definition of non-GMO. With the help of technical consultants FoodChain Global Advisors, the Non-GMO Project created a collaborative non-GMO verification program that began enrolling products in fall 2008.
While many products make claims regarding their GMO status (e.g. “GMO free”), these are not legally or scientifically defensible, and are not verified by a third party. The Non-GMO Project is the only organization offering independent verification of testing and GMO controls for products in the United States and Canada. Enrollment in the program is close to 3,000 products from more than 50 brands.

Study proves three Monsanto corn varieties' noxiousness to the organism

2009-12-22T20:55:00.000-05:00

NOTE: For the original article in French in Le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2009/12/11/une-etude-prouve-la-nocivite-pour-l-organisme-de-trois-mais-monsanto_1279552_3244.html#ens_id=1269926

For the paper in English in the International Journal of Biological Sciences: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

Le Monde with AFP, 11 December 2009
http://www.truthout.org/1215091

A new European study "clearly reveals ... new side effects linked with GM maize consumption" affected the liver and kidneys, but also other organs for three Monsanto GMO corn varieties. (Photo: DawnOne)

A study published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences demonstrates the toxicity of three genetically modified corn varieties from the American seed company Monsanto, the Committee for Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (Criigen, based in Caen), which participated in that study, announced Friday, December 11.

"For the first time in the world, we've proven that GMO are neither sufficiently healthy nor proper to be commercialized. [...] Each time, for all three GMOs, the kidneys and liver, which are the main organs that react to a chemical food poisoning, had problems," indicated Gilles-Eric Seralini, an expert member of the Commission for Biotechnology Reevaluation, created by the EU in 2008.

Caen and Rouen University researchers, as well as Criigen researchers, based their analyses on the data supplied by Monsanto to health authorities to obtain the green light for commercialization, but they draw different conclusions after new statistical calculations. According to Professor Seralini, the health authorities based themselves on a reading of the conclusions Monsanto has presented and not on conclusions drawn from the totality of the data. The researchers were able to obtain complete documentation following a legal decision.

"Monsanto's tests, effected over 90 days, are obviously not of sufficient duration to be able to say whether chronic illnesses are caused. That's why we ask for tests over a period of at least two years," explained one researcher. Consequently, the scientists demand a "firm prohibition" on the importation and cultivation of these GMOs.

These three GMOs (MON810, MON863 and NK603) "are approved for human and animal consumption in the EU and especially the United States," notes Professor Seralini. "MON810 is the only one of the three grown in certain EU countries (especially Spain); the others are imported," he adds. A meeting of EU ministers over MON810 and NK603 is scheduled Monday

Translation: Truthout French Language Editor Leslie Thatcher.

Monsanto's aggressive seed business tactics revealed in confidential contracts

2009-12-15T09:11:00.002-05:00

AP IMPACT: Monsanto seed business role revealed
By CHRISTOPHER LEONARD, AP AGRIBUSINESS WRITER
Associated Press, December 14 2009
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/1310ap_us_seed_giant.html

ST. LOUIS -- Confidential contracts detailing Monsanto Co.'s business practices reveal how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and protecting its dominance over the multibillion-dollar market for genetically altered crops, an Associated Press investigation has found.

With Monsanto's patented genes being inserted into roughly 95 percent of all soybeans and 80 percent of all corn grown in the U.S., the company also is using its wide reach to control the ability of new biotech firms to get wide distribution for their products, according to a review of several Monsanto licensing agreements and dozens of interviews with seed industry participants, agriculture and legal experts.

Declining competition in the seed business could lead to price hikes that ripple out to every family's dinner table. That's because the corn flakes you had for breakfast, soda you drank at lunch and beef stew you ate for dinner likely were produced from crops grown with Monsanto's patented genes.

Monsanto's methods are spelled out in a series of confidential commercial licensing agreements obtained by the AP. The contracts, as long as 30 pages, include basic terms for the selling of engineered crops resistant to Monsanto's Roundup herbicide, along with shorter supplementary agreements that address new Monsanto traits or other contract amendments.

The company has used the agreements to spread its technology - giving some 200 smaller companies the right to insert Monsanto's genes in their separate strains of corn and soybean plants. But, the AP found, access to Monsanto's genes comes at a cost, and with plenty of strings attached.

For example, one contract provision bans independent companies from breeding plants that contain both Monsanto's genes and the genes of any of its competitors, unless Monsanto gives prior written permission - giving Monsanto the ability to effectively lock out competitors from inserting their patented traits into the vast share of U.S. crops that already contain Monsanto's genes.

Monsanto's business strategies and licensing agreements are being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice and at least two state attorneys general, who are trying to determine if the practices violate U.S. antitrust laws. The practices also are at the heart of civil antitrust suits filed against Monsanto by its competitors, including a 2004 suit filed by Syngenta AG that was settled with an agreement and ongoing litigation filed this summer by DuPont in response to a Monsanto lawsuit.

The suburban St. Louis-based agricultural giant said it's done nothing wrong.

"We do not believe there is any merit to allegations about our licensing agreement or the terms within," said Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles. He said he couldn't comment on many specific provisions of the agreements because they are confidential and the subject of ongoing litigation.

"Our approach to licensing (with) many companies is pro-competitive and has enabled literally hundreds of seed companies, including all of our major direct competitors, to offer thousands of new seed products to farmers," he said.

The benefit of Monsanto's technology for farmers has been undeniable, but some of its major competitors and smaller seed firms claim the company is using strong-arm tactics to further its control.

"We now believe that Monsanto has control over as much as 90 percent of (seed genetics). This level of control is almost unbelievable," said Neil Harl, agricultural economist at Iowa State University who has studied the seed industry for decades. "The upshot of that is that it's tightening Monsanto's control, and makes it possible for them to increase their prices long term. And we've seen this happening the last five years, and the end is not in sight."

At issue is how much power one company can have over seeds, the foundation of the world's food supply. Without stiff competition, Monsanto could raise its seed prices at will, which in turn could raise the cost of everything from animal feed to wheat bread and cookies.

The price of seeds is already rising. Monsanto increased some corn seed prices last year by 25 percent, with an additional 7 percent hike planned for corn seeds in 2010. Monsanto brand soybean seeds climbed 28 percent last year and will be flat or up 6 percent in 2010, said company spokeswoman Kelli Powers.

Monsanto's broad use of licensing agreements has made its biotech traits among the most widely and rapidly adopted technologies in farming history. These days, when farmers buy bags of seed with obscure brand names like AgVenture or M-Pride Genetics, they are paying for Monsanto's licensed products.

One of the numerous provisions in the licensing agreements is a ban on mixing genes - or "stacking" in industry lingo - that enhance Monsanto's power.

One contract provision likely helped Monsanto buy 24 independent seed companies throughout the Farm Belt over the last few years: that corn seed agreement says that if a smaller company changes ownership, its inventory with Monsanto's traits "shall be destroyed immediately."

Another provision from contracts earlier this decade- regarding rebates - also help explain Monsanto's rapid growth as it rolled out new products.

One contract gave an independent seed company deep discounts if the company ensured that Monsanto's products would make up 70 percent of its total corn seed inventory. In its 2004 lawsuit, Syngenta called the discounts part of Monsanto's "scorched earth campaign" to keep Syngenta's new traits out of the market.

Quarles said the discounts were used to entice seed companies to carry Monsanto products when the technology was new and farmers hadn't yet used it. Now that the products are widespread, Monsanto has discontinued the discounts, he said.

The Monsanto contracts reviewed by the AP prohibit seed companies from discussing terms, and Monsanto has the right to cancel deals and wipe out the inventory of a business if the confidentiality clauses are violated.

Thomas Terral, chief executive officer of Terral Seed in Louisiana, said he recently rejected a Monsanto contract because it put too many restrictions on his business. But Terral refused to provide the unsigned contract to AP or even discuss its contents because he was afraid Monsanto would retaliate and cancel the rest of his agreements.

"I would be so tied up in what I was able to do that basically I would have no value to anybody else," he said. "The only person I would have value to is Monsanto, and I would continue to pay them millions in fees."

Independent seed company owners could drop their contracts with Monsanto and return to selling conventional seed, but they say it could be financially ruinous. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene has become the industry standard over the last decade, and small companies fear losing customers if they drop it. It also can take years of breeding and investment to mix Monsanto's genes into a seed company's product line, so dropping the genes can be costly.

Monsanto acknowledged that U.S. Department of Justice lawyers are seeking documents and interviewing company employees about its marketing practices. The DOJ wouldn't comment.

A spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said the office is examining possible antitrust violations. Additionally, two sources familiar with an investigation in Texas said state Attorney General Greg Abbott's office is considering the same issues. States have the authority to enforce federal antitrust law, and attorneys general are often involved in such cases.

Monsanto chairman and chief executive officer Hugh Grant told investment analysts during a conference call this fall that the price increases are justified by the productivity boost farmers get from the company's seeds. Farmers and seed company owners agree that Monsanto's technology has boosted yields and profits, saving farmers time they once spent weeding and money they once spent on pesticides.

But recent price hikes have still been tough to swallow on the farm.

"It's just like I got hit with bad weather and got a poor yield. It just means I've got less in the bottom line," said Markus Reinke, a corn and soybean farmer near Concordia, Mo. who took over his family's farm in 1965. "They can charge because they can do it, and get away with it. And us farmers just complain, and shake our heads and go along with it."

Any Justice Department case against Monsanto could break new ground in balancing a company's right to control its patented products while protecting competitors' right to free and open competition, said Kevin Arquit, former director of the Federal Trade Commission competition bureau and now a antitrust attorney with Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in New York.

"These are very interesting issues, and not just for the companies, but for the Justice Department," Arquit said. "They're in an area where there is uncertainty in the law and there are consumer welfare implications and government policy implications for whatever the result is."

Other seed companies have followed Monsanto's lead by including restrictive clauses in their licensing agreements, but their products only penetrate smaller segments of the U.S. seed market. Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene, on the other hand, is in such a wide array of crops that its licensing agreements can have a massive effect on the rules of the marketplace.

Monsanto was only a niche player in the seed business just 12 years ago. It rose to the top thanks to innovation by its scientists and aggressive use of patent law by its attorneys.

First came the science, when Monsanto in 1996 introduced the world's first commercial strain of genetically engineered soybeans. The Roundup Ready plants were resistant to the herbicide, allowing farmers to spray Roundup whenever they wanted rather than wait until the soybeans had grown enough to withstand the chemical.

The company soon released other genetically altered crops, such as corn plants that produced a natural pesticide to ward off bugs. While Monsanto had blockbuster products, it didn't yet have a big foothold in a seed industry made up of hundreds of companies that supplied farmers.

That's where the legal innovations came in, as Monsanto became among the first to widely patent its genes and gain the right to strictly control how they were used. That control let it spread its technology through licensing agreements, while shaping the marketplace around them.

Back in the 1970s, public universities developed new traits for corn and soybean seeds that made them grow hardy and resist pests. Small seed companies got the traits cheaply and could blend them to breed superior crops without restriction. But the agreements give Monsanto control over mixing multiple biotech traits into crops.

The restrictions even apply to taxpayer-funded researchers.

Roger Boerma, a research professor at the University of Georgia, is developing specialized strains of soybeans that grow well in southeastern states, but his current research is tangled up in such restrictions from Monsanto and its competitors.

"It's made one level of our life incredibly challenging and difficult," Boerma said.

The rules also can restrict research. Boerma halted research on a line of new soybean plants that contain a trait from a Monsanto competitor when he learned that the trait was ineffective unless it could be mixed with Monsanto's Roundup Ready gene.

Boerma said he hasn't considered asking Monsanto's permission to mix its traits with the competitor's trait.

"I think the co-mingling of their trait technology with another company's trait technology would likely be a serious problem for them," he said.

Quarles pointed out that Monsanto has signed agreements with several companies allowing them to stack their traits with Monsanto's. After Syngenta settled its lawsuit, for example, the companies struck a broad cross-licensing accord.

At the same time, Monsanto's patent rights give it the authority to say how independent companies use its traits, Quarles said.

"Please also keep in mind that, as the (intellectual property developer), it is our right to determine who will obtain rights to our technology and for what purpose," he said.

Monsanto's provision requiring companies to destroy seeds containing Monsanto's traits if a competitor buys them prohibited DuPont or other big firms from bidding against Monsanto when it snapped up two dozen smaller seed companies over the last five years, said David Boies, a lawyer representing DuPont who previously was a prosecutor on the federal antitrust case against Microsoft Corp.

Competitive bids from companies like DuPont could have made it far more expensive for Monsanto to bring the smaller companies into its fold. But that contract provision prevented bidding wars, according to DuPont.

"If the independent seed company is losing their license and has to destroy their seeds, they're not going to have anything, in effect, to sell," Boies said. "It requires them to destroy things - destroy things they paid for - if they go competitive. That's exactly the kind of restriction on competitive choice that the antitrust laws outlaw."

Quarles said some of the Monsanto contracts let companies sell their inventory for a period of time, rather than be required to destroy it. Seed companies also don't have to pay royalty fees on the bags of seed they destroyed.

"Simply put, it was designed to facilitate early adoption of the technology," he said.

Some independent seed company owners say they feel increasingly pinched as Monsanto cements its leadership in the industry.

"They have the capital, they have the resources, they own lots of companies, and buying more. We're small town, they're Wall Street," said Bill Cook, co-owner of M-Pride Genetics seed company in Garden City, Mo., who also declined to discuss or provide the agreements. "It's very difficult to compete in this environment against companies like Monsanto."

Three approved GMOs found unsafe

2009-12-11T07:05:00.000-05:00

NOTE: The new paper is available here: http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
---
---
Three Major GMOs Approved for Food and Feed Found Unsafe
(Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5(7), 706-726)
CRIIGEN press release, 11 December 2009
Caen, 14 December 2009: In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of three major GMOs about assessing the effects on mammalian health, researchers from CRIIGEN and Universities of Caen and Rouen have highlighted a number of new sex and often dose dependent side effects linked with their consumption. Their study of the 90-day feeding trials data of insecticide producing Mon 810, Mon 863 and Roundup herbicide absorbing NK 603 varieties of GM maize clearly underlines adverse impacts on kidneys and liver, the dietary detoxifying organs, as well as different levels of damages to heart, adrenal glands, spleen and haematopoietic system. Ironically, the confidential raw data of Monsanto about feeding trials on rats that these researchers have analyzed allowed the international authorization of these three commercialized GMOs in different parts of the world.

Although different levels of adverse impact on vital organs were noticed between the three GMOs, the research, done by J. Spiroux de Vendomois, F. Roullier, D. Cellier and G.E. Seralini and published in the International Journal of Biological Sciences, shows specific effects associated with consumption of each GMO, differentiated by sex and dose. Their research follows in the wake of European Governments obtaining the raw data related to feeding of rats for 90 days and making it publically available for scrutiny and counter-evaluation.

The researchers have concluded that all the 3 GMOs that they have studied contain novel pesticide residues that will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them. They have, therefore, called for immediate prohibition on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and have strongly recommended additional long-term (up to 2 years) and multi-generational animal feeding studies on at least three species to provide true scientifically valid data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods.

CRIIGEN denounces in particular the past opinions of EFSA, AFSSA and CGB, committees of European and French Food Safety Authorities, and others who spoke on the lack of risks on the tests which were conducted just for 90 days on rats to assess the safety of these three GM varieties of maize. While criticizing their failure to examine the detailed statistics, CRIIGEN also emphasizes the conflict of interest and incompetence of these committees to counter expertise this publication as they have already voted positively on the same tests ignoring the side effects.

Contact:
Prof. Gilles-Eric SERALINI, criigen@unicaen.fr ; tel. +33 2 31 56 56 84, or +33 6 70 80 20 87.

Citation: de Vendomois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Seralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm

China gives safety approval to GMO rice - Reuters

2009-11-27T06:40:00.000-05:00

* China approves pest-resistant Bt strain as safe

* Large scale production could start in 2-3 years

* Approval follows phytase corn clearance last week

* Corn, rice approvals are first for grains in China (Adds background, detail, quote)

By Niu Shuping and Tom Miles

BEIJING, Nov 27 (Reuters) - China, the world's largest rice producer and consumer, has approved a locally-developed strain of genetically-modified rice, paving the way for large-scale production in 2 to 3 years, Chinese scientists said on Friday.

The Ministry of Agriculture's Biosafety Committee has issued biosafety certificates to Bt rice, a pest-resistant genetically modified strain, two committee members told Reuters.

Along with GM phytase corn approval announced last week, this is China's first two approvals for grains, although it already permits GM papaya, cotton and tomatoes.

But the strains still need to undergo registration and production trials before commercial production can begin in restricted areas, which may take 2-3 years, the scientists said.

The scientists declined to be identified as the Chinese government has not officially published the information. Officials at the Agricultural Ministry's biosafety office declined to comment.

China is the world's top producer of rice, growing 59.5 million tonnes in the 12 months to October, but it exports only around 50,000 tonnes a month as most is consumed domestically. Exports of GM rice would be likely to face tough scrutiny abroad.

The European Union's executive body, the European Commission, said in July that China needed to tighten export controls on rice products, such as baby food, because shipments might contain traces of the Bt-63 strain, which is not authorised in the EU.

While China is not yet growing GM rice commercially, there are numerous field trials going on around the country.

Bt rice, developed by Huazhong Agricultural University, would help reduce the use of pesticide by 80 percent while raising yields by as much as 8 percent, said Huang Jikun, the chief scientist with the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

"We believe more genetically-modified technology will be used in agriculture production in future to increase production and reduce inputs," said Huang.

Phytase corn, developed by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science, will help animals such as pigs digest more of the phosphorus in corn, enhancing growth and reducing environmental phosphorus pollution via animal waste and fertiliser runoff.

Limited Release of Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane in Australia

2009-11-16T06:50:00.000-05:00

Australia's Gene Technology Regulator has approved the application submitted by BSES Limited for the limited release of 6,000 lines of genetically modified sugarcane. The sugar cane lines have been modified for herbicide tolerance. According to the papers released by the Regulator, BSES will release "three categories of GM sugarcane with two herbicide tolerance genes, two marker genes (nptII and bla) and a reporter gene." Details of the genetic modification, including the identities of the genes and regulatory sequences that confer herbicide tolerance, have been declared Confidential Commercial Information (CCI) under the country's Gene Technology Act.
The purpose of the trial, which will take place in six Queensland shires from 2009-2015, is to evaluate the agronomic properties of the GM sugarcane lines grown under field conditions. The GM sugar cane lines will not be used for human food and animal feed.
According to a risk assessment plan prepared by the regulator, the planned release poses negligible risks to people and the environment. BSES is bound to adopt certain measures to prevent escape of GM materials into the environment.
For more information, visit http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/dir096

GE Corn Growers Out of Compliance

2009-11-08T07:54:00.002-05:00

Farmers growing genetically engineereed corn break rules
By Elizabeth Weise
USA Today, November 6, 2009
Straight to the Source

Corn genetically engineered to resist pests and tolerate herbicides made up 85% of the U.S. corn crop in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But a report by a watchdog group, out today, finds that since 2006, farmers have become increasingly non-compliant with federally-mandated planting requirements designed to keep the popular technology useful in the future.

Approximately 25% of U.S. farmers no longer follow Environmental Protection Agency requirements to plant conventional corn "refuge fields." Those fields are crucial to ensuring that the pests - corn borers and corn rootworms - don't become resistant to the pesticide the plants have been engineered to make.

About 65% of genetically engineered (GE) corn contains a gene from a common soil bacteria, Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt, which produces a chemical that kills either corn rootworms or corn borers. EPA required refuge fields to ensure that that some insects had non-GE corn to eat, so that not all would develop resistance to the genetically engineered corn. The insecticide produced by the corn is very mild. Organic growing rules allow the use of Bt bacterium sprays.

>>> Read the Full Article

Draft Genetic Sequence of Cucumber Completed By Chinese Scientists

2009-11-07T20:33:00.002-05:00

Cucumber is an economically important crop as well as a model system for sex determination studies and plant vascular biology. The draft genome sequence of Cucumis sativus var. sativus L. was completed by Chinese scientists at the Institute of Vegetables and Flowers, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences with a novel combination of traditional Sanger and next-generation Illumina GA sequencing technologies. Results were published online in Nature Genetics on November 1, 2009.
In this study, scientists obtained 72.2-fold genome coverage and the results established that five of the cucumber's seven chromosomes arose from fusions of ten ancestral chromosomes after divergence from Cucumis melo. The sequenced cucumber genome affords insight into traits such as its sex expression, disease resistance, biosynthesis of cucurbitacin and 'fresh green' odor, and also provides a valuable resource for developing elite cultivars and studying the evolution and function of the plant vascular system.
The full text is available at http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ng.475.html

Monsanto Opens Biotech Research Facility in China

2009-11-07T20:32:00.002-05:00

Monsanto Company has recently launched its first biotechnology research center in China. Monsanto Biotechnology Research Center in Zhongguancun, Beijing will participate in early-stage bioinformatics and genomics research and serve as a base for collaborations with Chinese scientists, the company said in a press release. Monsanto also has research centers in India, Brazil and the US.
Monsanto said that the center demonstrates "its commitment to forming technology collaborations in the country." Recently, the company entered into collaboration with the Huazhong Agricultural University to further gene discovery and the development of novel biotechnology traits. The company also established a RMB 1 million (USD 150,000) scholarship at the university to encourage students to pursue careers in biotechnology research.
"We are pleased that Monsanto, the leading agricultural biotech company, is setting up a research center in China. Biotech is an important solution to increase crop productivity. Technology innovation and improvement will be determining factors for agriculture sustainability," said Zhai Huqu, president of the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Science (CAAS).
The press release is available at http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=765

Scientist Jeopardizes Career by Publishing Paper Criticizing GMOs

2009-10-28T07:08:00.000-04:00

By Ken Roseboro, ed.
The Organic and Non-GMO Report, November 2009
Straight to the Source

To Subscribe to the Non-GMO Report call 1-800-854-0586 or visit http://www.non-gmoreport.com/

Agro-ecologist Don Lotter published a paper titled "The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science" in the 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food.

The paper makes a damning case against genetically modified foods, saying the technology is based on obsolete science, that biotechnology companies such as Monsanto have too much influence on government regulators and "public" universities, and that university scientists are ignoring the health and environmental risks of GM crops. Lotter calls the introduction of GM foods the "largest diet experiment in history."

Lotter has a Ph.D. in agro-ecology from the University of California, Davis, and a master of professional studies in international agricultural and rural development from Cornell University. He has taught environmental science, soil science, plant science, entomology, and vegetable crop production for Santa Monica College, Imperial Valley College, and UC-Davis.

Lotter does not have a tenured position and is currently working on an agricultural project in Tanzania. He half-jokingly describes his paper as "career destroying" because he says it will be difficult to find a position at a US university due to the general recognition at most US universities that GM foods are safe and will help "feed the world."

If you thought publishing the paper would jeopardize your prospects for finding a position, why did you write the paper?

DL: I'm proud of the paper. This topic should be taught at universities. There is an enormous gap in public knowledge about this issue.

The science of genetic engineering is based on the one gene-one protein doctrine. Please describe this and why you think it is flawed.

DL: When they discovered the technology there was a simplified view that genes were in charge of the production of proteins. It is the entire basis for going forward with genetic engineering technology.

Then the Human Genome Project showed that humans have fewer genes than simple organisms, but we also have one to two million proteins. This discovery put an end to the one gene-one protein doctrine.

But by then there had been a massive investment in transgenics. The industry moved ahead with all their PR of "feeding the world" without any scientific basis for their technology. The doctrine has crumbled away, yet the industry has gone on.

In your paper you say that the process of genetically engineering foods is also deeply flawed. Can you give some examples of why that is the case?

DL: The promoter gene used in genetically engineered crops, the cauliflower mosaic virus, is a powerful promoter of inter-species gene exchange. Scientists thought it would be denatured in our digestive system, but it's not. It has been shown to promote the transfer of transgenes from GM foods to the bacteria within our digestive system, which are responsible for 80% of our immune system function; they are enormously important. This is a huge flaw, but not even the biggest in crop transgenics.

The process of splicing genes into plant genomes, transgenics, causes serious genetic damage-mutations, multiple copies of the transgenic DNA, gene silencing. The ramifications of this damage, incredibly, have never been elucidated or even explored for that matter.

Do you think the increase in food allergies we are seeing may be due to GM foods?

DL: Yes, there is evidence pointing to it. The industry is powerful enough to stop any labeling legislation. Without labeling they can't track these problems. We know that after the introduction of GM soy in Britain, there was an increase of soy allergies there.

In your paper, you write that the lack of oversight of GM foods has been a major failure of US science leadership. What makes you believe this?

DL: In the early 1980s, the biotech companies were successful in getting to oversee the regulation of GM foods. The scientific community should have stepped in, and said this is a radical technology, but it didn't.

There has also been a restructuring of the relationship between industry and universities. The Bayh-Dole Act (which gives universities intellectual property control of their inventions) made universities more dependent on industry.

Universities saw transgenics as a big money source, and scientists who objected were harassed or pushed out.

Do you think any US university would fund studies on GM food safety?

DL: No, they are not doing that. Anyone who tries to conduct research looking at GM food safety is given trouble.

Universities should have a mandate to find problems with GM foods.

We need federal money to look at non-proprietary solutions, such as organic farming systems, to the world's problems, and we should see whether proprietary approaches (i.e. GM foods) cause problems.

Unfortunately, non-proprietary solutions don't get funding.

We can show that organic farming systems promote drought resistance; the Rodale Institute did this research. But if a GM crop had been found to resist drought, there would have been major news headlines saying that it will save the world.

Is the safety of GM food considered a given at US universities?

DL: Absolutely. The debate is not there. US scientists have abdicated their responsibility on this issue. They know problems exist but they don't want to talk about them. Most scientists say we need GM foods to feed the world.

Some social scientists are saying there are problems (with GM foods).

I think undergraduate groups will bring the debate over GM foods to universities.

What type of agricultural approaches do you think will solve the world's food production challenges?

DL: The IAASTD (International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development) report said that we can produce food using agro-ecological methods and successful green revolution methods. The report didn't include transgenics.

The report was signed by 60 countries, but the US didn't sign it.

Internet and Newspapers as Sources for Biotech Communication

2009-10-23T06:55:00.000-04:00

Where do public officials obtain information about science issues including agricultural biotechnology? Based on a study of two groups that included elected state officers of the National Future Farmers of America (FFA) Organization and Texas House and Senate legislators, respondents relied on the Internet and newspapers as source for agricultural biotechnology. However, Texas legislators used the Cooperative Extension Service significantly more often than did state FFA officers, whereas the FFA officers relied more on the Internet. These were the findings of Gary Wingenbach, a professor in the Department of Agricultural Leadership, Education, and Communications at Texas A&M University.
The study published in the Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education, also tackled current and possible future legislators' perceptions of biotechnology. It provided a better understanding of the impact of media types when communicating the science of biotechnology to others.
View the abstract at http://www.jnrlse.org/view/2009/e08-0022.pdf.

Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched "GMOs-Feed-The-World" to an Audience of Experts--Oops

2009-10-14T16:52:00.001-04:00

From Jeffrey Smith:

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack was getting lots of appreciative applause and head nods from the packed hall at the Community Food Security Coalition conference today, held in Des Moines, Iowa. He described the USDA's plans to improve school nutrition, support local food systems, and work with the Justice Department to review the impact of corporate agribusiness on small farmers. But then, with time for only one more question, I was handed the microphone.
"Mr. Secretary, may I ask a tough question on GMOs?"
He said yes.

"The American Academy of Environmental Medicine this year said that genetically modified foods, according to animal studies, are causally linked to accelerated aging, dysfunctional immune regulation, organ damage, gastrointestinal distress, and immune system damage. A study came out by the Union of Concerned Scientists confirming what we all know, that genetically modified crops, on average, reduce yield. A USDA report from 2006 showed that farmers don't actually increase income from GMOs, but many actually lose income. And for the last several years, the United States has been forced to spend $3-$5 billion per year to prop up the prices of the GM crops no one wants.
"When you were appointed Secretary of Agriculture, many of our mutual friends--I live in Iowa and was proud to have you as our governor--assured me that you have an open mind and are very reasonable and forward thinking. And so I was very excited that you had taken this position as Secretary of Agriculture. And I'm wondering, have you ever heard this information? Where do you get your information about GMOs? And are you willing to take a delegation in D.C. to give you this hard evidence about how GMOs have actually failed us, that they've been put onto the market long before the science is ready, and it's time to put it back into the laboratory until they've done their homework."

The room erupted into the loudest applause of the morning.
Secretary Vilsack knew at once what kind of crowd he was dealing with. Or so I thought.
He said he was willing to visit with folks, to read studies, to learn as much as he possibly can. He pointed out that there are lots of studies, not necessarily consistent, even conflicting. He said he was in the process of working on a set of regulations and had brought proponents and opponents together to search for common ground. And he was looking to create a regulatory system with sufficient assurances and protections.
At this point in his answer, Secretary Vilsack, who has a history of favoring GMOs--and even appears to be more pro-GMO than his Bush administration predecessors--was trying to sound even handed. Then he made a tragic mistake.
After a slight pause, he added in a warm tone, "I will tell you that the world is very concerned about the ever-increasing population of the globe and the capacity to be able to feed all of those people."
Moans, groans, hisses, even boos. Not rowdy, mind you. But clearly agitated.
You see, the people in the room were among the top experts at actually feeding the world. They included numerous PhDs who had spent their careers looking deeply into the issue. Among those present were several of the authors of the authoritative IAASTD report. The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development, is the most comprehensive evaluation of world agriculture ever. It was a three-year collaborative effort with 900 participants and 110 countries, and was co-sponsored by all the majors, e.g. the World Bank, FAO, UNESCO, WHO. The behemoth effort evaluated the last 50 years of agriculture, and prescribed the methods that were now needed to meet the development and sustainability goals of reducing hunger and poverty, improving nutrition, health and rural livelihoods, and facilitating social and environmental sustainability.
And GMOs was not one of those needed methods! It was clear to the experts that the current generation of GMOs did not live up to the hype continuously broadcast by biotech companies and their promotional East Coast wing--the federal government.
In fact, the night before Vilsack addressed the conference, the same audience heard a keynote by Hans Herren, the co-chairman of the IAASTD report, during which he reiterated that biotechnology was not up to the task. And this morning, Hans Herren was in the room when Vilsack tried to play the feed-the-world card. Bad move.
Vilsack responded to the crowd's rejection by saying, "And well you all can disagree with this, but I am just telling you this. As I travel the world, I am just telling you what people are telling me. They are very concerned about this."
Thus, he distanced himself from the contentious, and fallacious, argument. He was just reporting what others had told him.
And that may in fact be his problem with understanding the serious health and environmental dangers of GMOs in general, if he is simply, as he says, repeating what others--Monsanto, Syngenta, DuPont--have told him over and over again.
It's true that I have mutual friends of Tom Vilsack who like and respect him and believe him to be reasonable and thoughtful. I have seen this myself, but not on the GMO issue.
Perhaps the reaction of the experts this morning will help to jar him out of his GMOs-feed-the-world mindset. Unfortunately, he is now deeply immersed in the second of this week's food conferences here in Des Moines, the World Food Prize. It features the major GMO promoters from around the world, including Bill Gates (who gives tens of millions to GMO development in Africa), and top executives of DuPont and Syngenta. Expect to hear constant chatter about how GMOs are the solution to world hunger which, unfortunately, may undue any of the restructuring that this morning's run-in with reality may have awakened.
In the meantime, if there are Q & A sessions at meetings where Secretary Vilsack is speaking or attending, I'll do my best to get to a mic.

International bestselling author and filmmaker Jeffrey M. Smith is the executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology. His first book, Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You're Eating, is the world's bestselling and #1 rated book on GMOs. His second, Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods, documents 65 health risks of the GM foods Americans eat everyday. Both are distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing.

Genuity SmartStax Trial Plots Demonstrate Efficacy Against Corn Earworm

2009-10-12T07:27:00.002-04:00

On going experimental field trials of genetically modified (GM) corn Genuity SmartStax has raised hopes for Midwest US corn farmers to combat earworm. The trial which involves a comparison of corn hybrids without in-plant earworm protection and the biotech corn was conducted in a trial plot with severe earworm pressure in the eastern part of Kansas.
The biotech corn Genuity SmartStax which carries traits for earworm protection as well as two herbicide-tolerance traits for improved weed control performed better and has less incidence of secondary infection by corn ear diseases. In addition, Chism Craig, Monsanto Technology Development representative, observed that when corn is planted late, it is more vulnerable to earworm migration from the South. This trial showed that the biotech corn withstood the heavy insect pressure brought by late planting.
The biotech corn is scheduled to be introduced in 2010 on 3 to 4 million acres in the USA.
See the press release for more details at http://monsanto.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=43&item=755

GM Free Churches - A Project of Berea Gardens Agriculture Center

GM Soybean Receives USDA Deregulation

Don't like the term GMO? How about "Molecular Breeding?"

Tell the FDA to Label Genetically Modified Food

GM Biotech Revenues Increase in U.S.

Monsanto rolls out GMO sweet corn

08/17/2011 9:57:17 AMAndy Nelson

Biotech Country Facts and Trends

Genetically modified food labels don't sit well in U.S.

China Ratifies 7 GM Crops

USDA Announces Decision to Deregulate Genetically Engineered Corn Seed

House Moves to Ban GE Salmon, Ag Debates Continue

China Genetically Modifying Cows To Produce Human Breast Milk

Bill to Accelerate Biotech Approvals in U.S.

The problem with GM nutritionally enhanced plants - study

USDA Decision on Deregulation of GM Plums

Seed saving, seed banks, Monsanto and Gates

ORGANIC FARMERS AND SEED SELLERS SUE MONSANTO TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM PATENTS ON GENETICALLY MODIFIED SEED

Scientists Discover New Route for GM-gene 'Escape'

ISIS Report 02/03/11

Gene “escape” a misnomer for horizontal gene transfer

Plant wounds hotspots for gene trafficking

Experiments confirmed their suspicion in full

Implications on risk assessments of GMOs still understated

The risks are far greater than admitted

Agrobacterium vector a vehicle for facilitated horizontal gene transfer [8, 9]

Agrobacterium transfers genes into human cells

To conclude

References

Researcher: Glyphosate (Roundup) or Roundup Ready Crops May Cause Animal Miscarriages

Genetic Engineering: Scientists warn of link between dangerous new pathogen and Monsanto’s Roundup

Plants Cloned as Seeds

USDA Approves Corn Amylase Trait

The OrganicGate Scandal

Team Organic will Never Surrender to Monsanto: Now We Continue the Fight, Together

The Organic Elite Surrenders to Monsanto: What Now?

The New GMO Swine Flu CornFlakes

Vatican scientists see “moral imperative” in GMO

Chilean Scientists Develop Vaccine-Producing GM Tomatoes Against Hepatitis and Cholera

Biotechnology in fruit and vegetables: a lot of research, few approvals

U.S. Says Genes Should Not Be Eligible for Patents

Machines of war - Blackwater, Monsanto, Gates

Monsanto and Blackwater's black ops

FEDERAL COURT RESCINDS USDA APPROVAL OF GENETICALLY ENGINEERED SUGAR BEETS

Alarming effects in GM wheat

Monsanto: The world's poster child for corporate manipulation and deceit

NaturalNews.com printable article

"Saving the world," and other lies

Monsanto's toxic past

Infiltrating the minds and offices of the government

Hijacking the FDA to promote GMOs

Covering up health dangers

Fake safety assessments

Monsanto's studies are secret, inadequate, and flawed

Monsanto rigs research to miss dangers

Monsanto attacks labeling, local democracy, and news coverage

Monsanto's promises of riches come up short

Canola crashes on GM

GM farmers don't earn or produce more

Herbicide use rising due to GMOs

Contamination happens

Deadly deception in India

Doctors orders: no genetically modified food

Pregnant women and babies at great risk

Food that produces poison

GMOs provoke immune reactions

Animals dying in large numbers

GMOs remain inside of us

Hidden dangers

Un-recallable contamination

Replacing nature: "Nothing shall be eaten that we don't own"

Greenpeace finds evidence of GM rice contamination in China's emergency grain stores

EPA fines Monsanto $2.5 million for selling mislabeled bags of GMO cotton seeds

Modified genes found in wild plant, possibly cross between GMOs

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge...." Hosea 4:6

Genetically Modified Foods: More Reason to Avoid Them; Why They Threaten Organic Agriculture

Action Alert – Protect Your Right to Know Which Foods Contain GMOs

Genetically Modified Soy Linked to Sterility, Infant Mortality in Hamsters

"Strip GM mandate" from Global Food Security Act

Foreign aid bill mandates genetic engineering

08/17/2011 9:57:17 AM
Andy Nelson