RAW-WISDOM.COM

Should companies be allowed to patent higher life forms like lab mice?

Mon 8 Mar 2010 5:13:22 AM GMT

Should companies be allowed to patent higher life forms like lab mice?

BY RICK REED, CITIZEN SPECIALFEBRUARY 27, 2010

If we start granting patents for genetically modified lab mice (and other life forms) we'll be walking into a trap. On one hand, giving out patents seems harmless enough. But in reality, it's only as harmless as nibbling cheese on a spring-loaded mousetrap.

Here are two ways we could get hammered by allowing companies to receive patents for transgenic life forms.

First, granting patents on genetically modified life forms could trap us legally. Patents would give ownership rights to companies more interested in personal gain than in the public good. Commercial interests could easily prevail over moral and social considerations. Genetic engineering is bound to produce some unintended consequences that are not only unforeseen but also unappealing. Giving out patents would limit our ability to control the outcome of genetic experimentation.

Second, granting patents on genetically modified life forms traps us spiritually. These patents would infringe on God's rights as the creator of life. In truth, God already holds the patent for creating life. The Bible is quite clear that God's Son, Jesus, created all living things. John 1:3 says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made." Colossians 1:16 also refers to Jesus when it says, "For by him all things were created."

Researchers involved in genetic engineering are not really creating life; they are rearranging the genetic material of the life God created. To give them patents on their modified life forms would be patently wrong.

Genetic engineering brings to the surface a host of legal and moral questions. The field is scientifically and spiritually complex. There are many dangers, pitfalls and traps. We need to humbly seek God's guidance on these issues. And we need to remember that it's always harder getting out of a trap than getting into one.

Rev. Rick Reed is senior pastor at the Metropolitan Bible Church in Ottawa. .

GE cows face death if super milk rejected

Mon 8 Mar 2010 5:06:51 AM GMT

Genetically engineered cows could be slaughtered by AgResearch if an application to create more animals with the aim of producing a medicinal super-milk is rejected.

Hearings will begin on Monday into the Crown research institute's application to mix the makeup of cows, sheep and goats with human DNA, and the outcome could have implications for up to 200 cows the agency has already created.

The Environmental Risk Management Authority has received 1545 submissions on the application, which has been slammed by animal rights and anti-GM campaigners as unethical.

AgResearch is embroiled in a court battle with GE Free New Zealand over similar proposals, but is still pushing ahead with its plans to create more animals at its Ruakara premises in Hamilton.

The agency is waiting on the outcome of an appeal after the High Court blocked four applications in June to develop genetically modified animals to produce health products.

However, the organisation's general manager of applied biotechnologies, Jimmy Suttie, said the new application was more specific.

It asked to mix human DNA with animal embryos and raise the created cows, sheep and goats in a contained facility.

The long-term goal of such work was to have commercial herds of genetically engineered animals producing milk proteins that could be used by pharmaceutical companies to make medicines.

Dr Suttie was unable to say how many genetically engineered cows AgResearch currently had, although it was allowed to have up to 200.

If the application was rejected, those cows would either have to be slaughtered or AgResearch would have to apply to Erma to keep them but not do any research on them.

The president of GE Free New Zealand, Claire Bleakley, said genetically engineered animals suffered from poor health, and there was a lack of information about how successful using them had been in developing new products.

As the biotechnology industry was growing, Ms Bleakley said there was a need to establish a national bioethics committee.

Using GE animals would ruin New Zealand's clean, green image, she said.

Greenpeace lawyer Duncan Currie said he did not believe the application should have been accepted by Erma, given similar proposals had been blocked by the High Court.

In its application to Erma, NZ Bio supported AgResearch's application, and said such research could lead to the production of cheaper and more effective pharmaceuticals.

Submissions on AgResearch's proposal to Erma will be heard in Hamilton on Monday and hearings are scheduled to last for two days.

Genetically Modified Flowers That Can Smell Like Anything

Mon 8 Mar 2010 5:05:48 AM GMT

Ever wanted a rose that smelled like bananas? Maybe a petunia that reeked of root beer? Researchers at the University of Florida Gainesville have isolated 13 genes in flowers that key for the blossom’s fragrance. These same genes hold the secrets to improving the tastes of some fruits.According to a news release from UF and an interview in Discovery News, these scientists have already started work on tastier tomatoes, and their first crop of petunias that smell like roses are scheduled to blossom this summer. The genetic modification of flowers for scent was detailed in Plant Journal as well as Phytochemistry, and could herald a new era of designer blossoms. Imagine going to a florist and asking for roses that smelled like bacon. By discovering the genes that code for scent, these scientists have opened the door to genetically modified plants that smell and taste better than ever before.

When you select for one trait, you tend to sacrifice others. The race to breed better blossoms over the past fifty years has improved size and beauty at the cost of scent. The same holds true for food crops – fruit and veggies are getting bigger, but they aren’t getting tastier. Evenprojects that take advantage of genetic modification typically only focus on resistance to parasites and improved yield. The University of Florida work, headed by David Clark, was itself focused on improving pollination by increasing the lifespan of petunia petals. Discovering the dozen or so fragrance genes was an accidental find – they’ve examined more than 8000 such genes over the past decade.

According to the UF news release, Clark and his colleagues are first looking to restore the “lost” fragrances of many flowers that have been breed for other characteristics in the last century. Eventually, however, the same genes that could return a flower to its ancestral scent could also be used to create entirely artificial smells. Flowers can be made to smell like other species, other foods, maybe even inorganic compounds. The implications extend outside of the florist shop. Perhaps flowers that smelled strongest whenever there were too many heavy metals in the water supply? As genetic modification finds its way into blossoms, these plants could move from ornamentation to practical applications. GM has its down side, but you can bet that discoveries like this one are leading to a better (smelling) future.

[image credit: Tyler Jones, University of Florida]

Canadian scientists say GM crops need buffer zones

Mon 8 Mar 2010 5:02:52 AM GMT

Canadian scientists say GM crops need buffer zones

Monday, 22/02/2010

Canadian research has found an 800-metre buffer zone between genetically modified crops and non-GM crops is essential.

Dr Hugh Beckie, from the Federal Department of Agriculture in Western Canada, says preventing gene flow from GM crops to non-GM crops is important to maintain market purity.

However, he says it's also important to keep different GM varieties separate.

"You don't want them growing, for example, Roundup Ready canola next to a LibertyLink canola," he says.

"What you're going to end up with next year is volunteers with Roundup and LibertyLink resistance."

Scientists identify enzyme for healthy heart

Mon 8 Mar 2010 4:59:28 AM GMT

Scientists identify enzyme for healthy heart

Scientists have come up with evidence to show that calcineurin, an enzyme, is critical in controlling normal development and function of heart cells.

The loss of the protein leads to heart problems and death in genetically modified mice, says a new study.

The research was led by scientists at Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Centre (CCHMC) and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMC).

It shows that calcineurin in hearts of mice is directly linked to proper cardiac muscle contraction, rhythm and maintenance of heart activity.

The near total absence of calcineurin in mice leads to heart arrhythmia (irregular heartbeats), failure and death, says the research team.

Scientists knew previously that calcineurin is important to heart function, but the extent of its role had not been defined prior to the current study.

Although the research involved mice, it offers important insights for future studies that could lead to new approaches in diagnosis and treatment of heart patients, said Marjorie Maillet, study co-author and HHMC study invetigator.

"We found that when you eliminate calcineurin, a pool of genes that regulates calcium in the heart went awry. This leads to defects in the growth and proliferation of heart cells, heart disease, arrhythmia, loss of contractility and heart failure and disease," said Maillet.

Calcium is also important to cardiac growth and the contraction of heart muscle. Previous studies have linked abnormalities in calcium handling to cardiac disease, especially in adults, says a CCHMC release.

These findings are slated for publication in the Feb 26 issue of the Journal of Biological Chemistry.

Norway says ‘no’ to genetically modified seeds

Mon 8 Mar 2010 4:54:41 AM GMT

Norway says ‘no’ to genetically modified seeds

Sarah Hiddleston

CHENNAI: “The main instrument for global food security is national food production. Every country has an obligation to provide food for its own population. Trade alone cannot solve the fundamental challenges regarding hunger,” believes Norwegian Minister of Agriculture and Food Lars Peder Brekk.

When agriculture is Norway’s second biggest national industry and provides for half of the Norwegian people’s needs, it’s no wonder that he sees eye to eye with India on the need to take care of his country’s farmers in the face of challenges from the World Trade Organisation.

“We say that agriculture is linked to where people live, where they have their homes; we want production in every part of the country,” he said during an interaction with journalists at The Hindu here on Monday.

To that end, Norway’s farmers are heavily subsidised through a lengthy consultation process between government and farmers’ cooperatives that takes place each year – a policy instrument that is being rolled back under WTO liberalisation agreements. But, he says, the subsidies are not just a question of economics, there is a question of securing rural livelihoods.

His government has said ‘no’ to genetically modified seeds and other imports – three applications for GM maize are still pending. He said that his government was pursuing a different route – increasing crop productivity by releasing the untapped potential of grains to be water-efficient and nutrient-efficient.

“We know we will be challenged by international companies… They have patented their products and want to sell them in Norway,” he said. “But who do you want to lead the market? Is it in the production around the country or is it in the hands of one big company?” he asked, expressing the hope that through publicly-funded research it may be possible to separate the debate between the science of genetic engineering and the big business of corporate agriculture.

Norway has its own goals on sustainable agriculture. Today 5.7 per cent of land is given over to organic production but the government hopes to push that to 15 per cent.

Moreover the Norwegian Parliament recently approved his department’s white paper linking agricultural policy with climate change. Norway will manage its topsoil, make better use of forest resources to reduce CO2 levels, try to find ways of developing biogas, make provisions for targeted research into pests and plant disease, and contribute 0.1 per cent of the value of seeds sold in Norway to an international fund designed to ensure the benefits of plant genetic material are shared with developing countries.

“We must try to find balanced solutions [to climate change]… I understand fully that India must have the possibility to grow. The starting point is rich countries. We have to deliver.”

Mr. Brekk, who was in India for the launch of an international conference on biodiversity and climate change, will meet his counterpart in Delhi next week.

Genetic Roulette: Is GM Food Causing Organ Failure and Lowering Fertility?

Mon 8 Mar 2010 4:40:14 AM GMT

Genetic Roulette: Is GM Food Causing Organ Failure and Lowering Fertility?

London, UK - 9th February 2010, 01:10 GMT

Dear ATCA Open & Philanthropia Friends

[Please note that the views presented by individual contributors are not necessarily representative of the views of ATCA, which is neutral. ATCA conducts collective Socratic dialogue on global opportunities and threats.]

Genetically Modified (GM) food crops are meant to feed the world's growing population because of their disease and drought resistance. However, the findings that genetically modified corn produced by one of the world's agricultural giants could cause organ failure are being met with obvious concern by food activists and consumers alike. Three types of Monsanto genetically modified corn have come under renewed scrutiny in the light of a new study published in the International Journal Of Biological Sciences (IJBS). This study found that rats ingesting the corn were subject to statistically significant amounts of organ toxicity. These three types -- Mon 863, insecticide-producing Mon 810, and Roundup herbicide-absorbing NK 603 -- have been approved for consumption in the US and several countries in Europe.

GM Corn or Non-GMO Corn?

Organ Failure

After analysing the data, the European researchers came to the conclusion: "Effects were mostly concentrated in kidney and liver function, the two major diet detoxification organs, but in detail differed with each GM type. In addition, some effects on heart, adrenal, spleen and blood cells were also frequently noted. As there normally exists sex differences in liver and kidney metabolism, the highly statistically significant disturbances in the function of these organs, seen between male and female rats, cannot be dismissed as biologically insignificant as has been proposed by others. We therefore conclude that our data strongly suggests that these GM maize varieties induce a state of hepatorenal toxicity. ... These substances have never before been an integral part of the human or animal diet and therefore their health consequences for those who consume them, especially over long time periods are currently unknown."

According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s website, the agency concludes that genetic engineering that occurred in the maize varieties, MON 810, NK603, MON 863 was not different enough from past approved products and did not need a pre-market review. It would appear that the FDA has relied upon Monsanto's assurances that the company had done adequate testing to ensure safety. It may be recalled that several countries in Europe, such as Germany and France, have banned GM crops, specifically MON 810 after it had been approved for consumption in the European Union.

Genetically Modified Alfalfa

Alfalfa is an unlikely flash point for the controversy over genetically modified crops. It is the favoured feed of dairy cows and cattle as well as a favourite health-food of enthusiasts. However, consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely to risk their health; since even the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) admits that, "acute toxicity in mice was observed."

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the US and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees. They can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. As a result, widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable.

Herbicide Sales

According to some agricultural experts, GMO food crops are being designed to sell Monsanto's herbicide Roundup and the patented "Roundup Ready" genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

Lowered Fertility

A long-term feeding trial commissioned by the Austrian government found mice fed on GM corn or maize had fewer offspring and lower birth rates. One of the studies was a so-called Reproductive Assessment by Continuous Breeding (RACB) trial, in which the same parent generation gave birth to several litters of baby mice. The parents were fed either with a diet containing 33% of GM maize, a hybrid of Monsanto's MON 810 and another variety, and a normal feed mix. The team found changes that were 'statistically significant' in the third and fourth litters produced by the mice given a GM diet. There were fewer offspring, while the young mice were smaller. The Austrian Agency for Health and Nutrition said the group of mice given a diet of genetically engineered corn saw a significant change in fertility.

Conclusion

Consumers often have no way of knowing clearly if they are eating genetically modified food. People around the world including the US are eating corn and corn derivatives that have been genetically modified, which have been banned for being unsafe in some countries including major ones in Europe. There are no laws in many countries including the US requiring companies to label their products if they contain GMOs. Even food labelled "Organic" that is processed with multiple ingredients must only be 95% organic, leaving loopholes for obscure ingredients that are genetically modified to be included.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabelled and untested GM foods. GM advocates have argued that given the US population has been eating some types of GM food for more than a decade is proof of its safety. However, new questions are arising in regard to the adequacy of testing and government procedures for the approval of genetically modified foods and feeds.

Most of the research on GM crop safety has been conducted by biotech companies, such as Monsanto, rather than outside independent laboratories. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not done independent testing on the health effects of at least three types of corn that are being eaten in the US and elsewhere, and have instead taken Monsanto's word for the fact that they are safe. Monsanto initially resisted releasing their experimental data to independent researchers. Environmental groups had to sue to get access to it. Once it was released and analysed by one group of scientists, they wrote a study in a journal and found statistically significant amounts of organ failure in the rats in Monsanto's own study.

[ENDS]

We welcome your thoughts, observations and views. To reflect further on this subject and others, please respond within Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn's ATCA Open and related discussion platform of HQR. Should you wish to connect directly with real time Twitter feeds, please click as appropriate:

. ATCA Open

. @G140

. mi2g Intelligence Unit

. Open HQR

. DK Matai

Best wishes

DK Matai, Chairman, Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance (ATCA) & The Philanthropia

ATCA: The Asymmetric Threats Contingency Alliance is a philanthropic expert initiative founded in 2001 to resolve complex global challenges through collective Socratic dialogue and joint executive action to build a wisdom based global economy. Adhering to the doctrine of non-violence, ATCA addresses asymmetric threats and social opportunities arising from climate chaos and the environment; radical poverty and microfinance; geo-politics and energy; organised crime & extremism; advanced technologies -- bio, info, nano, robo & AI; demographic skews and resource shortages; pandemics; financial systems and systemic risk; as well as transhumanism and ethics. Present membership of ATCA is by invitation only and has over 5,000 distinguished members from over 120 countries: including 1,000 Parliamentarians; 1,500 Chairmen and CEOs of corporations; 1,000 Heads of NGOs; 750 Directors at Academic Centres of Excellence; 500 Inventors and Original thinkers; as well as 250 Editors-in-Chief of major media.

The Philanthropia, founded in 2005, brings together over 1,000 leading individual and private philanthropists, family offices, foundations, private banks, non-governmental organisations and specialist advisors to address complex global challenges such as countering climate chaos, reducing radical poverty and developing global leadership for the younger generation through the appliance of science and technology, leveraging acumen and finance, as well as encouraging collaboration with a strong commitment to ethics. Philanthropia emphasises multi-faith spiritual values: introspection, healthy living and ecology. Philanthropia Targets: Countering climate chaos and carbon neutrality; Eliminating radical poverty -- through micro-credit schemes, empowerment of women and more responsible capitalism; Leadership for the Younger Generation; and Corporate and social responsibility.

Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice

Fri 19 Feb 2010 3:40:39 AM GMT

Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice

Fri Feb 5, 2010 1:22pm EST

Stocks

Bayer AG

BAYGN.DE

€52.30

+0.63+1.22%

12:00am EST

* Second ruling of about 500 similar cases pending

STOCKS

* U.S. jury orders Bayer to pay $1.5 million in damages

* Company says will consider legal options

(Adds details, background)

FRANKFURT, Feb 5 (Reuters) - Germany's Bayer (BAYGn.DE) was ordered by a jury in the United States to pay $1.5 million in damages to three farmers for losses they incurred because of contaminations of Bayer's genetically modified rice, the second in about 500 similar cases pending.

The jury's ruling in a St. Louis court against Bayer's CropScience division follows a related case in December, in which Bayer was ordered to pay $2 million, the chemicals- and drugmaker said on Friday after the close of trading in Germany.

"The company will assess this ruling thoroughly and consider its options," a Bayer spokesman in Germany said.

"Bayer CropScience is standing by its view that the company has handled its biotech rice responsibly and appropriately at all times," he added.

A rice variety whose genetic code had been modified by a Bayer subsidiary for research purposes and which was not approved for commercial cultivation was found in the food supply chain in August 2006 after it had been tested by a U.S. university.

As a result, Japan and the European Union restricted U.S. rice from crossing their borders, leading to a plunge in rice prices, a drop in exports and extensive losses incurred by U.S. rice farmers.

"Since the amounts claimed differ considerably from case to case, the rulings so far do not allow for conclusions regarding the outcome of the remaining cases pending," Bayer said.

The long-grain rice in question had a protein known as Liberty Link, which allows the crop to withstand applications of a certain weed killer.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration said at the time there was no public health or environmental risk associated with the rice variety. (Reporting by Ludwig Burger; Editing by Rupert Winchester)

Greenpeace calls for ecological farming instead of gm crops

Fri 19 Feb 2010 3:36:02 AM GMT

Greenpeace scores RP for promoting GM crops, calls for ecological farming instead

Agri-Commodities

Written by Jonathan L. Mayuga / Correspondent

THURSDAY, 04 FEBRUARY 2010 19:21

THE government should promote and invest in ecological farming practices rather than the costly research, development and commercialization of genetically modified organism (GMO) crops.

The call was made by Greenpeace Southeast Asia (GPSEA) during the launch of its report exposing the high costs of genetic engineering of crops at a press briefing in Quezon City yesterday.

“Ecological farming practices as a solution to the challenges facing the country’s agriculture sector is a lot better and safer,” said Daniel Ocampo, Greenpeace’s sustainable agriculture campaigner.

He said the Philippine government should stop the commercialization of GMO, such as the Bacillus thuriengensis or Bt corn, and the herbicide-tolerant ready round-up corn which has been approved for commercialization in the Philippines in 2003 and 2004.

“Investment in agriculture should focus more on ecologically sound farming practices, which is safer for the environment and the people,” he said.

The report “Counting the Costs of Genetic Engineering” documents the agronomic and economic failures of genetically engineered (GE) crops from around the world.

The report indicated the potential cost not only to the economy, but the environment and health of the people. It highlights how farmers around the world have suffered economically due to the high prices of GE crops and reduced yields due to field failures, while the public rejection of GE crops has led to the agriculture industry’s spending millions of dollars for separation of GE crops from conventional crops.

The case studies include the Bayer rice scandal when in August 2006, rice markets worldwide were rocked by the US Department of Agriculture’s announcement that the US rice crop had been contaminated by unapproved Bayer GE rice (LL601), genetically engineered to be herbicide-resistant.

The chain of events unleashed impacted not only US farmers and processors, but also rice shippers, importers and retailers the world over, costing the US rice industry more than $1.29 billion.

In the Philippines, Ocampo said possible contamination of farms could be very devastating, noting that it could also cause irreversible impact to the environment and put people at great health risk.

“Two decades of countless trial failures, contamination scandals and stories of farmers suffering from the effects of GMO propagation attest to the fact that GE crops are very risky, unstable and a threat to people and the environment,” Ocampo said.

“It is time that governments and institutions like the International Rice Research Institute abandon GE research and field trials, and instead focus valuable time, money and resources on real, reliable solutions,” he said.

Ocampo said, “The Philippine government should junk favorable policies for GE crop commercialization, and instead assess the future of agriculture. It should follow and abide by the recommendations of the International Agriculture Assessment for Science and Technology Development (IAASTD) on the pursuit of ecological farming practices.”

The first-ever comprehensive global assessment of agriculture development, conducted by the IAASTD, recently concluded that business-as-usual is not an option for the future of agriculture, and that GE crops are not a priority for feeding the world.

Instead, to ensure a healthy, habitable world in the coming decades, it recommended the promotion of the role and knowledge of small farmers and a systems-oriented approach adapted to local conditions and cultures. The IAASTD further indicated that the most effective strategy to adapt agriculture to climate change is by growing a greater diversity of crops and increasing genetic diversity of the crop varieties.

“It is a well-known fact that diverse ecological farming and modern conventional plant breeding are the best ways to respond to the vagaries of climate change in agriculture,” said Natwipha Ewasakul, sustainable-agriculture campaigner of GPSEA in Thailand.

“Genetic engineering cannot and will not be able to provide a solution to farmers to fight climate change, as commercial GE crops remain focused on crops that are resistant to herbicides, or that produce an insecticide—traits that are not related to climate-change adaptation. Ecological farming, which protects soil, water and climate, promotes biodiversity and does not contaminate the environment with chemical inputs or genetic engineering, is the only way to ensure healthy food for today and tomorrow.”

Genetically Modified Wheat Could Taint Montana Wheat Market

Fri 19 Feb 2010 3:30:42 AM GMT

Report: Genetically Modified Wheat Could Taint Montana Wheat Market

By Deb Courson, Public News Service, Guest Writer, 2-02-10

Genetically modified (GM) wheat is still “poison” for Montana growers’ pocketbooks. A new review of consumer attitudes in Europe, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan shows if GM wheat is introduced in the U.S., buyers will reject Montana wheat because of the possibility of contamination. And that would send prices for hard red spring wheat down 40 percent.

Dr. Neal Blue, a grain market consultant and former research economist at Ohio State University, did the survey because a coalition of some U.S. wheat-farming groups has started pushing GM wheat. He calls that a dangerous move, because action is swift against GM - as seen in 2006, when GM rice was found in American shipments to Europe.

“When they saw it, they immediately ceased imports of United States rice. That’s a very clear message, and it took a couple years for the United States rice growers to clean up all of that.”

The new push for GM wheat is backed by the argument that growers and processors need all the advantages they can get to boost production as wheat acreage has declined. However, Blue says the solution to more production is not in GM - it is in Washington D.C.

“One of the driving factors causing the wheat acres to go down in the United States over time is agricultural policy that favors corn and soybeans.”

The review is a follow-up to a study seven years ago that came to the same conclusion. Blue says genetically modified foods may eventually be accepted in foreign markets, but that is at least 10 years away.

The full report, “A Review of the Potential Market Impacts of Commercializing GM Wheat in the U.S.,” is available at www.worc.org.

This story is reprinted from the Public News Service, a news service that “provides reporting on a wide range of social, community, and environmental issues for mainstream and alternative media.” Clickhere for more information on the service.

Studying heart failure of mice and men

Tue 16 Feb 2010 2:39:31 AM GMT

Studying heart failure of mice and men

By Communications Staff
Monday, February 1, 2010

Scientists at Robarts Research Institute, working in collaboration with researchers in Brazil, have used a unique genetically-modified mouse line to reveal a previously unidentified mechanism contributing to heart failure.

The study, led by Marco Prado, Robert Gros and Vania Prado of Western and Silvia Guatimosim of Brazil, shows how the decreased release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, a chemical messenger which slows cardiac activity, contributes to heart failure.

The study is published online in Molecular and Cellular Biology athttp://mcb.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/MCB.00996-09v1

Heart failure affects close to a half million Canadians, often as a result of conditions including coronary disease, high blood pressure, diabetes and high alcohol or drug consumption. Cardiac output is controlled using two opposing divisions of the autonomic nervous system: the sympathetic nervous system which boosts the heart rate and the parasympathetic system which slows it by releasing acetylcholine.

“Lots of people have studied the system that increases the heart rate and that has been the hallmark; we know there’s an increase in the sympathetic nervous system in people who have heart failure,” explains Gros, a cardiovascular researcher and assistant professor in the Departments of Physiology & Pharmacology and Medicine at Western’s Schulich School of Medicine & Dentistry.

“What we’re now showing with this mouse model is that even if you have a functional sympathetic nervous system, if the other system, the parasympathetic system is dysfunctional or works less optimally than normal, you still end up with a sick heart. This opens up a whole new avenue that people have missed in the past.”

Marco and Vania Prado genetically modified a line of mice with decreased secretion of acetylcholine originally for use in studying neuronal function in diseases such as Alzheimer’s. But they found these mice, over time, developed changes in their hearts that progressively decreased their ability to pump blood, similar to what occurs with heart failure in humans.

“There are other mouse and rat models of heart failure, but what we haven’t had before is a model where we specifically target this chemical messenger, acetylcholine,” says Marco Prado, a professor in the Departments of Physiology & Pharmacology and Anatomy & Cell Biology.

“One striking finding in this study is that heart dysfunction in these mice could be corrected by treating the animals with an existing drug which increases acetylcholine levels. Although it requires further study, this could provide a novel opportunity for treating failing hearts.”

The drug, Pyridostigmine, is currently approved for use in treating certain cases of muscle weakness.

In Canada, the study was supported by the Heart and Stroke Foundation and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Melbourne medical breakthrough means GE pig lungs could be transplanted into humans

Tue 16 Feb 2010 2:06:57 AM GMT

Melbourne medical breakthrough means pig lungs could be transplanted into humans

Grant McArthu
From:Herald Sun
February 02, 2010 12:00AM
4 comments

But with 200 Australians on transplant waiting lists dying in the past year, Dr Glenn Westall said the world-first discovery meant pig-human lung transplants were a real prospect.

"Five to six hours into the experiment they seemed to be working as well as they were at the start," he said. "The blood went into the lungs without oxygen and came out with oxygen, which is the exact function of the lungs.

"It showed that these lungs were working perfectly well and doing as we were expecting them to do. This is a significant advance compared to experiments that have been performed over the past 20 years."

The breakthrough came after scientists at Melbourne's St Vincent's Hospital were able to remove a section of swine DNA called the Gal gene, which made the pig organs incompatible with human blood.

Prof Tony D'Apice - who has been breeding pigs for possible transplants since 1989 - said human DNA was added to the engineered animals to control blood clotting and rejection in humans.

His team at St Vincent's is trying insulin-producing islet transplants and kidney transplants in baboons as well as backing research in the US, Europe and Japan. He said the lung breakthrough at The Alfred was exciting.

The Alfred scientists removed the lungs and hooked them up to a machine mimicking the human circulation system under a process mirroring that used for traditional lung transplants.

The machine uses a ventilator to cause the lungs to "breathe" while a pump acting as a heart allows blood to flow through the lungs.

Previous attempts to combine unmodified pig lungs and human blood ended abruptly two years ago when blood clots began forming immediately, causing the organs to become so blocked no blood could pass through.

But when the genetically modified lungs were used at the end of last year the results were overwhelming, fuelling hopes of clinical trials in five to 10 years.

"Where before we saw the system crash and the lungs destroyed with in 10 minutes, the lungs seemed to be working perfectly well at the end of our experiment after many hours," Dr Westall said. "This is a major advance but there remain significant hurdles."

The full results of the research are being guarded before being announced at a world transplant meeting in Vancouver in August.

The Federal Government is developing guidelines for xenotransplantation after a moratorium on the practice expired on December 31.

But medical ethicist Assoc Prof Nicholas Tonti-Filippini said such transplants had the potential to bring animal diseases into the human population. He said the creation of genetically modified pigs was not ethically acceptable.

"It is basically a human-pig, a hybrid, or whatever you want to call it. It is about whether the community is prepared to accept a part human, part animal."

GM tomato gives 45-day shelf life

Tue 16 Feb 2010 2:02:20 AM GMT

Genetic marriage
GM tomato gives 45-day shelf life
Kalyan Ray, New Delhi, Feb 1, DHNS:
Here is some good news for housewives: A new variety of tomato, which will not rot even after 45 days but remain meaty and succulent, its smooth skin enclosing a jelly of golden seeds and dripping crimson juice, will soon be available with your locality vegetable vendor.

But how soon is soon? That is the bad news: You have to wait for at least a year before you get to taste of the luminous lumpy citrous fruit that will give the same taste and colour to dishes in which they are used. Tinkering two genes found in perishable fruits and vegetables, scientists at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research here have come out with a genetically modified tomato that retains its texture and firmness for up to 45 days. The findings have been reported on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Though it is GM tomato, there may not be fodder for the anti-GM brigade as “it does not have any foreign gene and uses a safe promoter,” team leader and professor of eminence at NIPGR Asis Datta told Deccan Herald. Datta and his colleagues have identified and cloned two genes – alpha Man and beta Hex – which accumulate in tomatoes at critical stages during the fruit's ripening. Both genes are associated with softening of the fruit leading to post-harvest loss. The post-harvest loss in India – the world’s second highest producer of fruits and vegetables – accounts for 35-40 per cent of horticulture produce. The softening that accompanies ripening of fruits exacerbates damage during shipping and handling processes. It plays a key role in determining the cost, because it has a direct impact on palatability, consumer acceptability and shelf life. The NIPGR scientists used genetic engineering to “silence” the enzymes in tomatoes. The GM tomatoes lacking alpha-Man were approximately 2.5 times firmer than conventional tomatoes and those lacking beta-Hex were two times firmer. Both types of GM tomatoes retained their texture and firmness for up to 45 days, compared with conventional tomatoes, which started shrinking and losing texture after 15 days. The transgenic tomato plants grew normally and produced typical amounts of vegetation and fruit, which matured at the typical rate. Datta’s tomato remains stable for a period far longer than GM tomato developed by crop scientists at Indian Agriculture Research Institute here. Exploiting a different approach, IARI researchers delayed tomato’s ripening by 12-15 days. “That much of delay is good enough for farmers to transport the tomato crop to other markets to avoid glut in one state,” said K C Bansal, the IARI team leader. Both teams are in the process of approaching the Review Committee on Genetic Manipulation (RCGM) under the department of biotechnology seeking permission for limited field trials. Once the RCGM approves it, the GM tomato has to be cleared by country’s apex regulatory body – Genetic Engineering Approval Committee under the union environment ministry – before it is commercialised. The entire process can take 3-5 years. Datta said manipulating the same two enzymes can help increase the shelf life of banana and papaya as well. “But transforming banana and papaya are more technically complicated,” argued Bansal.

Zimbabwe: Caution Needed Over GMO Foods

Tue 16 Feb 2010 1:57:57 AM GMT

Published by the government of Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe: Caution Needed Over GMO Foods

30 January 2010

Harare — It is not the first time that the Grain Millers Association has urged the Government to allow them to import genetically-modified grain.

The Government has responded that it cannot allow unprocessed grain into the country because when it germinates, it contaminates the environment.

Millers have been told that they are free to import genetically modified maize-meal though they would likely lose business as most Zimbabweans shun these products.

We agree with the Government when it says the money spent on importing GMOs should be used on contract farming. There are big companies that are already doing this.

While scientists across the world are embroiled in debate on the advantages and disadvantages of GMO foods, activists and traditional farmers, especially in Africa, feel they do not need GMOs as they might compromise the gene poool and harm the environment.

In southern Africa, only South Africa has opened to GMOs while the rest of the region is carefully creating legislation that will embrace biotechnology with the caution it deserves.

The big question that has remained unanswered by those pushing for genetic engineering or importation of GMO maize is whether that will be the answer to food scarcity mainly caused by poor rainfall, diseases and lack of resources among others.

Given the erratic rainfall that afflicted the region over the past few years. If biotechnology could be used to produce drought tolerant varieties that can do with the briefest of rains, then by all means many farmers would welcome it.

But if the debate about GMOs is simply about importing food at the expense of developing local agriculture then we have lost the plot. We feel that instead of importing GMOs, there is need to address the negative factors fueling food insecurity in the region.

The reversal of the negative trends can be achieved through the revolution of food production, post harvest technology and improved information on distribution and marketing.

And all this does not require genetic engineering.

True, there are already some GMO foods like chicken and maize-meal, which are already being imported into the country. There is therefore need for market segmentation as there are different markets and preferences. Consumers are worried that farmers and scientists using the drug-enhanced hormones or genes in these foods will not disclose the negative aspects of the products but would always vouch for their safety.

Generally, the major fear among many consumers on these GMO foods is that human genes might creep into the food. Even though Zimbabwe is not contemplating introducing GMO technology for now, it is however, imperative that there is legislation governing the importation of genetically modified foods when the need arises.

The fear among many is the threat of the importation of GMO foods on the country's agricultural industry considering the resistance being waged by those viciously opposed to Zimbabwe's agrarian reform both within and outside the country.

The real danger is that the country's entire agrarian reform programme could be destroyed in one fell swoop if adequate care is not exercised in handling the importation of the GMO maize as advocated by millers.

SA must hold the line on GM crops: Parnell

Tue 16 Feb 2010 1:49:59 AM GMT

Greens MLC Mark Parnell has urged the State Government to maintain the moratorium on genetically-modified crops in South Australia.

The call is in the wake of Western Australia's decision to allow GM crops to be grown in WA.

“WA’s foolish decision to open up themselves to GM crops should not influence SA at all,” Mr Parnell said.

“We need to make our own decision about what is best for our State.

“South Australians have made it abundantly clear over many years they don’t want open slather on GM food technology.

“The Greens believe we must continue to embrace and foster our ‘clean and green’ marketing advantage.

“WA’s move actually offers us an opportunity to target markets, like Japan, that continue to reject GM crops.

“The Greens call on the Rann Government to hold the line and publicly commit to a further extension of the GM crop moratorium in SA."

Bulgarians protest against GM foods

Tue 2 Feb 2010 5:56:00 AM GMT

About 300 people protested in the centre of Sofia against proposed amendments to the Genetically Modified Foods Act (GMFA) on January 31 2010, Bulgarian news agency BTA said.

Protests were held in front of the National Library, under the motto "Clean food, a healthy earth! Bulgaria GM foods free." Later, protesters marched to the buildings of Bulgarian National Television and the Bulgarian Parliament.

The protesters demanded any decision on loosening GM foods restrictions to be postponed until a wider public debate on the topic had been held, BTA said.

Organisers wanted any changes to the GMFA to limit the use of GM foods to scientific purposes. Proposed changes only served the interests of a small group of interested parties and foreign companies, organisers said.

The protests were organised by the coalition To Sustain the Nature and a committee of parents and citizens.

Do we know what's in school lunches?

Mon 1 Feb 2010 3:15:38 AM GMT

Do we know what's in school lunches?

There's been much recent controversy among many scientists as to the claims made by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that genetically modified foods (commonly called GMOs or GMs) are 100 percent safe. They are banned in many other countries outside of the U.S., and we have never performed safety tests on them in this country. Or I should say, we are the test population.

In light of the controversy, I called the Shasta County Office of Education to ask what the official position on GMOs in school lunches was. I spoke to the nutrition services director. She told me that she did not know what a GMO was. She had never heard that term.

Yet most school lunches are full of GMOs, mostly in the form of GMO corn, soy and canola products, and there is a lot of independent scientific research from a number of scholarly sources (including the FDA's own scientists who were fired for speaking out about the potential health risks of GMOs initially) piling up, implicating them in a host of fatal diseases and food allergies on the rise in our children.

A growing number of parents in our community are concerned about a decline in our children's health due to poor nutrition and a lack of information with which to make educated decisions about food safety. A number of local nonprofit organizations are working in conjunction with Shasta County to address this lack of education. As concerned parents, we would appreciate it if the school district administrators could take the time to familiarize themselves with some of the issues we are concerned about, so that, at the very least, they will have a rudimentary understanding of the opinions and science behind them.

If there is even the slightest possibility that some of the foods Shasta County schoolchildren eat in their lunches could be potentially harmful, we have a right to speak out about our concerns, and you as administrators have a responsibility and an obligation to be informed.

Increasingly, we as parents will be asking for much more transparency about what our children are eating in the public schools, where that food is coming from and what is in it. Knowing the answers to these questions is vital to our children's health and well-being and the success of our public schools and communities.

Some of the main issues with regard to the school lunch programs are GMOs in the foods we eat; bovine growth hormone in dairy products; meat safety; support for local farmers and food economies; support for school garden programs that teach sustainability; organic versus conventionally farmed produce as well as additives and preservatives in school lunches. Many counties in California are addressing these issues and taking the time to listen to the communities concerns and respond to them adequately.

It is also important to note that Shasta County schools have a state mandate to start addressing overall food quality and nutrition, and to start sourcing more locally grown foods and farms. It is called The California Agricultural Vision 2030 (www.cdfa.ca.gov/agvision).

There needs to be more momentum toward reaching the goals of Ag Vision 2030 within our county's school lunch program, and more commitment on the part of Shasta County's school administrators to interface with the community members who are ready to enable the process of reaching these worthwhile goals. Those of us who are ready to assist in making necessary changes to the existing system are growing frustrated with the lack of momentum.

We would like whoever is in charge of implementing the California Agricultural Vision 2030 within the Shasta County school lunch program to form a community advisory panel and provide a forum for us to be involved with making the necessary changes to the school lunch program. We are quickly growing tired of sitting on the sidelines when it seems that many of us are more knowledgeable and motivated than some of the the administrators who are being well paid to make these changes.

If you are interested in making changes and addressing the issue of food safety and the Ag Vision 2030 in the Shasta County school lunch program, please join our community for a screening of the critically acclaimed documentary film "Food Inc." on Saturday from 3 to 6 p.m., at the First United Methodist Church, 1825 East St. in Redding. There will be a number of speakers and resources for getting involved in your community. Hope to see you there!

Guenn Johnsen-Gentry is a parent and educator in Shasta County.

USDA Weighs Plan to Bring GM Eucalyptus to Southeast Pinelands

Mon 1 Feb 2010 3:12:17 AM GMT

January 29, 2010

USDA Weighs Plan to Bring GM Eucalyptus to Southeast Pinelands

By PAUL VOOSEN of Greenwire

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.

Yet many questions remain about the effectiveness of the fertility system used by ArborGen, which, according to leading scientists, has never been rigorously studied in multiyear trials to prove that it can effectively control plants' spread. More research must be conducted before such systems are relied upon to restrict pollen and seed spread, they say.

Despite these calls, ArborGen has been seeking government deregulation of its eucalyptus, which is primarily engineered to resist freezing temperatures, since 2008. If successful, ArborGen would likely revolutionize the timber industry and the Southern landscape by becoming the first company to roll out bioengineered trees on a massive scale, observers say.

In its rosiest scenarios, growers using ArborGen's presumably expensive seeds would see huge gains in productivity and become the preferred tree stock for a new generation of bioenergy refineries. The South would become the new Appalachia; timber would serve as its coal. Inklings of such progress have already arisen, including recent word that the German utility RWE AG would build the world's largest wood-pellet plant in Georgia to supplement its coal habits.

By adopting eucalyptus as a tree stock, the United States would simply be catching up with countries like Brazil, which has leveraged vast tree plantations in recent decades to pivot from a net wood importer to an exporter. While the South saw a rise in pine plantations during this time, pine cannot compete with eucalyptus for sheer growth rate, the company says.

"The United States is behind the game on this," said Les Pearson, ArborGen's director of regulatory affairs. "Lots of countries around the world have been growing eucalyptus for many decades."

Indeed, primarily because of competition from South America, demand for traditional American tree pulp has gone slack. This sagging industry could allow up to 10 million acres in the Southeast to be repurposed for fast-growing eucalyptuses, according to corporate estimates.

But it still remains unclear if the nascent bioenergy industry will be enough to make up for demand lost to Brazilian plantations, said Curtis Seltzer, a timber consultant who has studied ArborGen and calls its trees a "game changer."

"It's not clear to me that biomass will pick up the slack for the traditional markets [as they] ebb," Seltzer said. "But it could."

Even given government incentives and a price on carbon, however, ArborGen must satisfy concerns from regulators and environmental groups that its engineered trees will not, especially when gifted with the ability to resist cold, spread untrammeled through forests.

Pollen problems

At its most basic, life is about reproduction. And the species' struggle to adapt and survive can make attempts to control the fertility of plants difficult, according to Steve Strauss, a tree geneticist at Oregon State University who has also consulted with ArborGen.

ArborGen relies on what has been the most popular system for restricting plant pollen, which uses a bacterial gene to produce a toxic enzyme called barnase that slices apart genetic material in a cell, causing death. Through genetic trickery, the enzyme is only produced in the pollen-spreading parts of the tree, destroying its ability to reproduce -- at least most of the time.

Given the number of trees that will be produced, there will likely be enough genetic instability to allow a very small number of the freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses to reproduce, Strauss said. Rather than an absolute containment system, barnase should be thought of as a mitigation strategy, he added.

"It doesn't mean there are no pollen grains produced," Strauss said. "Almost nothing in biology is 100 percent."

A tiny number of seedlings are almost assured to escape from the eucalyptus plantations, Strauss said. But since the trees, in his evaluation, are unlikely to prove invasive, there should be little cause for alarm.

"When you talk about trees, storms happen, wind blows," he said. "The containment is not absolute. There is the chance of some spread. Is it likely to become an invasive weed? Seems unlikely to me."

Until now, only two of ArborGen's experimental eucalyptus stations have been allowed to flower, and the company has reported little in the way of pollen production in the trees. It is now seeking to greatly expand the number and location of trees allowed to flower to 28 sites totaling 330 acres scattered across seven states. The Agriculture Department issued a draft approval of the expansion, subject to public comment, earlier this month.

The modified eucalyptus trees are already planted at most of these sites, and as they approach sexual maturity, ArborGen has been forced to pluck the trees' flowers or cut them down completely, causing millions of dollars in lost research, said Nancy Hood, ArborGen's public affairs director.

This test acreage is fairly small, hardly the equivalent of a full-scale commercial planting, as some environmental groups have accused. (For comparison, there are more than 32 million acres of pine plantation in the South.) However, ArborGen has confessed that it hopes USDA will deregulate the trees by the time the cohort reaches harvest age -- around seven years or so -- allowing the resulting pulp to be sold.

Many biotech researchers are supportive of the expanded experimental permit, which will allow more complete studies of the fertility containment system. While ArborGen has released little in the way of peer-reviewed research so far, it will publish barnase results this year, said Maud Hinchee, ArborGen's chief technology officer.

Such data would be a welcome change. While barnase's mechanism is well documented -- and approved for use in domesticated crops like rapeseed -- its effectiveness has barely been studied, according to an analysis written by Strauss in 2007.

"There does not seem to have been any serious field studies, in any crop, sufficient to estimate the operational effectiveness of containment genes," Strauss wrote. "Until many such studies are published, it would be unwise to assume that genes can be fully and safely contained in the near future."

Decisions to deregulate any wild GM plant like the eucalyptus must take into account this lack of research, said Hong Luo, a molecular biologist at Clemson University who has developed a gene containment system for another wild plant, turfgrass. His team recently completed a one-year study of the system's effectiveness, he said, but more research is needed.

"There haven't been really too much studies of what would be impact of transgene escape from perennials," he said. "We will be cautious in this respect."

It remains to be seen how the public will react to the concept of GM forest trees. But as researchers point out, people have already embraced some engineered trees that have no pollen controls. Almost all of the papaya trees in Hawaii are genetically engineered to resist the devastating ringspot virus, and similar efforts are under way to save the American chestnut, which has been nearly eradicated by fungal disease.

However, the inability to promise 100 percent containment could delay the development of bioengineered plants that carry even slight risks of invasiveness. But such foolproof systems will come, Strauss predicted.

"I do believe we can produce absolute containment," he said. "We will be able to do that, I believe, in 10 years. But it's not proven yet."

Australian invaders

The unproven nature of ArborGen's fertility controls is concerning largely because they will be used to introduce a robust, foreign tree, conservation groups say. The timber industry has long dreamed of importing eucalyptus into the South, mimicking Brazil's success, where plantations transformed the country -- at some environmental toll -- from a timber importer to an exporter within decades.

Previous domestic efforts to establish the tree in the South, which came to a peak in the early 1980s, failed as winter freezes scythed dead swaths through experimental plantations. Only in Florida have the trees survived, though they have only been used in only limited ways, mostly for mulch. All efforts to move the tree into more temperate conditions have failed, until now.

Thanks to a plant gene that it licensed from Mendel Biotechnology, a prime R&D contractor with Monsanto Co., ArborGen's freeze-tolerant eucalyptuses have been grown in much colder conditions up into the Carolinas. (ArborGen has many connections to Monsanto, starting with its CEO, Barbara Wells, who worked at the seed giant for 18 years.) Mendel's regulatory gene controls the expression of other genes that influence cold resistance, and its use represents the state of the art in plant biotech.

But in opening the door to the plant's cultivation, far more scrutiny is needed as to how eucalyptus will behave when grown in bulk, said Doria Gordon, a senior ecologist at the Nature Conservancy.

"My concern is about invasiveness. Not that it is a GMO, per se," Gordon said. "The concern is, what threat is it to Florida's natural area and to the Southeast's natural areas?"

Last year, Gordon, who also works at the University of Florida, evaluated one of the two species used to breed ArborGen's hybrids, Eucalyptus grandis, also known as the rose gum. The tree had previously turned invasive in South Africa, Gordon found, which led her to conclude that the tree carried a risk of turning invasive in the South, as well.

Gordon serves on a panel that evaluates the invasive risk of plants in Florida, and last year, the panel classified the rose gum as a possible invader. Only a few variants of the tree can be grown, it said, and only with strict management practices, including harvesting within six months of the onset of flower production -- much sooner than a forest plantation would like.

Though the rose gum carries an invasive risk, ArborGen's trees are an unknown quantity, Gordon said. Given the uncertainty involved, however, the Nature Conservancy has recommended to USDA that ArborGen be allowed fewer acres and trees to flower, and none in Florida, she said. The draft permit approved by USDA would allow flowering in 10 sites across the state.

"We don't know if it could become more invasive over time," she said. And until then, "it would be logical to me to not do those trials in Florida."

It is not irrational to fear invasiveness in eucalyptus, said Dan Binkley, a forest ecologist at Colorado State University. However, the rose gum appears to take on weedy traits only in arid regions like South Africa, where it can leverage its tremendous water efficiency. The South is far moister by comparison.

Even in Florida, the eucalyptus has proved to be somewhat delicate, ArborGen's Pearson added.

The tree "does not exist outside of the planted environment," he said. And in the closed confines of a plantation, "you need to manage these things very carefully to let them survive and thrive."

'More Wood. Less Land'

While he would like to see more data on the water use and fire impacts of eucalyptus plantations, Binkley understands the tree's allure, he said.

Unlike the pine trees used in Southern plantations -- which have quietly helped displace tobacco in the region's economy -- eucalyptus can deploy a full canopy of leaves within a few years. It is greedy for carbon, and within 27 months can grow to 55 feet in height.

The ultimate benefit of eucalyptus plantations would be the ability to grow more wood on less land, ArborGen's Hinchee said. (Not coincidentally, the firm's motto is "More Wood. Less Land.") Forests are continuously lost to development in the South, and natural hardwood acres have become harder to harvest. Increased productivity would have benefits "through the whole economic chain," she said.

Similar claims have been made for the practice of forest plantations as a whole, which remains controversial despite its ubiquity in the South, and little data exists to verify the claims.

In the end, if the United States seriously pursues bioenergy from plants, the country will face a choice of drawing that power more from trees that are treated like crops, or from grasses, which can behave far more invasively, Strauss said.

"If we're going to rely on biofuels as a significant part of a diverse portfolio of renewable technology," then harvesting trees is the best way to go, he said. "There's a lot of marginal land that could be used."

Questioning the Purity of Organic Cotton

Thu 28 Jan 2010 3:06:00 AM GMT

January 27, 2010, 8:40 am

Questioning the Purity of Organic Cotton

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

EPA Clothiers are contesting a recent newspaper report that suggests they are mislabeling “organic cotton” clothing.

A battle is brewing over identifying clothing as being made of “organic” cotton when it contains strains of genetically modified cotton seed.

Things got heated last week when the German edition of The Financial Times newspaper reported that clothing labeled as “organic cotton” and sold by major retailers contained genetically modified cotton from India.

The exposé caused a stir within the industry, and several companies and organizations mentioned in the article are now coming forward and questioning the validity of the newspaper’s report.

The Control Union, a cotton certification group that works with the Swedish clothing company H&M — one of the stores identified as selling mislabeled apparel — issued a statement arguing that the data was skewed.

“It was mentioned that 30 percent of the organic cotton sold in Germany contains BT-seed cotton,” the statement said, referring to a common strain of cotton genetically modified to resist insect damage. “For us it is unclear which data was used to come to this conclusion, and how the link with India was made,” the Control Union said.

H&M also issued a statement noting that it was aware that an Indian regulatory authority had criticized the Control Union last year for “insufficient checks of farmers’ control systems for seeds and sowing.”

As a consequence of the criticism, the “Control Union conducted unannounced audits of all organic cotton farms that they certify in India,” the statement read.

None of the farms were found to use genetically modified seeds, according to the retailer, and all farms took the appropriate steps to ensure that genetically modified seeds were not used.

The Control Union “has since further strengthened their routines and continue to be accredited by” Indian regulators, the clothier said.

Genetically modified cotton is used in India and the United States, and there is always a chance that it will become mixed with organic stocks, said LaRhea Pepper, director of Organic Exchange, a nonprofit dedicated to promoting organic fibers.

(Both H&M and the Control Union are members of Organic Exchange.)

Such intermingling could happen at cotton gins or at the “delinting companies,” Ms. Pepper said. “Those are two potential places where there may be contamination if the plants are not cleaning out the machinery well.”

She added the Organic Exchange is trying to improve the integrity of the organic cotton trade. “We’ve been meeting with key stakeholders in India,” she said.

India is the world’s second largest producer of cotton, after China.

The full story remains to be unraveled, but this is the second time in the new year that H&M has been caught in an awkward position.

Earlier this month, The New York Times reported that the H&M store on 34th Street in Manhattan was discarding bags of unsold clothes — all slashed with a razor blade to make sure they would never be marketed elsewhere.

Fight Back against the GMO Assault on Our Immune Systems (Opinion)

Wed 27 Jan 2010 2:56:00 AM GMT

Fight Back against the GMO Assault on Our Immune Systems (Opinion)

by Paul Fassa, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) With Michael Taylor ensconced in the White House as the Food Safety Czar, we have the proverbial fox guarding the hen house. Monsanto Mike was a lead attorney, VP, and chief lobbyist for Monsanto. In the 1990s, he manipulated the FDA and the legal system to make sure genetically modified bovine growth hormones (rbGH) made it to market while financially destroying small dairy farmers who dared label their milk rbGH free.

Japan, Canada and some European countries have banned a few of Monsanto's products, while the USA remains an open market for GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms). This is due largely to Monsanto Mike's efforts, which includes successfully lobbying against labeling requirements for GMOs.

An Uphill Battle

So the playing field for ensuring real food safety is to eliminate the scourge of GMOs as crop, animal, and human genetic contaminants are tilted in the biotechnology industry's favor. The threat of GMO crops contaminating non-GMO crops is very real. It's going to take a lot to level the playing field and tilt it the other way.

Jeffrey Smith, author of Seeds of Deception and director of The Institute for Responsible Technology, advocates consumer education and boycotting. He claims there have been positive results from this strategy with bovine growth hormone laced milks disappearing from major market shelves. Too bad most of the harassed small dairy farmers aren't getting some payback from Monsanto.

Then there is the Organic Consumers Association, which has created a "Millions Against Monsanto" page on their site. When it comes to education, there are two excellent free documentaries available on line through the sources section below.

So activists have taken up the fight and become insurgents against the food chain tyranny big business and big government (aka fascism) have foisted over everyone. The food chain is being endangered permanently and decisively. And with that - the future of most living creatures!

Non-GMO Activism Needs You

It's going to take education and mass boycotting to put a halt to this hijacking of the food chain. Writing mostly corrupt congress persons isn't going to do it. Neither will petitions to the White House, which Monsanto Mike Taylor inhabits with the person who selected him, Barack Obama.

Just in case you haven't taken the GMO issue seriously enough to want to do something about it, here's some information from independent scientific studies (sources below) that is merely the tip of GMOs' health harm iceberg. The basic premise of food genetic engineering was proven to be false by the Human Genome Project. But never mind the facts, the funding was there and the "research" continued.

Biotechnology scientists isolated a virus that demonstrated a tremendous capacity for promoting transgenics between species. This was the cauliflower mosaic virus, or CaMV 35S. It was selected as an agent to promote gene swapping for virtually all agricultural genetic engineering. The biotechnology scientists assumed that this virus would be denatured in the digestive system. Wrong!

It turns out this CaMV 35S transgenic promoting agent keeps on promoting in the digestive system. So what gets genetically manipulated in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract? The friendly bacteria that comprises anywhere from 60 to 80 percent of our immune system! This invasion is a direct assault on our immune systems.

From West Ontario Professor Emeritus Dr. Joseph Cummins: "It has been shown in the laboratory that genetic recombination will create highly virulent new viruses from such constructions. Certainly the widely used cauliflower mosaic virus [CaMV 35S] is a potentially dangerous gene."

Get involved before it's too late. Educate yourself, pass the word, buy organic and boycott GMOs.

Sources for more information:

Access to Responsible Technology Non-GMO Food List
http://www.nongmoshoppingguide.com/...

Jeffrey Smith's Non-GMO Activist site
http://www.responsibletechnology.or...

Article on Michael Taylor's appointment as Food Czar with his background
http://blogs.healthfreedomalliance....

Organic Consumers Association (interview of a whistle blowing scientist)
http://www.organicconsumers.org/art...

UK Scientific Journal report on GMOs
http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpWESSE...

The Corporation (video documentary)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8...

The World According to Monsanto (video documentary) A must view
http://www.youtube.com/resultssearc...

Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?

Sun 24 Jan 2010 2:49:00 AM GMT

Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?

In the United States, we grow and eat corn whose genes have been tweaked to make the plants more resistant to pests and pesticides. Most European countries don't, largely because the citizenry fears it isn't safe. But try as scientists might, they haven't been able to find any good reason why we shouldn't eat genetically modified (GM) food.

Until now. Maybe. A new analysis of data released by Monsanto pried from Monsanto's lawyers' cold dead hands by a tag-team of legal experts at Greenpeace and other groups suggests there may be something to the idea that we shouldn't be eating maize that's had its DNA messed with.

The study found that three strains of modded crops -- MON 810 and MON 863, which are resistant to pests, and NK 603, which is foritified to withstand weed killer -- significantly disrupted the blood chemistry of rats who ate them. According to an article in New Scientist:

With each of the three strains of maize, researchers say they found unusual concentrations of hormones and other compounds in the blood and urine of the tested rats, suggesting each strain impaired kidney and liver function. By the end of the trials, the female rats that were fed MON 863 had elevated blood-sugar levels and raised concentrations of fatty substances called triglycerides. Both are potential precursors of diabetes, according to [lead author Gilles-Eric Séralini of the University of Caen in France].

...

"What we've shown is clearly not proof of toxicity, but signs of toxicity," says Seralini. "I'm sure there's no acute toxicity, but who's to say there are no chronic effects?"

The researchers are suggesting that if the GM corn has the same affect in humans that is does in rats, we're unknowingly taxing our kidneys and livers, and probably raising the risk of damaging those organs.

But as is often the case in these type of reports, the conclusions aren't terribly convincing. For one, the effects are barely statistically significant, and the article goes on to say that independent toxicologists who saw the paper said Seralini was reading too much into the results.

So we're left with ambiguity. Terrific.

There's just one thing I want to know: why do activist groups have to team up to force Monsanto to release tests showing whether or not GM food is toxic? Shouldn't food have to be demonstrably NON-poisonous before anyone is allow to start feeding it to people??

Source: New Scientist

Obama USDA Poised to Take Away Our Right to GMO-Free Food

Fri 22 Jan 2010 2:41:00 AM GMT

Ronnie Cummins

Founder and Director, Organic Consumers Association

Posted: January 21, 2010 06:27 PM

Obama USDA Poised to Take Away Our Right to GMO-Free Food

Don't believe Monsanto's green-washing. Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), aren't meant to feed the world or survive the evermore frequent droughts and floods brought on by global warming - they're designed to sell Monsanto's herbicide Roundup and the patented "Roundup Ready" genes now spliced into millions of acres of corn, cotton, soy, canola, sugar beets and alfalfa. A 2009 study showed that, in 13 years, Roundup Ready crops increased herbicide use by 383 million pounds.

During the Bush administration, the movement to stop GMOs was making progress. Reflecting public concern over GMOs, in 2007, a Federal court ruled that the Bush USDA's approval of Roundup Ready alfalfa violated the law because it failed to analyze risks such as the contamination of conventional and organic alfalfa and the development of "super-weeds." The court banned the planting of GM alfalfa until USDA completed a rigorous analysis of these impacts. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals twice affirmed the national ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa planting, but Monsanto is appealing. They're taking organic alfalfa farmers all the way to the Supreme Court!

Barack Obama, despite promising us "change we can believe in," is unfortunately turning out to be just as pro-GMO as the preceding Bush and Clinton administrations, packing the USDA and other government bureaucracies with Monsanto men and biotech cheerleaders such as former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, named "Biotech Governor of the Year" in 2001, now serving as USDA Secretary. Vilsack, notorious for flying around in a Monsanto company jet during one of his previous election campaigns, is now busy trying to get the court-ordered ban on Roundup Ready alfalfa lifted by issuing a new draft environmental impact statement (EIS) that denies or downplays the obvious environmental and human health hazards of GM alfalfa.

Alfalfa is the fourth most widely grown crop in the U.S. and a key source of dairy forage and hay. The first perennial crop to be genetically engineered, GM alfalfa can regenerate itself from its root-stock. It is open-pollinated by bees, which can cross-pollinate at distances of several miles, spreading Monsanto's patented, foreign DNA to non-GMO and organic crops. Widespread GMO-contamination of organic alfalfa is inevitable if the Obama Administration successfully distorts science and ignores public opinion and allows Monsanto's GM Roundup Ready alfalfa to be planted across the U.S.

Mounting evidence shows damage to animals and humans from unlabeled and untested Frankenfoods. Consumers who ingest GM alfalfa are likely risking their health; since even the USDA's EIS admits that, "acute toxicity in mice was observed."

According to the EIS, consumers who ingest foods with residues of Monsanto's Roundup herbicide may experience "general and non-specific signs of toxicity from subchronic and chronic exposure to glyphosate includ[ing] changes in liver weight, blood chemistry (may suggest mild liver toxicity), liver pathology, and weight of the pituitary gland."

The EIS warns that, "Based on upper estimates of exposure ... infants consuming fruit and all age groups consuming vegetables may be at risk of adverse effects associated with acute exposure to glyphosate [the active ingredient in Roundup] residues."

Consuming milk and meat from animals fed crops that are genetically engineered is also risky. In Europe, where farmer and consumer rejection has kept GMO crop acreage to a bare minimum, massive quantities of GMO-tainted animal feed is imported from the U.S. and a survey of 60 samples of 12 different milk brands sold in stores in Italy demonstrated the presence of GM maize sequences in 15 (25%) and of GM soybean sequences in 7 samples (11.7%).

Most consumers, especially organic consumers, are determined to avoid Roundup Ready alfalfa, and meat and dairy products derived from animals ingesting Roundup Ready alfalfa, but according to the EIS, we don't have that right because, "At the present time, there is no policy regarding the unintended presence of GE (genetically engineered) material in organic products or food, consistent with the fact that the NOP (National Organic Program) is a process-based program for certifying a farm or production system as organic, and not a product-based program that tests or certifies individual products as organic."

We must stop the Obama administration from taking away our right to grow and consume organic and GMO-free food. The "change we believe in" is a healthy and sustainable future based upon organic food and farming and a green economy.

Supermarkets urged to lead debate on nanotechnology in foods

Thu 21 Jan 2010 2:31:00 AM GMT

Supermarkets urged to lead debate on nanotechnology in foods

(Nanowerk News) Big-name retailers like Tesco and Carrefour should help prepare consumers for innovations in the food sector, according to the top civil servant in the EU executive's directorate for health and consumer protection.

Scientists chew on possibilities for engineered meat

Thu 21 Jan 2010 2:24:00 AM GMT

Scientists chew on possibilities for engineered meat

They have not tasted the pork made in petri dishes, but see tantalizing potential.

BY MARIA CHENG THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LONDON -- Call it pork in a petri dish -- a technique to turn pig stem cells into strips of meat that scientists say could one day offer a green alternative to raising livestock and help alleviate world hunger.

Dutch scientists have been growing pork in a laboratory since 2006. They admit they haven't perfected the engineered meat or even tasted it, but the technology could have widespread implications for our food supply. Imagine taking cells from one pig and multiplied it by a factor of a million.

And the researchers said that the technology is transferable to other meats.

Mark Post, a biologist at Maastricht University, said the strips they've made so far could be used as processed meat in sausages or hamburgers. Their main problem is reproducing the protein content in regular meat: In livestock meat, protein makes up about 99 percent of the product; the lab meat is about 80 percent protein.

The lower protein content means it probably wouldn't taste much like pork, Post said. Some experts doubt it ever will taste like real meat.

But there are exciting health possibilities. Fish stem cells could be used to produce healthy omega 3 fatty acids, which could be mixed with the lab-produced pork instead of the usual artery-clogging fats found in livestock meat.

"You could possibly design a hamburger that prevents heart attacks instead of causing them," said Jason Matheny, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

As with any genetically modified foods, many fear it could harm humans. But growing meat in labs instead of raising animals on farmland also could theoretically lower greenhouse gas emissions by up to 95 percent. Both land and water use would also drop by about 95 percent, she said.

Soon, GM rabbit milk to help treat heart patients

Mon 18 Jan 2010 2:17:00 AM GMT

Text Size:

Soon, rabbit milk to help treat heart patients

Scientists are concentrating on creating herds of dairy rabbits to help treat heart patients with their milk.

A farm in Holland is said to be the first in the commercial milking of rabbits, who have been genetically modified to include a human gene and contain a protein called C1 inhibitor.

The milk could help prevent the rejection of transplant organs and tissue damage in survivors of strokes, heart attacks and car accidents, and may also treat the hereditary immune disorder angioedema.

“I am really excited. This therapy will transform the lives of sufferers,” Times Online quoted Hilary Longhurst, an immunologist at Barts hospital in London, as saying.

Sijmen de Vries, the chief executive of Pharming, the biotech company behind the project, added: “There is a great unmet need for this product. We have the capacity to produce it cheaply in unlimited quantities.”

The milk is presently waiting to receive the green signal from European drug regulators and will hit the UK shelves later this year.

Supreme Court to take up Monsanto alfalfa case

Sat 16 Jan 2010 2:12:00 AM GMT

Friday, January 15, 2010 | Modified: Monday, January 18, 2010

Supreme Court to take up Monsanto alfalfa case

St. Louis Business Journal

The Supreme Court said Friday it would consider overturning a court order that has blocked Monsanto Co. from selling alfalfa seeds that are genetically modified to resist its Roundup weed killer.

The nation’s highest court said it would hear Monsanto’s appeal of a ruling that prevented its Roundup Ready alfalfa from being planted since 2007.

The court’s decision in this case also could affect a second ruling involving the biotech company’s modified sugar beets.

"USDA's regulatory approval process was short-circuited without any hearing to consider the views of impacted farmers and consideration of sound science," said Stephen Welker, Monsanto's alfalfa and sugar beet lead, in a statement. "We view the Supreme Court's action to hear our appeal as important for American farmers and look forward to presenting our case to the Supreme Court in the coming months. We believe alfalfa growers deserve choice in the products that are available to them."

Monsanto filed the petition with the U.S. Supreme Court in October, arguing that the 2007 injunction by Judge Charles Breyer should not have been ordered without first holding an evidentiary hearing. As a result, the ban imposed unnecessary restrictions and costs on alfalfa hay and seed growers, Monsanto said Friday. Monsanto petitioned the appellate court twice between 2007 and 2008 "to fully consider the scientific evidence and tailor any relief ordered pending the governmental agency completion of an EIS."

Prior to the injunction, Roundup Ready alfalfa was planted by 5,500 growers across 263,000 acres. Alfalfa is the fourth-largest crop grown in the U.S. with 23 million acres grown in 48 U.S. states annually, but about 1 percent of that is currently Roundup Ready.

Opponents claim that Monsanto’s genetically engineered seeds contaminate other crops, and that Roundup Ready promote superweeds, weeds that cannot easily be killed because they have developed a tolerance to weedkiller. The Center for Food Safety filed a 2006 lawsuit on behalf of a coalition of non-profits and farmers who wanted to retain the choice to plant non-modified alfalfa, according to the center. CFS won the case and two appeals by Monsanto in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in 2008 and 2009. Now the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.

Monsanto defends its products, saying that cross-pollination is unlikely and that the environment benefits because less weedkiller would be used.

Creve Coeur, Mo.-based Monsanto (NYSE: MON), led by Chairman, President and Chief Executive Hugh Grant, reported a $2.1 billion profit on record sales of $11.7 billion for fiscal 2009 ended Aug. 31. It is one of the largest employers in St. Louis with 4,000 local employees. It has 21,700 workers worldwide.

Eco-Scandal: Compostable Greenware Is Made from Genetically Modified Corn

Fri 15 Jan 2010 2:05:00 AM GMT

Eco-Scandal: Compostable Greenware Is Made from Genetically Modified Corn

By Robert Sietsema, Thursday, Jan. 14 2010 @ 12:58PM

Eco-conscious diners have been patting themselves on the back recently for patronizing places that use environmentally-friendly "Greenware," but maybe we're not being as virtuous as we think...

According to the website Grist, agro-giant Cargill is making this line of plastic products--which includes utensils, plastic cups, and plates--in a Blain, Nebraska plant, and using genetically modified strains of corn to do so. In other words, the impact on the environment could be potentially horrific, only no one has done the appropriate research to find out.

Moreover, the chances that this so-called Greenware will actually get composted under the conditions required seems slim. So, it's just more plastic in the landfill, or perhaps just more plastic, since using this stuff discourages you from washing and re-using it. In the meantime, you're encouraging the cultivation of genetically modified crops and proving them economically feasible to the malign agro-giant Cargill.

Boo-hoo!

Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War

Tue 12 Jan 2010 7:15:00 PM GMT

Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War

by Frank Morris

January 12, 2010

Even though deep snowdrifts cover his fields in eastern Kansas, Luke Ulrich, a corn and soybean farmer here, is thinking about spring. It's time to buy seed again, but hundreds of seed companies have gone under in the past two decades.

Ulrich remembers the days before genetically modified seeds upended the industry. Critics of the big agriculture biotech company Monsanto say its popular Roundup Ready technology is to blame for that. Roundup Ready is a line of gene-modified seeds that inoculate plants against a herbicide, Roundup, also made by Monsanto, that kills just about everything else.

"Ever since they've come out with the Roundup Ready trait and that became popular and basically took over farming, we've seen significant increases every single year," Ulrich says.

Ulrich says his seed costs shot up almost 50 percent last year. That's because farmers are contractually prohibited from saving seeds and planting them the following year.

Farmers face lawsuits if they try to save and replant the genetically modified seed because they don't own the technology. While they bristle at that, they love the Roundup Ready seed.

"There's nothing like Roundup. A monkey could farm with it," Ulrich says.

'Amazing Amount Of Leverage'

More than 9 out of 10 soybean seeds carry the Roundup Ready trait. It's about the same for cotton and just a little lower for corn.

"Farmers will not buy soybeans without Roundup Ready in it. So, that gives Monsanto an amazing amount of leverage," says Jim Denvir, a lawyer working for DuPont. DuPont owns Pioneer, a competing seed company.

Pioneer licenses the Roundup Ready trait from Monsanto, as do about 150 other seed companies. Those agreements control which other genetics competing companies can mix with the Roundup Ready trait. Last year, Monsanto sued to stop Pioneer from "stacking" Roundup Ready with another trait. Denvir says Pioneer complained to the Justice Department.

"A seed company can't stay in business without offering seeds with Roundup Ready in it, so if they want to stay in that business, essentially they have to do what Monsanto tells them to do," Denvir says.

Monsanto's critics say it used this "platform monopoly" to crush many competitors. Chris Holman, a patent lawyer who teaches at the University of Missouri, Kansas City, likens it to Microsoft and its dominant Windows operating system.

"Because of the structure of the industry, they are able to really drive participants in the industry into using their technology," Holman says.

Monsanto spokesman Lee Quarles says those allegations are unfair, though he concedes they're coming at the company fast and furious.

"We're actively working to address questions from regulators, both the Department of Justice and state attorneys general as well as other parties in the industry, to address any questions they have about our business," Quarles says.

But Monsanto is pushing ahead. It will soon market a corn seed combining eight separate genetically engineered traits.

Roundup Ready 2 Yield

Roundup Ready technology was developed at Monsanto's world headquarters in St. Louis. Jim Tobin, a vice president of Monsanto, says it sells itself. "Farmers get to vote every year before they plant, and it's that vote each year that determines who has the largest market share or volume," Tobin says.

Monsanto spent huge amounts of money and took big risks to develop the Roundup Ready trait. Tobin says it has revolutionized agriculture. But now, "Well, we've invented something new," he says.

It's called Roundup Ready 2 Yield. It uses the gene as the original, just placed in a different spot in the genome. Monsanto says that boosts yield.

Interesting timing: Monsanto's patent on Roundup Ready 1 expires in 2014 and with it, a revenue stream of maybe half a billion dollars a year in royalties. That's unless it can switch farmers over to Roundup Ready 2.

"We'd like to have everyone in the soybean business, seed business using the trait," Tobin says.

Monsanto's putting the new trait in all its best soybean seeds. And Paul Schickler, president of Pioneer, says Monsanto is forcing its licensees to do the same. He charges that Monsanto is trying to make Roundup Ready 1 disappear.

"That's our concern: bridging or switching from one patented product, Roundup Ready 1, to the next-generation Roundup Ready 2 Yield, doesn't allow competition for the original technology," Schickler says.

Unlike in many other industries, there's no clear path for a genetically modified crop to go generic. As it stands, generic providers would probably still need access to Monsanto's proprietary data to get federal approval to sell the Roundup Ready trait.

They'd also need closely held technical data to update licenses that keep the trait legal in big, important markets like China and the EU.

Meanwhile, the end of the Roundup Ready patent will very likely give farmers a chance to do something they haven't for years: plant the seed they've harvested. Luke Ulrich is ready.

"I don't care how good Roundup Ready 2 is; if you tell me I can save back my own seed, I'm going to plant my own seed," Ulrich says.

The problem for guys like Ulrich will be finding seed that has just the Roundup Ready gene alone, one not stacked with other patented traits. After all, if he can’t find the seed in the first place, he can't grow it.

from KCUR

Study Finds Monsanto's GMO Corn Causes Organ Damage in Rodents

Tue 12 Jan 2010 7:12:00 PM GMT

Study Finds Monsanto's GMO Corn Causes Organ Damage in Rodents

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 01.13.10

Business & Politics

Buzz up!

Photo via Daily Mail

Few subjects attract more ire and debate than genetically modified foods--and Monsanto reigns over the entire industry. The very idea of genetically engineering crops has always made many queasy--and now, literally so. A breakthrough report from the International Journal of Biological Sciences has just found that three separate kinds of Monsanto's genetically modified corn causes organ damage in rats.

Food Freedom bluntly parses the report: "In what is being described as the first ever and most comprehensive study of the effects of genetically modified foods on mammalian health, researchers have linked organ damage with consumption of Monsanto's GM maize." Woops. All three of the kinds of corn have been approved by numerous food safety boards, and are widely available in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere.

From the study, which was carried out by the Committee of Independent Research and Information on Genetic Engineering:

The data "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," reported Gilles-Eric Séralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen.

Scary stuff--this may be the first time that such distinctly adverse health effects have been confirmed by science (the first paper making similar claims surfaced in 2007).

The conclusion of the report? That the "raw data from all three GMO studies reveal novel pesticide residues will be present in food and feed and may pose grave health risks to those consuming them," according to Food Freedom. Let's just reiterate that last part again: the pesticide residues will be present in food, and may pose grave health risks to anything--or anyone--eating them.

In the scientific study, the researchers have called for

"an immediate ban on the import and cultivation of these GMOs and strongly recommend additional long-term (up to two 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."

This is big news--if this data does prove conclusive, it could be the most persuasive evidence yet that GMO cultivation is dangerous.

A post by Twilight Earth includes a rebuttal from Monsanto, and a re-rebuttal from Séralini; Huffington Post provides further reading as well.

More on Monsanto and GMO Corn
Germany Bans Planting of Monsanto GM Corn
Monsanto "Seedless" Corn Sold To South African Farmers

Three Approved GMO Crops Linked to Organ Damage, New Study Shows

Tue 12 Jan 2010 5:45:00 PM GMT

Three Approved GMO Crops Linked to Organ Damage, New Study Shows

by Aaron Turpen, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) Genetically Modified crops (or GM) are genetically modified organisms (GMO) that have been altered to meet a specific profile. They have also been the subject of controversy almost since their introduction two decades ago. A new study pinpoints three variations of GM corn (maize) as being linked to organ damage in mammals.

The three varieties in question are Mon 810, Mon 863, and NK 603. The "Mon" is for, you guessed it, Monsanto and the NK is also a Monsanto product, being engineered for herbicide tolerance. The study was conducted by the Committee of Research and Information on Genetic Engineering (CRIIGEN) and the Universities of Caen and Rouen in France.¹

The study used the same data that was used by Monsanto to gain approval in several parts of the world. The data was released publicly in 2005 by European authorities when the three GM strains were approved for human consumption in both the U.S. and Europe.

Gilles-Eric Seralini, a molecular biologist at the University of Caen and one of the principals in the study, says that the data "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."

Each of the three strains produced differing amounts of adverse impact, but the impact on vital organs was universal for all three GM crops.

The study was completed in December 2009 and appears in the International Journal of Biological Sciences¹ (IJBS). It conforms with and substantiates an earlier study done by CRIIGEN in 2007 on Mon 863.² The results of that study were rejected by Monsanto.³

One controversy many point to when criticizing Monsanto's counter-analysis as well as the governmental acceptance of the GM crops is in the way Monsanto's studies were carried out. Traditionally, when testing drug, pesticide, or other human-ingested items' safety, the standard protocol is to use three different mammalian species.

Monsanto used only rats for their studies, but still managed to win GMO approval in at least a dozen countries. Further, the studies were carried out in only 90 day spans, which is not long enough to find most chronic problems.

Other problems with Monsanto's studies should have raised more red flags, but they were ignored by the governmental panels put in charge of making the decision to allow the company's genetically modified crops into wide distribution in their countries.

The new CRIIGEN study concludes that the raw data makes it clear that all three GMO crops have real problems and should be put under "an immediate ban on the import and export of these GMOs." The study also strongly recommends additional long-term, multi-generational animal feeding studies be done on at least three species to provide truly scientific "data on the acute and chronic toxic effects of GM crops, feed and foods."

Resources:
1 - 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.

2 Greenpeace analysis of MON863 CRIIGEN study, 2007.

3 Rejection of the 2007 study on Monsanto's website.

4 Information about Genetically Modified foods and GMOs here on NaturalNews.

Monsanto hails GM launches as 'game-changers'

Mon 11 Jan 2010 6:43:00 PM GMT

Monsanto hails GM launches as 'game-changers'

Mike Abram

Monday 11 January 2010 03:43

Launches of genetically modified crop traits in North America mark the beginning of an explosion of high-impact products, leading biotech firm Monsanto says.

"This year you will see the first of those game-changing products delivering on the farm," Robb Fraley, Monsanto chief technology officer, said announcing that 11 biotech projects had moved closer to commercialisation.

The firm described two of them as its largest ever commercial product launches, with Roundup Ready 2 Yield soya beans, its second-generation version of the herbicide tolerant trait, expected to be grown on 8-10m acres this spring.

In addition, around 4m acres of SmartStax maize, developed in conjunction with Dow AgroSciences, are expected be grown. SmartStax stacks eight herbicide and insect-tolerance traits into one product for US and Canadian farmers.

Monsanto is also working on a version of SmartStax that will allow growers to plant just a single product in fields. Currently a proportion of the field has to be planted with a non-insect-protected variety to minimise the risk of target pests developing resistance.

By combining biotech and 5% refuge seeds in one bag, growers won't need to plant a separate, potentially lower yielding refuge, the firm claimed. The refuge-in-a-bag product has been sent for regulatory evaluation by the US Environment Protection Agency, with aim for first sales in either 2012 or 2013.

The firm is at a similar stage with its first biotech product with a direct consumer dietary benefit. SDA omega-3 soya beans offer a land-based source of SDA that converts to the heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acid found in fish oil.

Last year the US Food and Drug Administration issued a "Generally Recognised As Safe" notice allowing the resulting oil could be used in a variety of foods. Food companies can now formulate and test the oil in food products for future launch.

Monsanto, in conjunction with BASF, is also working on drought-tolerant maize and higher-yielding soya beans.

Was 2009 the year the world turned against GM?

Mon 11 Jan 2010 6:39:00 PM GMT

Was 2009 the year the world turned against GM?

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews

11th January, 2010

Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide

2009 was a year in which the biotech industry, Gates and their US Administration allies did everything in their power to drive the world down the GM road, but it was also a year marked by remarkable global resistance.

It was a year too in which the truth emerged more clearly than ever about not just the severe limitations and risks of GM crops, but the viability of the many positive alternatives to GMOs alternatives from which the profit-driven GM-fixation diverts much needed attention and resources.

The scene had been set in 2008 with the IAASTD report, produced by 400 scientific experts and signed up to by some 60 governments. That made it clear that after more than 10 years of commercialisation, GM crops had done nothing to help with the eradication of hunger or poverty, or the reversal of the environmental degradation caused by agriculture.

The IAASTD instead championed as the way forward: agro-ecological farming; and research conducted by the UN Environment Programme also suggested organic, small-scale farming could deliver increased yields without the accompanying environmental and social damage of industrial farming. The UNEP's analysis of 114 projects in 24 African countries found that yields had more than doubled where organic, or near-organic practices had been used. In 2009 the contribution of such sustainable approaches to cooling the planet was also widely acknowledged while news of Monsanto's attempts to dress up environmentally destructive GM monocultures as climate friendly earned it a worst lobbying award.

Mainstream criticism

But what was most remarkable in 2009 was the way in which criticism of the biotech industry went mainstream. Alarmingly for the industry, some of the hardest hitting criticism it faced was to be found in editorials and investigative articles that appeared in the likes of Scientific American, the New York Times, the Associated Press and, most astonishingly of all perhaps, the staunchly pro-GM journal Nature Biotechnology.

And in different ways they were all making the same fundamental point - the GM industry has been allowed to gain an unprecedented stranglehold over the use of seeds. An editorial in Scientific American, for instance, complained that 'it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised. That is because agritech companies have given themselves veto power over the work of independent researchers'.

The editorial went on to note that, 'food safety and environmental protection depend on making plant products available to regular scientific scrutiny', and Scientific American called on the industry to 'immediately remove the restriction on research from their end-user agreements. Going forward, the EPA should also require, as a condition of approving the sale of new seeds, that independent researchers have unfettered access to all products currently on the market'.

Et tu, Brute?

A correspondent for an agricultural trade publication noted that nobody in the biotech industry could provide him with a single example of any other kind of product on the market that was protected in the way GM seeds were from scientific scrutiny.

And the science correspondent of the Financial Times - another solidly pro-GM publication - complained, 'Imagine pharmaceutical companies trying to prevent medical researchers comparing patented drugs or investigating their side-effects - it is unthinkable. Yet scientists cannot independently examine raw materials in the food supply or investigate plants that cover a lot of rural America'.

An article in Nature Biotechnology noted how even when research critical of GM did get published it was met by a wall of apparently orchestrated, ad hominem and unfounded attacks by GM proponents who, in the words of an editor for the Entomological Society of America, 'denigrate research by other legitimate scientists in a knee-jerk, partisan, emotional way that is not helpful in advancing knowledge and is outside the ideals of scientific inquiry'.

And it wasn't just scientific enquiry that Monsanto was exposed as strangling. An Associated Press investigation reported on confidential Monsanto contracts showing how the world's biggest seed developer is squeezing competitors, controlling smaller seed companies and aggressively protecting its multibillion-dollar market dominance.

Farmers hit

Meanwhile disenchanted farmers pointed to how the GM giant is using its market power to raise prices for farmers and limit their access to non-GM seeds. And another new report showed GM seed prices increasing so dramatically that they have already cut average farm incomes for US farmers.

So in 2010 amidst the inevitable deluge of vacuous hype about GM being vital to deal with hunger, poverty and the impact of climate change, population growth, fuel scarcity and every other concern known to humankind, nobody should be in any doubt as to what's really at stake: control over science, nature, food and farming.

And over that kind of stranglehold, it can only be a fight to the death.

Claire Robinson and Jonathan Matthews are co-editors of GMWatch

Government is 'dangerously deluded' on GM

Fri 8 Jan 2010 4:34:00 PM GMT

Government is 'dangerously deluded' on GM

8 January 2010 | By William Surman

THE Government is ‘dangerously deluded’ if it believes genetically modified crops will solve the world’s food security issues, members of the breakaway Oxford Real Farming Conference warned.

Professor John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientist, told the Prime Minister on Wednesday (January 8) that genetic technology would help deliver ‘a new and greener food revolution’ for Britain.

But Colin Tudge, a science writer and organiser of the rival farm conference which took place alongside the Oxford Farming Conference this week, said farmers did not need ‘novel and untried’ technology.

Instead he said the Government must ‘free farmers from the shackles of economic dogma’.

“For decades politicians have starved agriculture of resources on the mistaken notion that the market would deliver a secure food supply.

“As a result tens of thousands of farmers have gone to the wall and Britain has been robbed of the skills it needs to feed the people.

“The Government are desperately pinning their hopes on untried GM technology to save us but scientists who truly understand agriculture know that this can’t solve our food supply problems.

“Our prime objective must be feeding people, not making profits for large business corporations as now,” he said.

Professor Martin Wolfe, director of the organic research centre at Elm Farm, added there were many unanswered questions about GM crops.

The only realistic way to maximise productivity, he said, was through polycultures– using multiple crops and animals in the same space, in imitation of the diversity of natural ecosystems.

“The first priority for research and development should be for ecological agriculture,” he said.

Expert in bio-genetics is new head of agriculture program for Gates Foundation

Fri 8 Jan 2010 3:45:00 PM GMT

Expert in bio-genetics is new head of agriculture program for Gates Foundation

By Donna Gordon Blankinship (CP) – Jan 8, 2010

SEATTLE — A man who has focused much of his career on agriculture technology, including development of genetically-modified seeds, was named Friday as the new head of agriculture development for the Bill&Melinda Gates Foundation.

Sam Dryden, a managing director of New York-based Wolfensohn&Co., will take over the program on Feb. 1. His appointment was announced a day after the foundation's previous agriculture leader, Dr. Rajiv Shah, was sworn in to take over the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The foundation, which has committed $1.4 billion to agriculture development efforts in Africa and South Asia, has focused most of its agriculture efforts in the past three years on helping small farmers improve production and distribution of their crops and livestock.

But they have also looked at higher tech solutions for combating world hunger and disease, especially through its world health program, including a major investment in Seattle-based PATH's nutrient-enriched rice, which has won international awards as well as some criticism.

The foundation has focused its agriculture grants on getting better seeds to farmers, boosting their productivity through irrigation and fertilizer, helping them sell their excess production and move it to more lucrative markets, and advocating for better government policies and agriculture investment.

"Sam brings a wealth of experience to the foundation - not only in agriculture, research and business, but also in a wide variety of projects related to agriculture development and public-private partnerships," said Sylvia Mathews-Burwell, president of the foundation's Global Development Program.

Dryden has 25 years of experience as an investor and entrepreneur in the life sciences. He has served on a number of international boards and commissions focused on agriculture development, economic development and food security.

Dryden previously was chair and CEO of Emergent Genetics, which developed and marketed genetically modified seeds. The company was sold to the Monsanto Co. in 2005. Before Emergent, he co-founded Agrigenetics Corp., which is now part of Dow AgroSciences.

The foundation's choice of Dryden raises a red flag for organizations that advocate against genetically modified crops, said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center on Food Safety.

"Appointing someone like this as head of their agriculture project is a bad sign," Freese said.

He said this isn't the first issue the centre has had with the foundation, which also has not taken a stand against seed patents.

Seed patents prevent farmers from savings seeds and using them for future crops, Freese said. Although this is no longer common in U.S. agribusiness, it is an important practice in developing countries.

"They're a big foundation and they have a number of different initiatives. It's clear they're doing some good things. But they're also very naive about biotechnology and seed patenting," Freese said.

In its announcement about Dryden's appointment, the foundation points out that he is on the U.S. board of the Global Crop Diversity Trust, which works to ensure crop diversity for food security. He also serves on the National Academies Roundtable on Science and Technology for Global Sustainability.

Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

BBC probes bias in its coverage of science and the environment

Thu 7 Jan 2010 3:37:00 PM GMT

BBC probes bias in its coverage of science and the environment

By Paul Revoir
Last updated at 8:17 AM on 07th January 2010

The body which oversees the BBC is to launch a full-scale review into whether its coverage of science and the environment is biased.

The BBC Trust acted after a string of complaints that the corporation is acting as a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon.

There have also been concerns over its coverage of genetically-modified foods and the MMR vaccine.

The year-long investigation will establish whether the complaints are justified – and could result in guidelines on how to treat important scientific stories.

It will scrutinise the way the BBC has handled scientific debate in areas which affect ‘public policy’ and are ‘matters of political controversy’.

Richard Tait, BBC trustee and chairman of the governing body’s editorial standards committee, said: ‘Science is an area of great importance to licence fee payers, which provokes strong reaction and covers some of the most sensitive editorial issues the BBC faces.

‘Heated debate in recent years around topics like climate change, GM crops and the MMR vaccine reflects this, and BBC reporting has to steer a course through these controversial issues while remaining impartial.

‘The BBC has a well-earned reputation for the quality of its science reporting, but it is also important that we look at it afresh to ensure that it is adhering to the very high standards that licence fee payers expect.’

A scientific expert will be hired to lead the review and it will concentrate on coverage of the issues featured in its news and factual output to see whether they meet the corporation’s Royal Charter and requirement that controversial subjects are covered impartially.

The review will also focus on the way the BBC reports on new technologies including Wi-Fi wireless internet.
The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster’s handling of green issues.

Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics who do not agree that climate change is caused by human action, leading to a string of complaints over coverage of the issue.

Lord Monckton, a leading climate change sceptic, has claimed that his views have been deliberately misrepresented by the BBC.

He said he had been made to look like a ‘potty peer’ on a TV programme that ‘was a one-sided polemic for the new religion of global warming’.

Earth: The Climate Wars, which was broadcast on BBC 2 in September 2008, was billed as a definitive guide to the history of global warming, including arguments for and against.

Last night, Lord Monckton, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, said: ‘My complaint against the BBC is not about one programme, it is that there has been a relentless institutional prejudice against the very large number of eminent

climate scientists who fundamentally disagree with all the major conclusions that we are told inaccurately is the scientific consensus about climate change. It is high time the BBC examined itself.’

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not debate this issue live on our message boards.

The comments below have not been moderated.

View all

stuart chelmsford :- I am really not sure what you mean,you say you are referring to "recent trends in climate change".The most recent trend is no warming since 1998.This article is about BBC bias,and in my opinion they are biased.You should ask why?If AGW is true then observation should back it up,but it does not.Remember all of this is based on computer models,that do not predict the current lack of warming.If they can't predict accurately we should perhaps be trying to improve the models or develop some other means of investigating this subject,instead all we get is more and more propaganda,from BBC and others.Open your eyes ,science is politicised,if you can show thousands of scientists agree then the public will agree too,but climategate caught them red handed.

- alang, fife, 10/1/2010 15:34

Click to rate Rating 5

alang, fife
I am in agreement with you - and I am firmly in the 'can't be sure' camp. (I was of course referring to the most recent trends in climate change). I am merely pointing out that degree of certainty amongst man-made climate change sceptics reveals a lack of understanding of the complexities of the issue! If a significant warming is taking place and if it is driven by natural events then we should recognise that there will be problems to tackle. One of these problems would be that of exacerbation of climate change by human activity and possible impact on food production around the world. As an overcrowded nation that imports 40% of its food we should also be asking government why our porous borders continue to allow virtually uncontrolled immigration in the face of these potential difficulties. The continuing and unmandated role of these isles as a world lifeboat is unsunstainable and is a real threat to our future!

- Stuart, Chelmsford, 09/1/2010 16:16

Click to rate Rating 3

RE - Stuart chelmsford- we are all naive about climate and should read a text book,is that right.Try reading "Meltdown" by Patrick Michaels or "Cool it" by Bjorn Lomborg.You say Climate "may" be influenced by "natural events" is that a joke.Ofcourse it is,or there would have been no climate for 4.5 billion years.

- alang, fife, 09/1/2010 13:56

Click to rate Rating 3

The rant by Stuart of Chelmsford explains clearly why he knows nothing about climate change.
It looks like you've chosen the wrong text book Stuart, like so many of your 'save the planet' fanatics.

- William Gould, Melton Mowbray, 08/1/2010 11:03

Click to rate Rating 6

Put down your Mail and pick up a textbook!
- Stuart, Chelmsford, UK, 7/1/2010 23:58

And which sort of textbook would you prefer - one by someone who has an alternative view to the one you put your faith in ?

Surely you should advocate both in the interests of objectivity- rather than, by implication at least, one that corresponds to your view ?

- TheDailyMale, Wokingham,Berkshire, 08/1/2010 09:21

Click to rate Rating 5

Stuart, Chelmsford, UK.

I have picked up a text book and done extensive research into Man Made Global Warming, now more commonly termed as Climate Change by the BBC due to the mass of contrary evidence coming to the fore in the main stream media. It is only in the past two days that the supposed difference between Climate change and Global Warming has been 'explained' by the BBC and I would suggest that is where you have got your evidence from.

The BBC are on the back foot and I have absolutely no doubt the 'Flat Earth' believers, the sceptics which by the way comprise of a substantial number of Scientist worldwide, not the people who have dubious credentials will be proved to be right and have the last laugh at this ridiculous scam.

- Andrew Roberts, Basingstoke UK, 08/1/2010 02:14

Click to rate Rating 13

Possible key to fight obesity

Wed 6 Jan 2010 7:30:00 PM GMT

Printed from

Possible key to fight obesity

ANI, 6 January 2010, 12:25pm IST

Text Size:

Topics:

Scientists in the U.S. have discovered a molecular mechanism that controls energy expenditure in muscles and helps determine body weight - a finding that could lead to a new medical approach in treating obesity.

Mayo Clinic researchers and investigators at the University of Iowa, University of Connecticut and New York University said that the energy-saving mechanism is controlled by ATP-sensitive potassium (KATP) channels. ATP, or adenosine triphosphate, is the "energy currency" utilized by cells in the body.

These particular channels can sense ATP pools and regulate heart and skeletal muscle performance accordingly. Animals lacking this energy-saving mechanism burn more stored energy by dissipating more heat when at rest or when normally active.

As in humans, excess energy from food is stored as glycogen or fat that could be converted into ATP according to energy demand.

Eliminating the KATP channel forces the body to use energy less efficiently, consuming more and storing less gaining low weight, even when on a high-calorie diet.

"While mechanisms that preserve energy are naturally protective - in times of food shortage or environmental stress - they promote obesity in a sedentary, modern society. Our findings suggest that therapeutic targeting of the KATP channel function, specifically in muscle, could offer a new option for obese patients with lower capacity for exercise," said Alexey Alekseev, Mayo Clinic electrophysiologist and first author of the study.

The researchers suspected that the KATP channel could control energy expenditure. To test the hypothesis, they studied genetically modified mice in which the KATP channel had been inactivated in the whole body or muscle tissues.

They compared these mice to normal mice and found that as early as 5 months of age, the modified mice were leaner and stayed that way throughout their life span. Researchers compared activity patterns, hormone levels, food intake, and respiratory gas exchange while at rest and under moderate exercise.

A hallmark of the study was the discovery that activity in the absence of the KATP channel function resulted in increased consumption of carbohydrates and lipids. That, in turn, led to enforced burning of glycogen and stored body fat.

"By sensing cellular energy content, KATP channels continuously, at any activity level, optimize energy use and define the balance between energy availability and consumption. In principle, a positive energy balance favouring weight gain could be reversed by targeting muscle KATP channels to control obesity in patients with low to moderate exercise capacity imposed by the overweight state," Alekseev said.

The findings appear in the journal Cell Metabolism .

Britain must launch GM food revolution, says chief scientist

Tue 5 Jan 2010 7:09:00 PM GMT

Britain must launch GM food revolution, says chief scientist

John Vidal and Felicity Lawrence
The Guardian, Wednesday 6 January 2010
larger | smaller

UK scientists need to urgently develop 'a new and greener revolution' to increase food production, says the government. Photograph: Reso/Rex Features

Britain must embrace genetically modified crops and cutting-edge developments such as nanotechnology to avoid catastrophic food shortages and future climate change, the government's chief scientist will warn today.

In the clearest public signal yet that the government wants a hi-tech farming revolution, Professor John Beddington will say UK scientists need to urgently d evelop "a new and greener revolution" to increase food production in a world changed by global warming and expected to have an extra 3 billion people to feed by 2040.

"Techniques and technologies from many disciplines, ranging from biotechnology and engineering to newer fields such as nanotechnology, will be needed," writes Beddington in a paper, seen by the Guardian, to accompany his speech to the Oxford farming conference.

He warns that time lags for the use of new technology on farms means action is vital now and argues that it is no longer possible to rely on improving yields from crops in traditional ways. "Over the last 50 years improving yields has accounted for 75% of increase in output. However, yield growth rates are now slowing," he says.

Instead, he argues that new technologies such as GM will be critical in meeting economic, environmental and social goals. Beddington says the revolution is needed primarily to counter climate change and help provide food for the 9 billion people worldwide expected within 30 years.

"It is [also] predicted that demand for energy will rise by around 50%, and for fresh water by 50%, all of which must be managed while mitigating and adapting to climate change. This threatens to create a 'perfect storm' of global events," he says.

The government has wanted GM crops to be much more freely grown for many years but has been reluctant to reopen the debate following intense campaigns against the technology by environment and development groups in the 1990s.

Although Beddington has spoken in support of GM before, his keynote speech – to a conference of farmers and supermarkets – shows that ministers believe it is time to accelerate the debate on the issue.

Intense lobbying by food companies, the growing significance of climate change, recent international food crises and a major independent Royal Society report have all helped to give the government the authority to put GM back on the national agenda.

For six months the government has been preparing the way with a series of reports on consumer opinion. Announcements from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the summer also began to frame GM as a new moral imperative in feeding the world. The Cabinet Office strategy unit also highlighted GM as an urgent domestic issue back in the summer of 2008. It said: "Consumer confidence in UK regulations, regulators and food supplies might be prejudiced if GM feed was found in systems claiming to be GM-free or if non-authorised varieties were detected in the UK food chain. If non-authorised material is found, there are also significant cost implications associated with recall."

The assumption that new technology is the answer to the global food crisis is expected to be fiercely challenged by development and environmental charities campaigners who accuse the government of not having looked at the real causes of the global food crisis.

They point out that a UN-sponsored four-year review, involving more than 400 international scientists and chaired by Defra's own chief scientist, Professor Robert Watson, concluded in 2007 that GM technologies were unlikely to have more than a limited role in tackling global hunger.

According to the Watson-led review, the scientific evidence on the claimed benefits of GM suggests they are variable, with increases in yield in some areas but decreases in others, and both greater and lesser pesticide use in different contexts. But crucially it concluded that global hunger is as much to do with power and control of the food system as with growing enough food.

Yesterday, Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, launched the government's food strategy for the next 20 years. He told the Oxford conference that Britain must grow more food in a different way to respond to rising temperatures and world populations. "Food security is as important to this country's future wellbeing – and the world's – as energy security. We need to produce more food.

"We need to do it sustainably. And we need to make sure that what we eat safeguards our health," he said.

Running on Algae: GMO Biofuel

Tue 5 Jan 2010 7:02:00 PM GMT

CURRENTS

Running on Algae

Research Blooms on an Innovative Biofuel

By Ethan Goffman

Algae-based biofuels can power some cars with no modifications required.

It was big news last July when oil giant Exxon Mobil announced a $600 million deal with Synthetic Genomics, the company founded by science wunderkind J. Craig Venter, to explore using algae to create fuel. Adding Venter’s prowess at genetic modification to Exxon Mobil’s brawn seems to signify a new chapter in algal biofuels.

Bursting with lipids—fat, oily molecules—algae can be converted to a clean biodiesel or jet fuel. Algal biofuel could potentially fuel trucks, buses and many cars worldwide, with little change in infrastructure. The trick is to produce it cheaply enough, and on a large enough scale, for mass commercial use. Scientists are attempting to genetically modify algae to create the strains most amenable to farming and energy production.

Of the variety of biofuels being explored—from corn to sugar to cellulosic plants—“photosynthetic algae provide the best opportunity and have the biggest advantages,” says Rob Young, corporate spokesperson for Exxon Mobil. But, he adds: “We’re a long way from producing commercial-scale algal fuel.”

Exxon Mobil is the fourth major oil company to begin exploring algae’s uses, after British Petroleum, Conoco Philips and Chevron. The U.S. government is also jumping in, with the Department of Defense exploring the use of algae in jet fuels, and the Department of Energy working on a roadmap to spur algal biofuel use. One of its chief goals is to provide the same tax incentives for research and development of algal fuels as is available to other alternative energies.

When one considers the advantages of algal fuel, it’s a wonder it came so late to the alternative energy mix. The humble, one-celled organisms that compose algae are extremely efficient at converting sunlight to energy. Where corn ethanol produces about 250 gallons of fuel per acre per year and sugar cane produces 450 gallons, algae could yield more than 2,000 gallons.

Algae fuels discussed at a U.S. Navy event: Algae cells close (inset).

And algae thrive on carbon dioxide (CO2), which means that cultivation can function like a sink to reduce greenhouse gases. Some imagine algae cultivation around coal plants, sucking up CO2 before it can begin its deadly journey into the atmosphere.

Algae can also remove nitrogen and phosphorus from rivers and lakes, and convert agricultural runoff into “a much cleaner product,” says Darzins.

There is one drawback, however: The effects of mass cultivation of genetically modified strains of algae are unknown. Darzins wonders about the “environmental impact of growing a certain species of algae” over thousands of square acres where it may release into the wild.

Growing algae for biofuels also poses some thorny technical problems. Grown in open sunlight, all sorts of undesirable organisms can get into the mix. Enclosed bioreactors are far more expensive, and the algae produce waste in the form of oxygen, poisoning themselves. Without further breakthroughs, “ways of harvesting and extracting algae are too expensive,” says Darzins.

Still, Darzins is optimistic about the future. He foresees algal farms scaling up to a million square miles that can “start displacing 44 billion gallons of petroleum diesel” annually.

The company Solazyme’s algal biofuel production is achieved by using industrial wastes, sugar and wood chips to feed the algae. In this process, the algae take energy indirectly, from sunlight previously converted by other organisms. The algae start producing oil in a matter of days.

Overall, use of this biofuel “reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 85% compared to diesels from fossil oil,” says Solazyme President Harrison Dillon.

Solazyme is ready to ship oil by the barrel to interested parties who can then test it, although “we are not yet selling it commercially,” Dillon says. He believes his company is about “2½ years away from parity with $60- to $80-a-barrel oil.”

While the total economic and environmental effects of large-scale algal production are unclear, it seems likely that algae will come to play a growing part in the nation’s energy supply.

ETHAN GOFFMAN is an environmental journalist and author of Imagining Each Other: Blacks and Jews in Contemporary American Literature (SUNY Press).

Genetic modification needs monitoring says Dr. Swaminathan

Tue 5 Jan 2010 6:58:00 PM GMT

Genetic modification needs monitoring says Dr. Swaminathan

The world–renowned scientist Dr. M.S.Swaminathan has stressed the need to set up a national regulatory body to mitigate the anxiety caused by genetically modified agricultural produce. He was chairing the plenary session on ‘Food and Nutritional security’ held as part of the 97th Indian Science Congress at Thiruvanathapuram.

Dr. Swaminathan said that the proposed regulatory body should have biological scientists, food technologists, agricultural scientists, medical professionals and policy makers as members. It should be a totally autonomous body.

Presenting his paper in the session, Dr. Prakash, Director, Central Food Technological Research Institute summed up the great threat posed by global warming on food & nutritional security of the country. The statistical evidence of global food price inflation leading to rise in malnutrition and child mortality opens up a new dangerous dimension, he said.

***********

Monsanto Stock seen at breakeven, Mosaic at 35 cts/share

Tue 5 Jan 2010 6:50:00 AM GMT

PREVIEW-Monsanto, Mosaic seen looking ahead for profits

Mon Jan 4, 2010 5:45pm EST

STOCKS

* Seen focusing on coming rebound

NEW YORK, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Seed company Monsanto Co (MON.N) and fertilizer maker Mosaic Co (MOS.N) will be looking to steer investors' gaze to the rebound in agricultural markets and away from the dismal previous quarter when the two companies report results this week.

2">

Markets for corn and wheat have strengthened, and with the global economy returning to sound footing, both companies are likely to highlight the opportunities they have to grow over the coming year.

Still, Wall Street expects Monsanto's latest fiscal quarter to show further further erosion at its herbicide business, which has seen prices cut in half as competition in that market increases.

Analysts are expecting Monsanto to post breakeven results on Wednesday morning for the quarter ended Nov. 30, with a range between a profit of 11 cents per share to a loss of 10 cents, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. The company earned 98 cents per share a year before.

Farmers in North America will not provide much help yet for the leading producer of genetically modified seeds, but the demand in countries like Brazil is likely to be robust.

"The (U.S.) harvest was late this year, so many farmers haven't made their purchasing decisions yet," said Chris Shaw, analyst at Ticonderoga Securities.

"The Latin American markets have been pretty good for all the seeds guys," he added.

Monsanto has said it would hike seed prices as much as 10 percent overall in 2010 but keep some of its hybrid seed prices flat for customers unwilling to buy the more expensive genetically modified seeds.

Farmers have long complained about Monsanto's price hikes, and the company is the subject of a U.S. Justice Department probe about allegations it illegally dominates the market. The company has said its price hikes were needed to continue its research and innovations for the agriculture markets.

For Mosaic, rebounding prices for potash and phosphates are an indication that demand was returning to the sector, a welcome relief to the company that saw its sales tumble 66 percent for the quarter ended Aug. 31.

"It's a bad year coming to an end. (The market) will probably pay a lot more attention to their outlook," said Edlain Rodriguez, an analyst at Broadpoint Amtech.

Mosaic, which is likely to record charges for shutting two phosphate plants, is expected to post earnings of 35 cents for its fiscal second quarter, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S, with a range between 20 and 47 cents. That is far below the $1.12 it earned a year earlier.

Potash prices had suffered in 2009 as global demand slumped by 50 percent, and North American farmers are likely to be big buyers this year to try to take advantage of corn and soybean prices.

"Grain prices are still very supportive so the incentives are there," Rodriguez said.

But the recent contract signed by Belarusian Potash Co with Chinese buyers for prices at $350 per metric ton set a floor in the market that should give some support to the market, even if those levels were low historically.

(Reporting by Matt Daily; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

Can We Feed the World Without Damaging It?'

Tue 5 Jan 2010 6:38:00 AM GMT

Can We Feed the World Without Damaging It?'

By PAUL VOOSEN of Greenwire

Last in a five-part series about genetically modified crops.

Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak have every reason not to get along.

Ronald, a plant scientist, has spent her past two decades manipulating rice from her lab bench, bending the grain's DNA to her whim. Adamchak, meanwhile, is an organic farmer, teaching college students the best practices of an environmentally gentle agriculture at his California market garden.

As Adamchak confesses, few have been more vociferously opposed to the genetic engineering practiced by Ronald than his organic movement, which has steadily grown in recent years to constitute an influential, if tiny, part of the U.S. farm system. So it can come as some surprise when Ronald and Adamchak let slip that they have been happily married for more than a decade.

Such a union should not be shocking, the couple argues. And a more modest version -- sans marriage -- must be considered by any farmer or consumer hoping for a sustainable future for agriculture.

Industrial farming, with its heavy use of pesticides, synthetic fertilizer and irrigation, is exhausting the environment, and with billions more mouths to feed in the upcoming decades, the problem will only worsen unless the efforts of organic farming and genetic engineering are combined, they say.

"The worst thing for the environment is farming," said Ronald, a geneticist at the University of California, Davis, who is best known for her work developing rice strains that survive two weeks of continuous flooding.

"It doesn't matter if it is organic," Ronald said. "You have to go in and destroy everything. So let's be efficient. Let's conserve. Let's be smart about it."

To spread their message to two communities that rarely speak in measured terms, Ronald and Adamchak have written a book, "Tomorrow's Table: Organic Farming, Genetics, and the Future of Food," which came out in paperback last month.

What Adamchak and Ronald pursue in the book is in essence a unified theory of farming. While critical of Western seed companies that have co-opted genetically modified (GM) crops for questionable business practices, the couple argues that both current and future generations of altered crops will, if responsibly managed, allow much of the world's hungry to be fed from land already degraded by the plow's slice and the tractor's compressing wheel.

"The point of our book is that you really need to look at the goals of sustainability," Ronald said. "What matters is: Are we achieving sustainable agricultures that can feed the world without damaging it?"

Ronald and Adamchak are not alone in their call for a more nuanced understanding of GM crops. Their work has inspired books by a varied clutch of professionals: an environmentalist, a historian and a journalist. The books -- Stewart Brand's "Whole Earth Discipline," James McWilliams' "Just Food" and Michael Specter's "Denialism" -- take advocates and critics of genetic engineering to task for what has become a polarized and dumbed-down debate.

Brand, who heavily cites Ronald and Adamchak, is perhaps the most incendiary in his work. While he made his name as a leader of the environmental movement decades ago, founding the Whole Earth Catalog, in recent years Brand has sought a third way, supporting "heretical" technologies like nuclear power.

He is full-throated in his defense of GM crops, writing: "I daresay the environmental movement has done more harm with its opposition to genetic engineering than with any other thing we've been wrong about. We've starved people, hindered science, hurt the natural environment, and denied our practitioners a crucial tool."

McWilliams, an agriculture historian at Texas State University and previously a critic of GM crops, said that during his recent research he has come to respect and heed the couple's message.

"I admire them for fighting an immense uphill battle," McWilliams said. "I cannot think of another issue that really sets the organic lobby [so] on edge. ... Their attempt to blend organic agriculture with genetic engineering is really quite visionary."

"They're looking into a tidal wave of opposition," he added. "Just judging them solely on the contents of their book, they do it with a great deal of knowledge and a very powerful argument."

Filling a void?

At its heart, organic farming has never been about opposition to GM crops, said Adamchak, who teaches organic production at Davis. Organic techniques -- use of natural pesticides, no synthetic fertilizer, limited irrigation -- should be seen as limiting farming's effects on the land than as a reaction against agriculture technology.

And there is no doubt that conventional agriculture, while highly productive, puts a huge strain on the environment. Most significantly, synthetic fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, used to load the soil with nitrogen, an essential plant nutrient, leach from fields into water tables, causing massive algae blooms in the oceans and contaminating drinking water.

Such strain pushes the limits of human adaptation and raises questions of how willing communities are to tolerate environmental degradation, Adamchak said. For example, Des Moines, Iowa, has a water system that filters out nitrates left from the region's massive corn and soy fields.

"It's cheaper for that system than changing the farming system," Adamchak said. "But it's kind of crazy."

Organic farms limit external inputs, as they are known, enriching the soil with alternative crops or introducing natural predators for pests. However, such farms are labor intensive and require larger tracts of land to grow yields acceptable to most farmers, meaning widespread acceptance of the movement could destroy more natural land and require a massive return of workers to the heartland. Currently, no more than 3 percent of U.S. farming is organic.

"It's a rare person that will get out and farm," Ronald said. "So, if that's true, and we don't have a massive return to farms," then centralized, highly productive farms will remain, she said. "But how do you retain that productivity without the negative impact?"

This is the void that GM crops can fill, they say. Environmental benefits can be seen in the developing world with even the current generation of GM crops. For example, farmers in China have quickly adopted cotton engineered to produce a protein called Bt -- a natural insecticide that is also heavily used by organic farmers. Within four years, the farmers' annual chemical use dropped by 156 million pounds, and related illnesses plummeted.

But the true, yet currently unfilled, potential of GM crops in the future will be to allow farmers to maintain or raise their current yields while working with a selection of organic techniques to reduce external inputs and improve soil health. Crops that more efficiently use nitrogen or water will go a long way toward achieving sustainable, industrial models of agriculture, they say.

While such nitrogen-fixing crops may be closer to reality, it should be made clear that they have not yet successfully been developed and have long been promised. It also remains questionable how much genetic engineering could really lower nitrogen use, said Thomas Sinclair, an agronomy professor at the University of Florida.

"Plants have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to be very conservative with nitrogen," Sinclair said. "Since 75 to 80 percent of the nitrogen accumulated by a grain crop ends up in the harvested grain, I don't see how things can be improved very much."

Turning point seen

Despite the somewhat theoretical thrust of their argument, the couple's position is echoed by a recent report by Britain's Royal Society, which called for a "sustainable intensification" of agriculture using GM crops. The report couples its support with calls for greater public-sector research, responsible use and the need for regulators to limit the risk that GM crops could spread beyond a farm's limits.

Other veterans of the industrial farming models of the "Green Revolution" -- credited with saving millions of lives in the developing world during the 1960s and 1970s -- have seconded Adamchak and Ronald's message, notably Gordon Conway, the former president of the Rockefeller Foundation. Conway, who wrote the introduction to "Tomorrow's Table," has called for a "doubly green" revolution to remedy the green revolution's industrial excesses, counting in part on biotech crops.

Yet despite such institutional support and what Ronald and Adamchak see as their complementary aspects, there has been little openness in the organic community to their message.

"It's almost like the public grasped onto what I see as this very small sliver of sustainable agriculture," Ronald said. "It really was a distraction to the overall goals of what many people in the agricultural community tried to achieve."

Both see the turning point as when the U.S. Department of Agriculture established its national organic certification. The department's initial proposal would have allowed GM crops to be branded organic, a move that drew many thousands of letters of protest. Adamchak witnessed the revolt firsthand as the former president of California Certified Organic Farmers.

"Organic agriculture has been from the start a reaction to the problems generated by conventional agriculture," he said. "As long as [GM] plants are seen as being part of the conventional agriculture system, there is guilt by association."

Ronald tries to closely question people opposed to GM crops, she said.

"I always want people to be really, really specific: what don't you like," she said. "Usually it comes down to, I don't like Monsanto. That's not a forward-looking concept. They should be going to the Department of Justice if they want to stop Monsanto."

McWilliams, the historian, found much the same in his research.

"I have realized that people have deep, deep anger at the companies that own this technology and that profit from this technology," he said. "That is where the vast bulk of the anger lies. And on the question of the science itself, most of the laypeople I talk to ... really don't understand it.

"I don't mean that to be dismissive. It's just not something consumers have spent a lot of time getting their minds around."

Shifting the debate

Adamchak credits his openness to GM crops quite specifically to his wife.

"It took me a while to figure what her research really was," he said. "It seemed to me what is demonstrated that there are many people in the university looking to solve various problems in agriculture coming from a completely different point of view than organic agriculture."

When the couple encountered various news stories alleging health risks from the crops over the past decade -- notably flawed studies that alleged harm to monarch butterflies from Bt corn -- they had each other's expertise to draw on, Adamchak said.

"What Pam had access to was the scientific papers and research that had been done on this issue -- what the most factual information was," he said. "That really helped me to gain a balanced view of how [GM] crops are functioning in the environment."

Ronald has been disappointed that the larger organic community has not responded like her husband. When the book first came out, she asked Adamchak if they would have a lot of great conversations with his peers, to which he replied, "They won't read it."

"Sadly, he's mostly been right," Ronald said.

"There's no incentive for the organic community to read it," she added. "The marketing is going really well now, and the public has a certain idea. They falsely believe that sustainable means organic and falsely believe GE seed falls outside this."

The couple would like to see a new national sustainable certification established. Such a standard would likely face opposition from both conventional and organic farming, however, they said.

"One of the problems I see with conventional agriculture as a whole is it doesn't really have a vision for sustainability at this point," Adamchak said. "If you can establish one ... that's a vision that a lot of consumers can embrace and say, 'Yes, I'm contributing to a sustainable farming system when I'm buying this food.'"

More than anything, Ronald seems to wish GM crops were placed back into the backwaters of technical, rather than political, debate. One should not get hung up on whether a crop is GM or not and "just use the most appropriate technology," she said. In some cases, like her flood-tolerant rice, it will be advanced breeding; in other cases, genetic engineering.

While they argue for rapprochement, Ronald and Adamchak have left the details for how organic methods can be applied to GM-friendly industrial models to others. Promising research is being done at Iowa State University, Adamchak said, where their chief investigator into sustainable agriculture, Matt Liebman, has experimentally tested organic-style crop rotations that could be competitive with typical industrial models.

Much more research will be need in these areas, Ronald said.

"I think it's important to remind people that most of the arable land has been farmed," Ronald said. "There is fourfold less water available per person on Earth than we had 50 years ago. These problems aren't going away."

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.

Large Scale Production of genetically Modified Rice in China starting 2011

Tue 5 Jan 2010 6:32:00 AM GMT

Large Scale Production of genetically Modified Rice in China starting 2011

China's Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) in approved August, 2009 to two strains of (genetically modified) GM rice and one of GM maize for small-scale field trials — the first time that China has granted safety certificates to staple food crops.

A document published on the website of the MoA's Biosafety Management Office in October said safety certificates for the three crops are valid from August 2009 to August 2014. During this time the rice and maize will be planted on farmland in central China's Hubei and Shandong provinces respectively.

In related news, genes for drought-tolerance, aflatoxin may mingle to boost corn production (Texas AgriLife Research scientists)

New Scientist reports: "I expect that large-scale production of these two insect-resistant rices will occur in 2011 in Hubei province, one of the major rice production regions in China," says Jikun Huang, director of the Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing

Two varieties, called Huahui 1 and Bt Shanyou 63, received clearance and should be launched within the next two years. Both contain "Bt" proteins from the Bacillus thuringiensis bacterium to protect them against the rice stem borer, the most serious rice pest in China

The Hindu: Sci-Tech- Call for moratorium on GM food products

Tue 5 Jan 2010 1:54:19 AM GMT

Alappuzha, January 2, 2010

Call for moratorium on GM food products

Staff Reporter

Share · print · T+

Noted scientist and founder of the Hyderabad-based Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology, P.M. Bhargava, has called for a moratorium of at least eight years on genetically modified (GM) food products in India.

Inaugurating a national seminar on ‘Bt. Brinjal and Alternatives in Agriculture’ at the Mararikulam Brinjal Festival here on Saturday, Dr. Bhargava said the moratorium period should be used to set up an independent laboratory in the public sector, exclusively for risk assessment of GM products. Only after extensive research at this lab should any GM product be considered for approval as a commercial product in the country, he said.

Lambasting the report based on which the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee’s (GEAC) Expert Committee II (headed by Arjula R. Reddy) recommended the approval of Bt. Brinjal, Dr. Bhargava said the report was “full of lies and absurdities”. He termed it a “ludicrous document that brought down Indian science in front of the whole world” and one which looked like it was written by the public relations officer of the Mahyco-Monsanto collaboration, the makers of Bt. Brinjal.

“Further, Arjula R. Reddy confided in me that he was under tremendous pressure to clear it. Many tests that should have been done were not done. Those that were done were not done properly. Further, the report is based more on data supplied by Monsanto, a company with an abominable record,” he said.

“The widespread aversion to GM food products also cannot be ignored. A majority in the U.S., the European Union and Japan among others are against it. Even Zamibia and Nigeria have stood up against GM food products. If India still approves Bt. Brinjal, that will be the single, greatest tragedy in the history of independent India,” he said, adding that these points would be conveyed to Union Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh during the public hearing on Bt. Brinjal at Hyderabad on January 22.

Noted environmental activists Suman Sahai (Gene Campaign), Karnataka State Women’s University vice-chancellor Geetha Bali, Dinesh Abrol of All India People’s Science Network and others also spoke.

Forbes Company of the Year The Planet Versus Monsanto

Tue 5 Jan 2010 1:48:09 AM GMT

Company of the Year
The Planet Versus Monsanto
Robert Langreth and Matthew Herper 01.18.10, 12:00 AM ET

Monsanto biochemist Roy Fuchs takes fish oil pills every morning in hopes of warding off heart disease. He'd much rather get his omega-3 fatty acids in a granola bar or cup of yogurt. But it is tricky to add omega-3s to food products without adding unwanted flavors. After a while on the shelf, omega-3-enriched products can smell and taste like old fish, he says.

Fuchs hopes that the new genetically engineered soybeans Monsanto is working on will solve this problem. The soybeans contain two new genes to make a tasteless oil that is converted inside the body into the form of omega-3 thought to be good for the heart. In a 157-patient study presented at a cardiology conference in November, those volunteers who had high triglycerides saw their levels drop 26% after eating 15 grams of the oil daily for three months.

Wouldn't that be a wonderful product to have for sale? Stops heart disease--and protects the environment, too. People could get their nutritional supplements without depleting fish stocks.

Monsanto needs crowd-pleasers like this to get past its image problems. In economic terms, the company is a winner. It has created many billions of dollars of value for the world with seeds genetically engineered to ward off insects or make a crop immune to herbicides: Witness the vast numbers of farmers who prefer its seeds to competing products, and the resulting $44 billion market value of the company. In its fiscal 2009 Monsanto sold $7.3 billion of seeds and seed genes, versus $4 billion for second-place DuPont and its Pioneer Hi-Bred unit. Monsanto, of St. Louis, netted $2.1 billion on revenue of $11.7 billion for fiscal 2009 (ended Aug. 31). Its sales have increased at an annualized 18% clip over five years; its annualized return on capital in the period has been 12%. Those accomplishments earn it the designation as FORBES' Company of the Year.

But economic achievement is not the same thing as public adulation. Over most of the time that Monsanto has been working to make humanity better fed, it has been the object of vicious criticism. In the first round of attacks the company was portrayed as the Satan of agriculture for daring to modify the genes in corn and soybeans. That people have been selecting plant genes for 5,000 years was no defense; Monsanto's gene-splicing threatened the world with ecological catastrophe. Genetically modified crops were the subject of legislation outlawing them and numerous protests in Europe and elsewhere in which biotech crops were ripped from the ground. In 2002 Zambia, during a famine, rejected a cargo of donated corn because it might have been tainted with the offending seeds.

Over time the protests have mellowed, and the legal impediments to GM are gradually falling. It didn't make sense for a hungry planet to reject tools to increase the productivity of farmers. Much of Europe, while still forbidding the planting of GM crops, permits the importation of foods made from them.

But now Monsanto has a new round of enemies. This time its supposed sin is making seeds that are too good. The company has something too close to a monopoly in some seed markets.

The public is hard to please, isn't it? But Monsanto perseveres. It has been in biotech long enough to develop a thick corporate skin.

Chief Executive Hugh Grant, 51, is both manager and evangelist. He says the new generation of biotech crops will go beyond mere herbicide tolerance and pest-killing to help feed the world. "There is bigger demand for food than ever. There is no new farmland," he says. "The business model is you provide more yield to growers, and you are rewarded for that." He vows to increase gross profit (approximately $6.8 billion in 2009) by 25% over the next three years.

By marrying conventional breeding with genetic engineering, Monsanto aims to produce more food for less money on the same amount of land. Conventional breeding--these days a high-tech matchmaking process guided by DNA sequencing machines--will help boost maximum yields. Biotech genes will ensure that pests, weeds, drought and other problems don't destroy a crop's potential, Grant says.

"It is like computers in the 1960s," says Robert T. Fraley, Monsanto's chief technology officer. "We are just at the beginning of the explosion of technology we are going to see." Adds Grant: "Our pipeline is richer and deeper than it has ever been." A new corn variety that includes eight genes for pest resistance and herbicide tolerance could become the company's next big product. It is due out this spring. Also in testing are drought-tolerant corn, corn that needs less fertilizer and higher-yielding biotech soybeans and corn.

Farmers complain about Monsanto's prices, but they still buy the seeds. Ninety percent of the U.S. soybean crop and 80% of the corn crop and cotton crop are grown with seeds containing Monsanto's technology. Other countries are also growing Monsanto's biotech crops, including India, with 20 million acres of cotton; Brazil, with 35 million acres of soybeans; and Argentina, with 43 million acres of soybeans. (Brazil once blocked genetically modified plants, but farmers planted the crops anyway, and it eventually legalized them.) Packaged foods with corn syrup or soybean oil likely contain the fruits of Monsanto's gene-modified agriculture.

But agriculture is not a business that tolerates resting on your laurels. Monsanto faces a rough 2010. Rivals are producing more competitive products, and farmers are likely to resist further price increases. Sales of the herbicide Roundup, the company's second-biggest product, have been declining as renewed availability of raw materials allows other companies to make cheap generics. Monsanto laid off 8% of its staff this fall. Another headache: The Justice Department is looking broadly at competition in agriculture--and is asking questions about Monsanto's practices in particular.

One trend in Monsanto's favor: Demand for grain is likely to grow as emerging countries like China adopt a meat-heavy Western diet. It takes a lot of feed to make all that steak. "How are you going to feed everybody? Yield. Farmers are going to get better yield with genetically modified seeds," says Edward Jones analyst Daniel Ortwerth. Monsanto "is chasing every acre in the world, figuring what bugs are eating people's crops and how to stop them." He predicts Monsanto's sales (after a slight drop in 2010) will climb 10%, to $13 billion, in fiscal 2011.

The business model here is productivity: increasing the tons of crop that can be produced per hour of labor and/or per acre of land. Monsanto created soybeans, corn and other plants resistant to Roundup by inserting a gene from glyphosate-resistant bacteria found near a Roundup factory in Luling, La. Farmers can plant their crops and then, whenever weeds emerge, spray on Roundup without worrying about killing their crop.

Monsanto's other main line of products is corn and cotton seeds containing genes for pest-killing toxins produced by the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. Organic farmers have been spraying these natural pesticides on their crops for decades. Monsanto's technology puts the stuff right into the plant. "We are getting more bushels per acre with the same amount of fertilizer" and fewer pesticides, says Champaign, Ill. farmer John Reifsteck, who plants mostly biotech corn and soybeans on his 1,800 acres. Terry Wanzek, a farmer in Jamestown, N.D., used to plant mostly conventional wheat. Now he plants mostly bioengineered corn and soybeans because they produce crops that are more reliable and more profitable. "Wheat and barley haven't kept up with the times," he says.

Even some organic farmers are clamoring for genetically modified crops. Don J. Cameron grows both organic and conventional cotton on his farm in Helm, Calif. The organic fields cost $500 per acre to weed by hand, versus only $30 an acre for glyphosate-immune fields. Lately he can't even sell organic cotton because the stuff coming out of India, Syria and Uganda is so cheap. "I feel the organic industry has painted itself in a corner saying that all genetically modified organisms are bad. Eventually they're going to have to allow it," Cameron says.

The enemies haven't disappeared entirely. A 2009 Union of Concerned Scientists study calculated that only 14% of recent corn-crop yield increases are due to genetically engineered Bt corn. Roundup-ready corn and soy seeds don't increase crop yield at all, it found. Genetic engineering of crops "is inherently risky," says Greenpeace Policy Director Marco Contiero. "We cannot recall crops that are released into the environment." He says Monsanto's dominance decreases seed biodiversity.

Monsanto, formed in 1901, was a food additives and chemical company before starting crop biotech research in 1981. Its biotech crops come out of the same genetic engineering revolution that produced companies like Genentech and Amgen. But while biotech medicines hit the market in 1982 with the approval of recombinant insulin, biotech crops took longer to develop. (The chemical business was spun off in 1997.)

Some of the difficulty was technical. It took a while to figure out how to regenerate whole plants from genetically modified plant cells. In one method scientists would blast new genes into plant cells at high velocity with a gene gun. An advance came in the early 1980s, when researchers at Monsanto and, independently, in Europe discovered that the soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens could do the job more precisely. The bacteria cause benign tumors called crown gall disease in trees. Researchers remove disease-causing genes from the bacteria, add new genes of interest and then mix the bacteria and plant cells in a petri dish; the bacteria do the hard work of inserting the new genes into the plant. Most of Monsanto's genetic engineering work still uses this method.

Monsanto's foray into biotechnology was controversial from the start. Its first genetically engineered product, bovine growth hormone for boosting milk production, was introduced in 1994 to a furious debate over whether it was deleterious to health. "It probably wasn't the wisest product to bring out first," admits Earl Harbison, Monsanto's president from 1986 to 1993. "But we had it." (Monsanto sold the product line to Eli Lilly in 2008.)

Initially Monsanto aimed to roll out biotech seeds slowly, Harbison says, building consensus by engaging potential critics. "Seeds are not products people have to accept," he says. The go-slow approach evaporated when Robert Shapiro, who had been head of Monsanto's former Nutrasweet business, became Monsanto's chairman. Highly promotional, Shapiro courted the press with stories about how Monsanto's crops were going to help the environment by reducing pesticides and pushed seeds through friendly regulators. A backlash was inevitable.

Making crops resistant to Roundup was an obvious idea. But it proved difficult to do until someone came up with the clever idea of trying genes from bacteria living in the wastewater near a Roundup plant. "I walked in the lab one day and saw the results on my robot, and it was 'Holy cow,'" recalls Monsanto Vice President Stephen Padgette. Roundup-ready soybeans were introduced in 1996. Bt-endowed cotton came that same year, followed by Bt corn in 1997. The cry went up that genetically engineered crops would cause allergies, but this has not been true for marketed crops "at all," says University of Georgia researcher Wayne Parrott. Then it was charged that Bt corn would kill butterflies or do other bad things to the environment. But the effect on the environment is just the opposite. GM seeds lower pesticide use or, in the case of Roundup resistance, may reduce soil erosion by making low-till farming more practical. "We have to feed people in a less destructive way," says uc, Davis plant biologist Pamela Ronald, author of the pro-biotech book Tomorrow's Table. "Genetically engineered crops can be useful for that."

When drug giant Pharmacia (now Pfizer) agreed to merge with Monsanto in 1999 to snag its arthritis drugs, Pharmacia shares dropped because drug investors wanted no part of the controversial seed business. The genetically modified crop controversy reached a climax in 2000, when a competing genetically modified corn product--one not approved for human consumption--was detected in Kraft taco shells, prompting a nationwide recall and yet more bad publicity.

When Monsanto was spun off from Pharmacia in 2002 sales of the synthetic seeds were gaining, but the company was not making money on them. "We were a mile wide and an inch deep," recalls Monsanto molecular biologist David Stark. There were research projects in everything from wheat to turf grass to coffee. Hugh Grant, a company lifer who snared the top job in 2003, killed most of these projects and bet heavily on three big crops--corn, soybeans and cotton. These crops were the most likely to generate sales big enough to justify the $100 million investment that new genetically engineered crops require. Bioengineered corn and soybeans are less controversial because they are rarely sold directly to consumers.

Grant also realized that genetic engineering alone was not enough for success in the seed business. It cannot replace conventional breeding methods, which allow crop scientists to create hundreds of seed varieties tailored to different soils and weather. Monsanto's research budget is now split equally between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. "If you have incredibly brilliant biotech and extraordinarily average seed, you will end up with average crop yields," Grant says. "The thing the [genetic engineering] does is protect that preprogrammed yield."

Grant's job gets more difficult from here on out. A main patent on Roundup-ready soybean seed expires in 2014. This could threaten $500 million in royalties Monsanto gets from licensing this genetic trait to competitors, estimates JPMorgan. Monsanto just introduced a second-generation herbicide-tolerant product that it says will produce 7% more soybeans per acre. But rivals like DuPont are working on their own herbicide-tolerant seeds. Dupont hopes to combine its herbicide-tolerant trait with the Roundup-proof trait; Monsanto is suing DuPont to stop it. "It's all being slowly chipped away," says Ticonderoga Securities analyst Chris L. Shaw, who calls the company overvalued.

Then there are antitrust questions. Competitors like DuPont, which has countersued Monsanto on antitrust grounds, and some farmer groups object to Monsanto's licensing agreements with numerous small seed companies. They say the agreements are too restrictive and limit other companies' ability to blend in their own traits. Monsanto says the Department of Justice has made inquiries "similar to the claims made by DuPont" in its lawsuit. "Concentration in the seed industry has resulted in higher prices and less choice" for farmers, complains William Wenzel of the Wisconsin nonprofit Farmer to Farmer Campaign on Genetic Engineering. Wisconsin dairy farmer Paul Rozwadowski blames Monsanto for the difficulties he has had finding the conventional corn seed that he has used for decades. "Monsanto is taking over the industry," he says. "They are trying to eliminate all conventional seed."

"Any time you have a firm with 90% to 95% market share and you have concerns about supercompetitive pricing, you're going to get on the doj's radar," says Brian A. Weinberger, an antitrust attorney at Buchalter Nemer. "If Monsanto clamps down too hard on the licensees, it puts itself front and center."

Monsanto says it licenses its genetic traits broadly and is so far ahead simply because it bet heavily on genetic engineering years before the competition. "Farmers vote one spring at a time. You get invited back if you do a good job," Grant says.

Since 2005 Monsanto has been gradually moving back into other food crops, including fruits and vegetables. Among the projects in the works are a lettuce with the crunch of iceberg and the nutrients of romaine, and a watermelon whose flesh doesn't leak after being cut. This research involves conventional breeding. Monsanto abandoned its biotech wheat research in 2004 after it proved too controversial. In July Monsanto reentered the wheat business by acquiring conventional breeder WestBred for $45 million. It hopes to use genetic engineering to create drought-tolerant varieties.

"When people are confused or worried the natural tendency is to just say no," says Monsanto scientist Stark. "The only thing we can do is produce products with real benefits and hope that people eventually become comfortable what we are doing is good."

Sidebar:
The Soybeans Solution

Special Offer: Free Trial Issue of Forbes

How Far Has Greenwashing Gone? The Conflicts of Natural and Organic Food

Tue 5 Jan 2010 1:40:19 AM GMT

How Far Has Greenwashing Gone? The Conflicts of Natural and Organic Food

Created 12/30/2009 - 4:55pm

GREEN IS GOOD
by Margaret Smith

You're on another weekly trip to the local supermarket, shopping around for the freshest, healthiest goods to stock up on for the next couple of days. Well, "fresh" and "healthy" might not be the best words for it, actually. Walking up and down the aisles there are so many different options it's easy to get confused. Pesticides? High Fructose Corn Syrup? MSG? rBHT? How does the average consumer know how to buy what's really healthy for you?

Well never fear, because there's always that little label on certain products that lets you know what's "healthy" to buy. It's just a small circular sticker, divided in half and colored in green on the bottom and white on the top. The words printed on it say a lot, though: USDA ORGANIC.

In the past couple of years America has seen an unprecedented increase in corporate greenwashing. As people have become increasingly environmentally conscious, more and more companies have been apt to label their products with false green claims in order to attract customers. According to the Greenwashing Report 2009, last year alone 98 percent of green-labeled goods were found guilty of greenwashing [1]. And all along the word organic, whether printed on the box or stamped on with the federal, USDA regulated organic label, has been a sort of lifeboat pointing people in the right direction to healthy living. But could the word organic be the biggest greenwashing dupe of them all?

That's been the issue lately as more and more loopholes are found in the ubiquitous federally-regulated organic label. While the USDA guidelines state that [2] "products labeled 'organic' must consist of at least 95 percent organically produced ingredients (excluding water and salt)", a combination of lax standards, corporate lobbyists and the amount of allowed non-organic substances has stretched the lines between what is organic and what isn't.

The USDA organic label came under scrutiny this past summer when the Washington Post published an investigative report examining the integrity of the label [3]. It's true that some lax standards have simply allowed for concession in organic food. According to The Daily Green, there are 38 non-organic ingredients found in USDA organic foods [4]. Today you can buy organic beer made from non-organic hops and organic baby food formula with synthetic additives.

The real root of the problem, though, comes down to market shares. As a healthy and environmentally-safe lifestyle has become an increasing concern for consumers, the organic food business has become a profitable industry, right now at about $23 billion and growing fast [5]. With numbers such as that, big name companies such as Kellogg and Kraft Foods have positioned themselves in the market, lobbying the government so they can get their products labeled with the USDA regulated organic sticker.

And it doesn't always necessarily come down to what's in the product that's organic. Sometimes, what's more important is what isn't. According to The Washington Post:

Under the original organics law, 5 percent of a USDA-certified organic product can consist of non-organic substances, provided they are approved by the National Organic Standards Board. That list has grown from 77 to 245 in substances since it was created in 2002. Companies that must appeal to the board every five years to keep a substance on the list, explaining why an organic substance has not been found. The goal was the shrink the list over time, but only one item has been removed so far.

Other issues include inconsistent organic standards on fish and personal care products and a directive stating that farmers could use pesticides on organic crops if after a reasonable effort they determined that the pesticide didn't contain any chemicals restricted by the organic labeling rule.

The issue of USDA regulated organic labels has become even more prevalent lately as the difference between organic and natural products has come under scrutiny. It seems lax organic regulations aren't enough for some companies. A growing controversy is stirring up between corporate agribusiness and major retailers who have been accused of blurring the line between federally-regulated organic foods and 'natural' products. Some companies have been using the classic bait-and-switch tactic to try and sell their products off as organic while switching the ingredients they use to conventional rather than organic.

The biggest case this past year has been that of Silk brand soymilk. Owned by Dean Foods, up until early 2009 Silk was made with organic soybeans. Earlier this year, though, the company switched from organic to non-organic soybeans (which are often grown with pesticides and/or using genetically-modified seeds). Dean Foods kept the same product labeling and price for their Silk soymilk, only switching the word "organic" to "natural" on the packaging. The result was a transition that consumers and retailers were both unaware of, and many kept buying the product under the impression that it was organic. The USDA recently began an investigation of the Target Corporation for wrongfully advertising Silk brand soymilk as organic. The investigation was triggered by complaints made by The Cornucopia Institute, a farm policy research group based in Wisconsin [6].

For many companies, switching their product from organic to natural is easy, largely because there are no federally regulated guidelines for advertising something as natural. Many consumers don't even know what the difference between natural and organic is, making it that much easier for big companies to still pass their products off as completely organic. In reality, "natural" food allows products to be sprayed with all sorts of pesticides, and even includes products like Monsanto's Roundup Ready soybeans. In fact, today U.S. soybean production is 95 percent dominated by genetically-modified Roundup Ready soybeans. How many of those do you think are labeled as "natural"?

It's clear that "natural" may not mean any more than words like "healthy" and "fresh." In order to make real healthy and fresh choices, though, we need real information about what's going in our bodies. Maybe the green and white sticker can lead us in the right direction now, but until we have a working definition of "organic" and "natural" that everyone can adhere to, we'll still be wandering up and down the supermarket aisles, confused.

GREEN IS GOOD

Green Is Good

Source URL: http://blog.buzzflash.com/greenisgood/030

Links:
[1] http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/
[2] http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3004446&acct=nopgeninfo
[3] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/02/AR2009070203365.html?nav=rss_email/components&sid=ST2009070203371
[4] http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/3980
[5] http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/02/organic-food-sales-still-growing.php
[6] http://www.cornucopia.org/2009/10/off-target-major-retailer-accused-of-organic-improprieties-state-and-federal-complaints-allege-mislabeling/
[7] http://technorati.com/tag/Green Is Good
[8] http://technorati.com/tag/Greenwashing
[9] http://technorati.com/tag/Organic
[10] http://technorati.com/tag/Natural Food
[11] http://technorati.com/tag/USDA
[12] http://technorati.com/tag/Agriculture
[13] http://technorati.com/tag/Monsanto

Whole Foods debuts first Facebook app, promoting nonprofits

Tue 5 Jan 2010 1:02:53 AM GMT

Whole Foods debuts first Facebook app, promoting nonprofits

Mary Elizabeth Hurn

December 29 2009

Whole Foods Market has launched its first Facebook application to promote its “This is my year to…” campaign, which launched December 28. The goal of the effort is to give back to three national non-profit food organizations during 2010.

Throughout January, Whole Foods will use the Facebook app to ask users to choose one of three options that best matches how they would complete the sentence, “This is my year to…” Each option corresponds to a nonprofit.

Each of the three organizations will receive $10,000 from Whole Foods, its media partner Health Magazine and vendor partner Odwalla. The nonprofit with the most votes will receive an additional $10,000.

Voting consumers can also make their sentence their status update, therefore driving other users to the app.

The first answer is “know where my food comes from,” promoting the Non-GMO Project, which encourages informed choice about whether or not to ingest genetically modified products. The second is “choose organic,” which drives to The Organic Center, a group that wants to increase the current market for organic food from 3% to 10% by the end of next year. The third answer is “share my plate,” which promotes Growing Power, a group that provides training to people from diverse backgrounds to grow, process, market and distribute sustainable food.

“We believe small, simple steps are the best way to enjoy healthy eating and living well on a budget, and we hope our shoppers will share their aspirations and ideas with others through the new ‘This is my year to...' Facebook application,” said Barry Hirsch, program coordinator at Whole Foods Market, in a statement. “Collectively, our shoppers will also be supporting three terrific nonprofit organizations.”

Whole Foods could not be immediately reached for comment.

Soy in Illinois prison diets prompts lawsuit over health effects

Tue 5 Jan 2010 1:01:13 AM GMT

Soy in Illinois prison diets prompts lawsuit over health effects

CHICAGO — Soy-enhanced chili mac, turkey patties with soy, soy-studded country gravy, soy-blend hot dogs, soy-spiked sloppy joes, Polish sausages packed with soy, soy chicken patties.

These aren't items from the latest vegetarian diet, but rather dishes served over a week at Danville Correctional Center, according to a recent menu.

They're also the basis of a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court this summer by nine plaintiffs who allege that the Illinois Department of Corrections is endangering the health of the inmates — especially those with allergies, sensitivities and existing gastrointestinal and thyroid problems — by serving them too much soy.

Tens of thousands of inmates in Illinois prisons are being fed "up to 100 grams" of soy protein a day, according to the Weston A. Price Foundation, which is funding the lawsuit. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends consuming about 25 grams of soy protein per day. Based in Washington, D.C., the foundation promotes the consumption of whole, traditional and largely unprocessed foods. Foundation president Sally Fallon called the soy diet served in Illinois prisons "the Tuskegee of the 21st century," referring to the syphilis experiments performed on African-Americans from the 1930s to '70s.

"Never before have we had a large population like this being served such a high level of soy with almost no other choice," she said.

The plaintiffs are "suffering irreparable, actual harm by being forced to continue to eat food that has too much soy in it," according to an amended complaint filed in June.

The effects have ranged from acute allergic reactions and heart problems to gastrointestinal distress and thyroid dysfunction, it says.

Fallon said the foundation got involved after inmates from various Illinois facilities contacted her. Last month, the foundation hosted a local panel on the soy issue before its annual national conference in Schaumburg, Ill.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that would stop the Department of Corrections from serving soy in Illinois prisons as well as damages from the prisons' contracted health care provider.

The department says it started serving soy-enhanced foods in March 2004 as a cost-cutting measure. But it declined to comment on most aspects of the pending litigation and is awaiting a ruling on its motion to dismiss the suit.

Nancy Chapman, executive director of the Soyfoods Association of North America, said she doubts prisoners are consuming as much soy as the foundation alleges.

"One hundred grams of any protein from plants or animals would not be economically feasible and would be an enormous load on the kidneys," Chapman said.

Prison menus indicate inmates are served as many as seven soy-enhanced "meat" entrees a week. But the foundation contends the inmates consume more soy through cooking oils and soy cheeses as well as baked products enhanced with soy protein concentrates.

Once the darling of the health-food community, soy — especially non-fermented and genetically modified soy — has fallen out of favor in some health circles. Last year the American Heart Association urged the FDA to stop recommending soy as a way to reduce heart disease risk, saying "direct cardiovascular benefits of soy protein or isoflavones are minimal at best."

Scientific studies have volleyed back and forth on whether high soy consumption reduces or increases cancer risk, inhibits mineral absorption and affects sperm concentrations.

But most agree that soy, especially unfermented varieties, can cause problems with the thyroid function and digestion.

Recommendations vary on how much soy is healthy to consume. The American Dietetic Association "believes that up to two servings of soy per day for adults could be part of a healthy diet," said spokeswoman Christine Gerbstadt. Examples of a serving include a half-cup of edamame, a cup of soy milk, a half-cup of tofu or a slice of bread in which soy flour is a component.

United Soybean Board consultant and researcher Mark Messina similarly recommends 15 to 20 grams of soy protein per day. Eating one soy burger (14 grams) and a cup of soy milk (7 grams) would exceed that level.

Thomas Salonis, a former inmate who is not a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said he nearly passed out in 2008 from gastrointestinal pain at the Hill Correctional Center in Galesburg.

He was diagnosed by a prison doctor as being allergic to soy — one of the eight most common food allergies in the U.S., according to the FDA.

The doctor even wrote out a note, obtained by the Chicago Tribune, saying Salonis was allergic to soy. But the prison made no changes, according to Salonis. Finally, after a hunger strike, he was offered work that allowed him to buy instant soup from the commissary for his meals, he said.

The Department of Corrections says it accommodates medical diets but did not provide details as to how.

At the panel the Weston A. Price Foundation hosted in Rogers Park, Salonis spoke about suffering soy-induced stomach pain and bloating in prison.

"Gas was really an issue," said Salonis, who was released from prison last fall. "And most of my (cellmates) were real big, and they were like, 'Hey man you gotta take that somewhere else.' But I was like, 'Where am I gonna take it?' The whole thing was just offensive."

The legal complaint alleges that tests show all nine plaintiffs have hormone, lipid and enzyme levels consistent with thyroid damage caused by soy. Messina said soy intake is an issue only for those with pre-existing thyroid conditions and/or iodine deficiencies. All agree that people with soy allergies should not eat it.

The foundation says the Department of Corrections obtains most of its soy from Archer Daniels Midland through its contracts with Central Management Services, which oversees food procurement for the prisons. ADM said it has a contract to provide texturized vegetable protein and soy protein concentrates to the department, but neither party would disclose the amounts.

The foundation also contends prisons are serving genetically modified soy, which it says can further aggravate allergic reactions and mineral absorption.

Research by Monsanto, which developed herbicide-resistant soy, has found that the genetically modified product has up to 27 percent more of a potential allergen called trypsin inhibitor than other soy, said Jeffrey Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception," a book that criticizes genetically modified foods.

ADM said it cannot determine whether the soy products they supply to the Department of Corrections come from genetically modified beans.

The foundation has received nearly 200 letters about soy from prisoners in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New York and Florida, according to Fallon, who urges a return to older food-service models.

"Ten years ago many prisoners grew their own food," she said. "They raised their beef, their chicken, their vegetables and there was enough left over to sell it on the open market. ... We need to go back to that at prisons all over the country, teach them skills, get them outdoors in the sunlight with animals, eating real nutritious foods so they can truly be rehabilitated back into society."

When Fallon hears from families of soy-sensitive inmates, she urges them to send their incarcerated relatives money so they can purchase foods from the commissary.

"We recommend sardines, summer sausage and, of all things, SPAM," said Fallon, who usually advocates eating chemical-free meat from pastured animals. "They supply good protein, stable fats, vitamins A and D, and good minerals. They are in general very nutritious foods and provide just what they are missing in their prison diet."

Fallon said the foundation also is concerned about the growing use of soy in institutions serving children and the elderly.

"Illinois has a pilot program to bring this kind of diet to the schools, to growing children," she said.

Indeed, Chicago Public Schools menus incorporate soy-based texturized vegetable protein into their meat products and regularly serve doughnuts made with soy flour.

Despite the alleged suffering of inmates, Fallon says the diet in Illinois prisons presents an opportunity "to see what happens when you feed people soy with no other choices. This situation has brought it out into the open."

HOW SOY AFFECTS THE BODY

Thyroid: Some believe that the excessive consumption of soy foods and supplements can cause hypothyroidism. Those in the pro-soy camp believe it only becomes an issue if the consumer is iodine deficient or otherwise susceptible to thyroid or goiter problems.

Breast cancer: Although isoflavones from soy foods may help prevent breast cancer, concentrated soy isoflavone extracts may set the stage for cancerous tumor growth, according to the American Cancer Society.

Heart health: Although the Food and Drug Administration continues to back its 1999 claim that "25 grams of soy protein a day, as part of a diet low in saturated fat and cholesterol, may reduce the risk of heart disease," last year the American Heart Association urged the FDA to back off the claim, citing more recent research showing "the direct cardiovascular benefit of soy protein or isoflavone supplements is minimal at best."

Flatulence: Gas has been called the No. 1 consumer complaint against soy, which is why the industry trumpeted a study out of Singapore last year that seemed to reduce the amount of oligosaccharides — flatulence-causing carbohydrates — in soy yogurt. Stay tuned.

Sperm concentration: Controversy continues to surround how soy affects reproductive function. Some studies have shown that soy has no ill effect on sperm health, but a Harvard School of Public Health study showed that men who ate soy had lower sperm concentrations than those who didn't. Many of these men also happened to be obese or overweight, which study authors admitted might have made them more sensitive to the phytoestrogen in soy.

AUTHOR OFFERS ADVICE ON SOY FOODS IN DIET

Despite concerns over excessive soy intake, most mainstream organizations say up to two servings per day can be part of a healthy diet. Kaayla Daniel, who holds a doctorate in nutrition and is the author of "The Whole Soy Story: The Dark Side of America's Favorite Health Food," offers the following advice.

Oils and ingredients: Avoid soy flour, soy protein isolates, soy protein concentrates, hydrolyzed soy protein, texturized vegetable protein and soybean oils. Daniel says these modern soy foods can cause digestive and reproductive problems as well as endocrine disruption. Most vegetable oils are primarily made from soy and can become rancid quickly but because of deodorization may not smell rancid.

Soy infant formula: "The Israelis, French and Germans have been clear that soy formula should never be used except as a last resort and I agree," Daniel says. "There are many other options, and soy is absolutely the worst choice."

Genetically modified soy: Most soy grown and consumed in the U.S. is genetically modified, and the only way to avoid it is to buy organic soy. Jeffrey Smith, author of "Seeds of Deception," says genetically modified soy contains higher levels of potential allergens called trypsin inhibitors.

Soy milk: Daniel says it's generally OK in small quantities (two cups a week, maximum) but says she is concerned about the high sugar levels, often low-quality supplemented nutrients, phytates and estrogens that soy milk contains. Even two cups exceeds the daily soy protein levels recommended by the American Dietetic Association.

Edamame: "An occasional appetizer (half-cup) portion at a Japanese restaurant is not a problem," Daniel says. "But a lot of people have digestive issues with the edamame, and if the quantity gets high enough it could trigger all of the issues associated with modern soy. ... A whole bag is not a good idea."

Tofu: Daniel approves of it in small quantities — "like the cubes you typically find in your miso soup at a Japanese restaurant."

Fake meat products: "You can have the occasional Tofurky, Veat, Boca burger or (any) other of the highly processed, high-tech modern American soy foods. The important thing is: Don't pig out."

Traditional soy products: "Natto, miso, tempeh, tamari, shoyu, and naturally fermented soy sauce are wonderful in small normal quantities."

—Monica Eng

Genetically modified rice hard for some to swallow

Tue 5 Jan 2010 12:52:48 AM GMT

Genetically modified rice hard for some to swallow

Source: Global Times
[02:37 December 24 2009]
Comments

By Huang Jingjing

The approval of two types of genetically engineered pest resistant rice for widespread production in China has generated safety concerns among experts.

The Ministry of Agriculture published a list of crops on stee.agri.gov.cn on October 22 that were granted bio-safety certificates and were approved for agricultural cultivation and production. At the bottom of the list are two transgenic anti-pest rice varieties, TT51 and Bt Shanyou 63, developed in the National Key Laboratory of Crop Genetic Improvement, Huazhong Agricultural Univer-sity (HAU).

Some complained that the ministry violated the public's right to learn the details of the lab work and they should publicize the research and assessment procedures.

"As the safety of the transgenetic food has been an argument, the appraisal of the rice should be transparent," Jiang Gaoming, an academic at the Institute of Botany, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told China Youth Daily Wednesday.

"We asked to open the name list of the Crop Transgenic Biosafety Committee, which was claimed in charge of the assessment," Jiang said.

Jiang's views were echoed by Fang Lifeng of Greenpeace China's Food and Agriculture campaigner.

"The public should know who made the decision for them and see the complete proof that the rice is totally safe to human beings and for the environment," Fang told the Global Times.

He also said they are not against developing transgenic technology, but they oppose any application of the technology into biosphere and commercialization.

Transgenic rice is created by inserting DNA from another species in it to make it resistant to diseases or insects.

"Experiments carried out in Italy and France show that the transgenic corns would damage the immune system and kidney of the mice," Fang added.

The Global Times requested a comment from the ministry Wednesday with no success.

However, some experts said the safety of transgenic rice is beyond doubt.

"The anti-pest Bt only accumulates on the rice's stalks and leaves and hardly reaches the rice grains, which makes its safety above suspicion," said Zhu Yingguo of the Chinese Academy of Engineering who is also a noted scientist on hybrid rice.

According to HAU, the nutrition, toxic and allergy analysis showed that the two transgenic varieties are as safe as natural ones.

"The varieties we developed not only increase yield, but also decrease the usage of pesticides, which will be very helpful to the environment," said Peng, the director of the publicity department at the university.

He said it is also significant for China's food security in the long run.

"Now the transgenic seeds of the US have grabbed a large share in the Chinese crop seeds market, including corn, soybean and cotton," he said.

However, many Chinese said they would not eat that rice.

"Even the pests will not eat it, how could we dare to?" said Li Lun, a student from Shenzhen Polytechnic.

Peng said that view was groundless.

"First, the digestive system of human beings differ from those of pests. Besides, pests eat stalks and leaves, not the grains, how could the two compare with each other?"

Peng also said they would make efforts to publicize the rice's safety.

After getting seeds production certificates and operation licenses, the rice will be first cultivated and grown in Hubei Province.

According to the Southern Metropolis Daily, transgenic crops such as cotton, tomato and green pepper have taken the place of traditional varieties in China. Now transgenic cotton makes up 69 percent of the planting area.

Gates Foundation Gets into Genetically Engineered Food Fight

Tue 5 Jan 2010 12:48:37 AM GMT

Gates Foundation Gets into Genetically Engineered Food Fight

By Michael van Baker

Editor

Recommend this story (0 votes)

Report abuse |

"Day 253/365 - Beware of Falling Fruit" from our SunBreak Flickr pool--thanks, Great Beyond!

The Seattle Times found on the PCC website the local flashpoint in the conflict over genetically engineered food: A letter came in from Dennis L. Weaver: "I caution the organic community to be watchful of this NEW Green Revolution, especially since The Gates Foundation science and technology efforts are led by a former Monsanto researcher."

PCC included an editor's note:

The Gates Foundation apparently is pushing genetically modified crops on African farmers. It named a 25-year Monsanto veteran, Rob Horsch, to be the senior officer for a program in sub-Saharan Africa. The foundation also reportedly gave $42 million to a project (believed to be Monsanto’s) involving genetically engineered (GE) corn...

Monsanto is of course a fighting word in organic and food cooperative circles, not least for its championing of recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Actually, it's a long list of things if you get into it, including Agent Orange.

Farmers themselves are also suspicious of a company that develops seed "terminator technology"--which would require farmers to buy new seeds each year. (Monsanto responds: "Sharing many of the concerns of small landholder farmers, Monsanto made a commitment in 1999 not to commercialize sterile seed technology in food crops.")

Briefly, this is why the Gates Foundation's hiring of a Monsanto executive would raise hackles. Monsanto has a "trust gap."

Genetically engineered food would seem to show such promise, on the face of it. Texas A&M's Normal Borlaug, winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize, had an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal over the summer, promoting advancements and bemoaning the fact that "some elements of popular culture romanticize older, inefficient production methods and shun fertilizers and pesticides, arguing that the U.S. should revert to producing only local organic food."

Not all the opposition reeks of stinky hippiedom. Even Michael Specter, who thinks such risks as there are are worth taking, describes in his book Denialism how in 1995 Pioneer Hi-Bred "placed genes from a Brazil nut into a soybean...to make beans used as animal feed more nutritious." So far so good, but Specter adds that if someone allergic to Brazil nuts ate something made from that soy, "the results could be deadly."

And why would they think their soy had Brazil nut in it? Back of the label ingredients lists are tiny enough as it is, without adding any and all genetic interpolations.

But beyond safety concerns and the knotty issue of how much of our food can be patented, the most interesting thing I can see here is the use of talking points to frame the pro/con genetically engineered foods debate. You see a surreal flip-flop here, as a conservative movement that has resisted stem cell research and scientific evidence of climate change links arms with those on the bleeding edge of GMO experimentation.

Why? It turns out that regulation of greenhouse gases and genetically engineered foods have something in common: They both, allegedly, make life harder on poor people so that the liberal elites can enjoy their dangerously romantic utopian visions.

Solidarity with the economic interests of the poor of sub-Saharan Africa has not often made the op-ed pages of the Wall Street Journal, but it does now. It's of a piece with George Will arguing that climate change will be great for people who can't afford to heat their homes. Could save thousands of lives.

Food for thought.

UA researcher says crop pests abroad resistant to controls UA researcher says finding poses no immediate threat

Mon 4 Jan 2010 5:48:14 PM GMT

UA researcher says crop pests abroad resistant to controls

UA researcher says finding poses no immediate threat

By Tom Beal

ARIZONA DAILY STAR

DID YOU KNOW

The genetically introduced toxin that kills the pink bollworm — the principal pest in Southwestern cotton fields — has proved so effective that experts are predicting the bug's eradication in the near future.

"Pesticide use has been almost eliminated" on cotton in Arizona, said University of Arizona entomologist Bruce Tabashnik.

Cotton production, once a staple of Arizona's economy, has fallen from a high of 631,000 acres 40 years ago to this year's estimated 140,000 acres, said Rick Lavis, executive vice president of the Arizona Cotton Growers Association.

Lavis expects acreage to grow by 40,000 acres next year — and he said near-eradication of the pink bollworm is a key reason.

Most of the crop grown in Arizona today is upland cotton. There is no Bt variety for Pima cotton, the extra-long-staple cotton that once made Arizona famous, and less than 2,000 acres were planted this year.

But if the pest disappears, Pima cotton could resurge.

A UA researcher says pests that destroy corn and cotton have developed resistance to the most effective and benign method to kill them.

Bruce Tabashnik, University of Arizona research entomologist, said resistance does not pose an immediate threat to the vast acreages of Bt corn and cotton grown with genetically introduced Bt toxins, but argues for continued monitoring.

Tabashnik's study, published this month in the Journal of Economic Entomology, analyzed 41 reports from five continents. It uncovered "strong evidence" of naturally evolved resistance in an obscure journal, an unpublished government report and multiple studies that he said failed to reach the obvious conclusions their data supported.

Officials for Monsanto, which dominates development of the world's genetically modified crops, concede resistance to Bt developed in isolated fields in South Africa and Puerto Rico, but dispute Tabashnik's other claims.

Scientists have long expected corn and cotton pests to develop resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt.

Since their introduction as transgenic seed products in 1996, various Bt products have proved effective in reducing damage to cotton bolls and corn crops and have let growers reduce the amount of pesticides sprayed on crops worldwide.

Bt is a naturally occurring soil bacteria that is used by organic farmers to ward off pests. The U.S. Department of Agriculture says "use of Bt cotton reached 65 percent of planted cotton acreage in 2009 and Bt corn use grew from about 1 percent of corn acreage in 1996 to 63 percent in 2009."

Worldwide, about 25 percent of corn and cotton are grown from Bt seed, said Tabashnik, and the incidence of resistance is very small.

"This is a success story and should be portrayed as such," said Margaret Mellon, director of the food and environment program at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Bt is a splendid pesticide. It is notable for the fact that it goes after pest insects without having effects on mammals or other organisms," said Mellon. "This is the kind of pesticide we want to work as long as possible."

Keeping it working requires honest discussion of problems that arise, Mellon said.

She said Tabashnik's work in this and other studies is important for growers, seed companies and consumers who all have an interest in preventing development of Bt-resistant insects.

Reports of resistance would have been a "tragedy" a few years back, said Fred Gould, an expert on insect ecology and evolution at North Carolina State University.

"But now the (seed) companies have the ability to see this and the technology has moved ahead and they should be able to remedy this issue," said Gould.

Gould said Tabashnik's research illustrates the need to stick to practices recommended by scientists and ordered by the EPA that require a potent dose of Bt and "refuge" fields where non-Bt crops can house non-resistant insects to dilute the population of resistant insects.

The studies unearthed and analyzed by Tabashnik show that resistance can evolve more rapidly when recommendations are not followed, Gould said.

In one 2006 case in Puerto Rico, the paper says, the EPA concluded that a moth species, whose larva is known as fall armyworm (S. frugiperda), developed resistance to Bt corn crops that expressed a toxin known as Cry1f.

Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International reported the incident to the EPA, withdrew the seed from the market and advised growers to spray pesticides.

The incident was not reported in any peer-reviewed journal, Tabashnik said. He gotthe data with a Freedom of Information Act request to the EPA.

A similar lack of safeguards led to resistance to a Monsanto Bt corn in South Africa by a stem-borer known as B. fusca in the 2005-06 and 2007-08 growing seasons.

That evidence was reported in the South African Journal of Plant and Soil. The journal is not available through online scientific sites; Tabashnik, working with a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, went to South Africa and gathered the data. It's author, J.B.J. Van Rensburg, became a co-author of the report, along with Yves Carrière, also of the UA's Department of Entomology.

A more widely known reinfestation of Bt cotton crops by a bollworm in the Southeastern United States between 1992 and 2006 was reported in at least five scientific publications, said Tabashnik, but researchers never used the data to draw the conclusion that the bollworm in question, Helicoverpa zea, evolved resistance to Cry1Ac, the toxin in a Monsanto product called Bollgard.

A Monsanto spokesman disputed Tabashnik's characterization of the problem in the Southeast United States, but conceded that the South African and Puerto Rican incidents were evidence of field-developed resistance.

Those incidents were limited to small areas where effective management practices were not followed, said Timothy Dennehy, lead researcher for insect resistance management in cotton for Monsanto.

Dennehy, a former colleague of Tabashnik at UA, said earlier claims of field resistance to Bollgard in the Southeast were rebutted by "the entomological community in the South." Dennehy said a second generation of Bollgard with 2 Bt toxins is now available to growers in the Southeast.

"Why would you be trying to find fault with something that is by no means a clear and present danger?" he asked.

Tabashnik said the rebuttal of his earlier study on cotton was a letter, not a study, and was signed by seven researchers with financial ties to Monsanto.

"There was no criticism in that letter that had a sound, scientific basis," he said.

Some of Tabashnik's own research is underwritten by Monsanto. His department at the UA monitors resistance to the Bt cotton program in Arizona. The principal cotton pest in the Southwest — pink bollworm — is very susceptible to Bollgard and has shown no signs of evolving resistance. It is an "unqualified success," Tabashnik said.

Mellon, of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said a series of "lucky breaks" kept resistance to Bt from developing worldwide.

Bt resistance is a recessive trait in most pests, meaning two resistant pests would have to mate to produce resistant offspring.

"That's lucky for the world," she said, "but this is no time to slack off and to foolishly think we've beaten the bugs."

Tabashnik is a fan of Bt crops, but considers himself "an honest broker of information" in the politically charged world of genetically modified crops.

He wants genetic modification to be used wisely, in scientifically based programs that prevent, or at least ward off, development of resistance.

The overwhelming success of the Bt crops has made growers a bit complacent, Tabashnik said.

Compliance with refuge requirements, as reported to the EPA, slips yearly, he said.

His research is a warning, he said, "not the end of he game."

"Everybody is aware that insects adapt," he said. "There is no such thing as a permanent solution to insect control."

DID YOU KNOW

"Pesticide use has been almost eliminated" on cotton in Arizona, said University of Arizona entomologist Bruce Tabashnik.

Lavis expects acreage to grow by 40,000 acres next year — and he said near-eradication of the pink bollworm is a key reason.

But if the pest disappears, Pima cotton could resurge.

Contact reporter Tom Beal at 573-4158 or tbeal@azstarnet.com

All content copyright © 1999-2010 AzStarNet, Arizona Daily Star and its wire services and suppliers and may not be republished without permission. All rights reserved. Any copying, redistribution, or retransmission of any of the contents of this service without the expressed written consent of Arizona Daily Star or AzStarNet is prohibited.

Germany Finds Unauthorized Biotech Rice in Chinese Vermicelli

Mon 4 Jan 2010 5:44:54 PM GMT

Germany Finds Unauthorized Biotech Rice in Chinese Vermicelli

By Rudy Ruitenberg

Dec. 22 (Bloomberg) -- Germany reported finding unauthorized genetically modified rice known as Bt 63 in vermicelli from China, a notification to the European Union’s food alert system showed.

The biotech rice was found in checks in September, the notification said. The alert is the 15th this year, with EU countries ranging from Finland to Spain reporting findings of the rice variety from China.

The European Commission in April 2008 implemented compulsory certification and laboratory testing of Chinese rice products after Bt 63 rice was found in the EU market in 2006 and 2007.

More herbicide use reported on genetically modified crops

Mon 4 Jan 2010 5:40:23 PM GMT

A report has found that farmers are using more herbicides on genetically engineered soybeans, corn, and cotton because of resistant weeds.

By Julie Masis Contributor to the Christian Science Monitor
posted December 21, 2009 at 12:02 pm EST

A report released by the Organic Center found that the amount of herbicides used on genetically engineered crops has increased in the past 10 years, not decreased as might be expected. Since many genetically engineered crops were modified so that farmers could spray Roundup, or Glyphosate, to kill the weeds in their fields but not the crops themselves, the expectation was that less herbicide would be required. But the new report found that this is not what happened.

The authors of the report, entitled “Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use,” used US Department of Agriculture data to look at America’s three largest genetically engineered crops – soybeans, corn, and cotton. They found that the amount of herbicides used on them has increased from 1996 to 2008 by approximately 7 or 8 percent, with a particularly sharp increase from 2005 on.

In particular, the amount of Roundup that is used on genetically engineered crops has multiplied several times during the time period, says the report’s main author, Charles Benbrook, who's the chief scientist at the Organic Center.

“This big increase in herbicide is driven largely by the emergence of Roundup-resistant weeds,” Dr. Benbrook says. But “industry is still saying to the public that genetic engineering [has] reduced herbicide use.”

Benbrook found that Roundup-resistant weeds have become a particularly big problem in soybeans. Roundup originally killed all weeds, leaving only soybeans in the fields, but after a few years, farmers had to use more Roundup as well as the older, more toxic chemicals to kill the weeds, according to the authors of the report.

Troy Roush, a farmer in Indiana, says resistant weeds became such a big problem that this year he decided to switch back to conventional soybeans.

“The only advantage a genetically modified soybean has over the value of (conventional soy) is diminished,” Mr. Roush says. “We might as well not pay for the technology and use conventional seeds.”

His fields of genetically engineered soybean became infested with “mare’s tail”, a bushy weed that looks like the tail of a horse, and with genetically-engineered corn, he says. Because Roush rotates corn and soybeans on the same field, the Roundup-resistant corn actually became a weed when it went to seed the following year.

Because of these problems, Roush is now back at growing soybeans the old way and using a more toxic 2,4-D herbicide. He is saving money on seeds (genetically engineered seeds cost five times more than the seeds a farmer saves himself), and he can make more from selling his crop to customers in the European Union and Japan, who prefer non-genetically modified soy.

The authors of the report also found that the amount of insecticide used on genetically modified crops decreased during the same time period (although by a smaller amount). According to the report, herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, while insecticide use decreased by 64 million pounds due to the adoption of crops that are engineered to resist insects.

Farmer John Reifsteck from Illinois, says he used to have a problem with root worms that chewed the roots off his corn plants, causing them to fall over. Now that he’s growing genetically modified corn, the worms no longer come. That’s because genetically engineered corn plants contain a toxin that is safe for humans, but repels the worms.

“It irritates their stomach, they don’t like it, they quit feeding, and they move away,” Mr. Reifsteck explains.

Before bioengineering, Reifsteck used a toxic insecticide on his corn, which he described as “the most dangerous product that I handle.” He had to wear a respirator and rubber gloves, and have blood tests, he says. Now he doesn’t need to treat the corn as much because it’s engineered to repel worms on its own.

“I’m happy or I wouldn’t be using them,” he says about genetically engineered crops.

Karen Batra, the spokeswoman for the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and Bob Callanan, of the American Soybean Association, also say that farmers are happy with bioengineered crops. That the majority of farmers adopted the technology speaks for itself, they say. They also point out that the Organic Center’s report considered all herbicides as one group, without making a distinction between the more toxic herbicides, which are now being used less, and weed-killers such as Roundup, which are generally considered more benign.

On the issue of weed resistance, Mr. Callanan of the Soybean Association has a different solution. Although he admits that resistance to Roundup became a problem about three years ago, he says the best way to tackle weed resistance is with new technology. A soybean called Liberty Link, that is engineered to be resistant to a different type of herbicide, is currently being introduced. Rotating Liberty Link and Roundup Ready crops will reduce resistance, he says.

“Every farmer I know is using less herbicides than they ever had in the past. It’s a cleaner, better crop than it was,” Callanan says about genetically engineered soybeans.

But organic food advocates say that the bioengineering industry is on a slippery slope, and as scientists engineer plants to be resistant to new types of herbicides, more chemical residues are going to end up in food and in the environment.

Efforts are currently underway to engineer a corn variety that is resistant to 2,4-D, which is considered a carcinogen, says Bill Freese, a policy analyst at the Center for Food Safety who worked on the report.

If the project is successful, farmers will be able to spray the herbicide directly on the corn, rather than use hooded sprayers or spray before seedlings sprouted as they have done in the past, he says.

“That’s bad news because that will mean more residues on the corn,” Mr. Freese says. “We see that as very much the wrong approach because it’s going to mean even more use of these nasty herbicides, more pollution of the environment, and more impact on farmers as well as consumers.”

Department of Justice wants comments on pesticides in foods, confined animal feeding & food safety

Wed 30 Dec 2009 7:49:00 AM GMT

Department of Justice wants comments on pesticides in foods, confined animal feeding & food safety

December 19, 8:19 AMTampa Health Care ExaminerCarolyn Chambers Clark

Monsanto Co.'s business practices include squeezing competitors out.

photo: AP/Charlie Riedel

Cancer linked to pesticides in new research

Cancer research, treatment, and prevention

Flaxseed recipes for menopause, diabetes, heart, staying regular, and losing weight

President Obama reaches agreement with world leaders to limit global warming & endorse clean energy

For the first time ever, the U.S. Department of Justice is calling for public comment on how big business controls food and farming. The DOJ's Antitrust Division is collecting input in preparation for "agricultural workshops" in early 2010 that will examine the extent of abusive anticompetitive behavior by agribusiness giants.

Are you concerned about:

why there are no requirements to list pesticides present in food,
and the revolving door between government agencies and regulated corporations
confined animal feeding operations,
destruction of smaller seed companies and family farms, and food safety.

According to Pesticide Action Network, in October, tens of thousands of people signed petitions circulated by several groups, including Pesticide Action Network, Food & Water Watch, World Hunger Year, and the National Family Farm Coalition, calling on President Obama's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, to rigorously enforce antitrust law in the agricultural sector. "Start with Monsanto, the worst of the worst," said some petitioners.

Members of the U.S. Working Group on the Global Food Crisis Food Crisis Group are now encouraging public comments to DOJ with stories about how corporate control of the food system affects average citizens. Issues of concern include how Monsanto controls the majority of soy and corn seed in the U.S.; why there are no requirements to list pesticides present in food, and the revolving door between government agencies and regulated corporations. Others are focusing on confined animal feeding operations, destruction of smaller seed companies and family farms, and food safety. Comments to DOJ are due by December 31.

French Researchers say Study validates GMO health hazards calls for prohibition of imported gmo seed

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:43:32 PM GMT

Study suggests GMO health hazards

Posted by Matthew Schniper on Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 12:12 PM

A French study recently posted in the International Journal of Biological Sciences claims to validate levels of toxicity present in a trio of genetically modified varieties of Monsanto corn.

According to the research, which consisted of feeding rats the GM corn and then testing their blood and organ systems, the liver and kidneys were primarily affected.

The scientists conclude with a call for the prohibition of imported GMO seed.

GMO-Free Monterey County Hosting GMO film festival

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:40:52 PM GMT

County group is holding film festival

GMO-Free Monterey County is hosting a film festival to raise awareness about genetically modified foods from 11 a.m. to 8 p.m. Jan. 9 at the Cannery Row IMAX Theater, 640 Wave St., Monterey.

Four films will be screened, followed by a panel discussion exploring the moral, health and economic implications of the proliferation of genetically engineered crops.

Films are at 11 a.m., "The Future of Food"; 12:45 p.m., "Food Inc."; 2:30 p.m., "The Power of Community"; and 4 p.m., "The World According to Monsanto."

The group is an organization of people in Monterey County seeking to protect the organic industry in the county and make it unlawful to propagate, cultivate, raise or grow genetically engineered crops locally.

Information: www.gmofreemontereycounty.org.

Market eyed for delayed ripening papaya

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:38:21 PM GMT

Market eyed for delayed ripening papaya

The Philippines may be able to put in the market by 2011-2012 the genetically modified (GM) delayed ripening papaya that doubles with a ring spot virus (RSV)-resistant trait even as private firms like East West Seed Co. have been inquiring on the commercial readiness of the tropical fruit.

The delayed ripening and RSV-resistant papaya just needs to undergo at least one field trial which will take one season or one year’s planting before it is finally put into the market, according to Dr. Evelyn Mae Tecson-Mendoza, project leader at the Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB).

"We already have a hybrid of the delayed ripening and RSV(resistant) papaya. It's now in the screenhouse, and we have a request with DA (Department of Agriculture) for its field trial," said Mendoza in an interview during the opening of the GM detection facility of the Bureau of Plant Industry. IPB has so far established the stability of the delayed ripening and RSV-resistance traits in this transgenic papaya since it is now on the planting of the fourth generation of the transgenic crop, and yet it still observes the desired trait in the fruit.

The delayed-ripening trait is enabling the fruit to stretch its shelf life. Papaya normally ripens within just around four days from the time it turns yellow. But with the delayed ripening trait, ripening can extend to as much as 14 days which makes the fruit still highly-marketable after two weeks from the yellowing stage. This will be particularly useful for exporters who need to maintain quality of the commodity while on shipment.

Source URL: http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/234710/market-eyed-delayed-ripening-papaya

As Roundup Ready Patent Ends in 2014, a Seed’s Use Will Survive

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:34:10 PM GMT

As Patent Ends, a Seed’s Use Will Survive

By ANDREW POLLACK

Facing antitrust scrutiny over its practices in the biotechnology seed business, Monsanto has said it will not stand in the way of farmers eventually using lower cost alternatives to its genetically modified soybeans.

In letters to seed companies and farm groups this week, Monsanto said that it would allow farmers to continue to grow its hugely popular Roundup Ready 1 soybeans even after the patent protecting the technology expires in 2014.

The letter countered a widespread impression in the agriculture business that Monsanto planned to force farmers and seed companies to migrate to a successor product called Roundup Ready 2 Yield, which will remain under patent and is more expensive.

The issue has potentially broad implications for the agriculture industry because Roundup Ready soybeans will be the first widely grown biotechnology crop to lose patent protection since gene splicing became a mainstay of crop science in the 1990s.

Because farmers and seed companies would no longer have to pay royalties to Monsanto on the gene after 2014, Roundup Ready soybeans would become agricultural biotechnology’s equivalent of a generic drug.

Monsanto’s statement comes as the Justice Department is investigating possible antitrust concerns in the seed business, looking in particular at Monsanto, which dominates the business of supplying crop traits developed through genetic engineering. Critics, including some competitors, say that Monsanto has great leverage over the seed business and growers through restrictive contracts that must be signed to use Monsanto’s genes or to grow the genetically modified crops.

Monsanto calls such criticisms baseless. But it certainly is getting harder for seed companies to avoid using the Roundup Ready bacterial gene, which makes the plants impervious to the widely used herbicide glyphosate, which Monsanto sells as Roundup.

That allows farmers to spray their fields to kill weeds without harming the crops. More than 90 percent of the soybeans grown in the United States contain it. So do about two-thirds of the nation’s corn and cotton crops, though those are protected by different patents that expire later than the soybean patent.

Gerald A. Steiner, executive vice president for corporate affairs at Monsanto, said Thursday that Monsanto was not changing its policy on how it would handle the soybean patent expiration, but was merely clarifying its intentions.

“What’s different,” he said, “is we have made a very comprehensive communication of what we are going to do.”

But the widespread impression in the seed business was that Monsanto was backing away from a previous policy.

“The only thing we were told was that as of 2014 you would not be able to sell any more Roundup Ready 1,” said Jack Debolt, manager of Advanced Genetics, a coalition of small Ohio seed companies that license the Roundup Ready gene from Monsanto to put in their seeds.

Monsanto’s biggest competitor, DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred seed company, has also accused Monsanto of antitrust violations including, as it says in a lawsuit, an effort to “remove Roundup Ready from the market prior to the time when competitors will be able to produce a generic product.”

Mr. Steiner of Monsanto said one reason for the company’s letters this week was to counter statements made by Pioneer, which Monsanto has sued alleging patent infringement.

Roundup Ready seed can cost as much as $75 an acre compared with $30 to $35 for soybean seeds that are not genetically modified, according to James Beuerlein, a soybean specialist at Ohio State University. The difference in price is thought to reflect mainly royalties paid to Monsanto.

While Monsanto sells Roundup Ready seeds itself, it also licenses the technology to other seed companies. Some seed industry executives and academic soybean specialists say that Monsanto was not planning to renew licenses for that Roundup Ready 1 trait that expired before 2014, so that seed companies would have no choice but to move to Roundup Ready 2.

But in its letters this week, Monsanto said it would now extend all contracts for Roundup Ready 1 until the patent’s expiration date. It also said it would not enforce language in some contracts that would have required seed companies to destroy or return Roundup Ready seed when the patent expired.

And Monsanto said seed companies could continue to sell seeds containing the Roundup Ready 1 trait without jeopardizing their access to the successor technology.

Monsanto also said that after the patent expired it would allow farmers to save Roundup Ready 1 seeds from one year’s crop to plant the next. Monsanto said it would not enforce other patents that might protect those seeds.

Many soybean farmers used to save seeds, but with Roundup Ready seeds they have been contractually obliged to buy new seeds each year. Monsanto has taken legal action against hundreds, if not thousands, of farmers it has accused of saving seed.

“This is a pretty big concession for Monsanto,” said Shawn Conley, a soybean specialist at the University of Wisconsin, who said saving seed could save farmers a lot of money.

Still, it is uncertain how long Roundup Ready 1 would survive in generic form. Some nations require licenses for the import of genetically engineered crops to be periodically renewed. Monsanto said it would maintain those licenses through 2017. But if they expired after that, American farmers would not be permitted to export the Roundup Ready 1 generic soybeans to certain countries, which would discourage them from growing those crops.

Monsanto said it was confident that most farmers and seed companies would move to Roundup Ready 2, which uses the same bacterial gene but places it in a different location in the soybean DNA. Monsanto said that Roundup Ready 2 crops would have higher yields, and that other desirable traits would be added to those crops over time.

Ukranian Parliament introduces mandatory labeling of GMO food products

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:31:34 PM GMT

17-12-2009 11:45 Parliament introduces mandatory labeling of GMO food products
The Verkhovna Rada has introduced a mandatory labeling of foodstuffs containing genetically modified organisms (GMO).

A total of 375 out of 450 MPs have voted in favor of the law on foodstuffs safety and quality (regarding reporting to citizens about GMO food products). The instrument bans a turnover of foodstuffs the label of which does not contain data about presence or absence of genetically modified organisms in food products. Thus, the product label must be attached with the inscription 'Containing GMO' or 'GMO free' respectively. On July 1, 2009 the Cabinet of Ministers increased the level of genetically modified organisms in foodstuffs for their compulsory labeling from 0.1% to 0.9%.

Genetically modified canola delivered to non-GM sites

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:25:33 PM GMT

Genetically modified canola hits non-GM sites

Thursday, 17/12/2009

Genetically modified canola has been delivered to non-GM silos in western Victoria at Dunolly and Lillimur.

Each silo received five tonnes of GM canola in a 500 tonne sample.

Graincorp says that the canola is still non-GM overall, because the level of contamination is below industry standards.

Anti-GM groups say growers are delivering GM canola to non GM sites to cut transport costs and get a price premium.

But Graincorp corporate affairs manager David Ginns says that's not the case.

''We do not believe that any grower has done anything malicious or intentionally delivered the wrong grade to the wrong site. It would appear that a mistake has been made.''

Monsanto tops poll of firms accused over climate change

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:22:59 PM GMT

Monsanto tops poll of firms accused over climate change

FRANK McDONALD in Copenhagen

MONSANTO, THE US multinational chiefly known for its aggressive marketing of genetically modified (GM) crops, has emerged as the surprising winner of the “Angry Mermaid” awards for business lobbyists against taking action on climate change.

Presented here yesterday by author and activist Naomi Klein, the premier award went to Monsanto in a poll conducted mainly on the internet. It won 37 per cent of the 10,000 votes cast. The runners-up were Royal Dutch Shell and the American Petroleum Institute.

Monsanto was nominated for promoting its GM crops and biofuels as a “solution” to climate change. “The expansion of GM soy in Latin America is contributing to major deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions,” according to Friends of the Earth International.

It said the awards were to “recognise the perverse role of corporate lobbyists and highlight those business groups and companies that have made the greatest effort to sabotage the climate talks, and other climate measures, while promoting often profitable, false solutions.”

Ms Klein said there was an “embarrassment of riches” among the nominees for the award, named after Copenhagen’s Little Mermaid. “We’ve had endless sessions here about poor countries adapting to climate change, but none on the corporations causing it.”

The author of No Logo and The Shock Doctrine said there were so many “common sense solutions” that were also being ignored – such as levying taxes on the windfall profits of oil companies, or closing down the extraction of oil from tar sands in Alberta, Canada.

Speaking as a Canadian, she branded her country a “carbon criminal” for allowing the oil companies to continue with this environmentally destructive activity. “We need to denounce false solutions and focus on real solutions that are kept off the agenda.”

Asked about the curious choice of Monsanto as a major culprit, Ms Klein said people were “struck by the fact that a company producing such products with negative impacts, such as GM crops and biofuels, will be able to get public subsidies” from climate change funds.

Announcing that she would be joining a “Reclaim Power” protest march today, she appealed to participants to “observe the rules against violence”, so that there would be no excuse for the “outrageous” behaviour of Danish police towards protesters.

Bulgaria Parliament Set to Ease Laws on GM Crop Cultivation

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:20:05 PM GMT

Bulgaria Parliament Set to Ease Laws on GM Crop Cultivation

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Bulgarian Parliament is set to allow a much wider use of genetically modified crops (GMOs) in the country, after the Commission for Environment and Water approved a change in the law on GMOs.

After a lengthy debate the Parliamentary Commission decided to harmonize the legislation on GMOs with the EU requirements. Bulgaria still has very strict laws on the cultivation of GMOs and although the rest of the EU has a much weaker legislation on the issue, GMOs are still not widely grown in the bloc.

On Thursday Bulgarian environmentalists protested against the proposed removal of the bans on the cultivation of GMOs. They argued that harmonization with the EU is necessary, but it should not be at the expense of Bulgarian nature and farmers. They added that the Bulgarian authorities should adopt a "case by case" approach to each application for the cultivation of GM crops.

"The time for changes to the law on GMOs now is particularly inappropriate because the European Commission is currently discussing new legislation on GMOs, and in a few months it will be necessary to change the law again " Agrolink Director Dr. Svetla Nikolova concluded.

Copyright ©2009 Novinite

New post - 2046302

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:15:45 PM GMT

Soy as a Food Allergen

Celiac.com 12/14/2009 - Soy is a food allergen and there are several main issues. Firstly, soy proteins, especially the trypsin inhibitor enzymes, along with the proteins in dairy products, wheat, peanuts, eggs, sesame seeds, shellfish and crustaceans, have a tendency to produce allergic reactions in susceptible individuals. However, all my reading and experience of soy, over 50 years, suggests that soy protein is somewhat milder in its action than the proteins in peanuts, eggs and sesame seeds. From a toxicological point of view and as reported by FSANZ, the presence of soy at less than 88 p.p.m. (parts per million) does not register for the vast majority of the population, whereas in susceptible individuals and by comparison, gluten, eggs and peanuts can all register adversely at or at less than 1 - 3 p.p.m. There is no history of severe anaphylaxis and sudden death associated with soy that I am aware of. However, there are a very few people who may experience flu and chronic fatigue and fuzzy headedness like symptoms from exposure to soy and these people are probably best to totally exclude soy from their diets. There are also some people who have a negative attitude towards soy who decline to eat soy, often without ever having tasted it or in response to a single bad experience. For many people brought up on cow’s milk soy is a difficult to acquire taste. Most people eat soy without any awareness of having done so.

It is my belief that for most people a modest level of soy intake, including its protein provides a valuable addition to the diet without undue side effects. There are many people who tolerate soy, who experience difficulties with gluten, dairy, peanut and egg proteins, especially if the soy is introduced into their diets gradually. In commercial food production, soy protein is often used at fairly low levels as a dairy powder, cheese, egg and nut extender/substitute, for price, functionality, natural preservative/anti-oxidant/emulsification properties, natural colour and for nutrition reasons.

Secondly, soy and other legumes contain natural oligosaccharides or complex sugars – principally stachyose, raffinose and vacchyose which consist of various combinations of galactose and glucose molecules – which human beings lack the enzymes to digest. These sugars ferment in the gut, rather than digest, producing gas, flatulence, stomach pains, bloating, diarrhoea and sometimes acute discomfort especially if the fermentation process occurs in the more restricted upper digestive tract. This is often crudely referred to as the “fart factor” and it is often far worse when there has been a rapid change of diet or an overly large amount consumed. There is also some evidence that fructose mal-absorption, for example, can lead to depression and interfere in menstrual cycles in young women. I believe this sugar factor in Soy may be of greater concern than the soy protein issue and one best considered within the FODMAPS (Fermentable Oligosaccharides (fructans, stachyose, raffinose), Disaccharides (lactose), Mono-saccharides (fructose), and Polyols (sorbitol, mannitol and xylitol)) Concept explored in Sue Shepherd’s recent PhD Thesis. Sue, who is both a celiac and a dietician, has taken a strong interest in this field because, along with diabetes, the fermentable sugars issue often overlaps and is associated with gluten sensitivity and celiac disease. These fermentation issues can appear in conjunction with or independently of any gluten issues. The gluten induced gut damage and nutrient mal-absorption exacerbating and feeding off the fermentation issue and vice versa. As with the reaction to gluten there is a wide range of sensitivity and responses to and between these different sugars with some people reacting adversely to all these sugars while others react to some and not others. The degree of and cumulative effects of exposure are also an issue. The response can also depend upon where in the gut the fermentation process occurs: there appears to be more pain if the fermentation occurs in the stomach or the small bowel rather than the colon. The fermentation may occur in one part of the gut, in all three parts or various combinations thereof. There is also some conjecture about the gut-brain axis over sending and misinterpreting the gut nerve signals. While Soy also contains a small percentage of fructose there is not sufficient present for this to become an issue. The fructose content of such staples as onions and garlic, for example, is of far more concern.

Interestingly, neither the protein nor fermentable oligosaccharides appear to be an issue in tofu consumption, where only some of the protein and sugars are extracted from the soy. The fermentation processes used in the manufacture of miso and tempeh, two other traditional soy foods, also seem to overcome the soy protein and fermentable oligosaccharide issues. It appears that the protein and sugar hydrolysis processes that take place in the fermentation that occurs during the manufacture of these products breaks the proteins and sugars down to simpler, more digestible and assimilable forms making these foods easier to digest than, for example, a more minimally processed soy flour. It is also possible and may be desirable to look at fermentable sugar extraction or modification or enzyme or acid hydrolysis during the processing of many ingredients and products.

The third issue with soy is the concentration of the naturally occurring soy phyto-estrogens or isoflavones (plant derived mimic female hormones) which may occur, particularly in the processing of soy isolates where the oil is extracted prior to precipitation of the protein and the skimming off of the carbohydrate/dietary fibre fraction. This produces a product with protein at 86%, moisture at 6% with low ash, fat, dietary fibre and carbohydrate levels where sometimes the isoflavones or phyto-estrogens are also extracted and sometimes not. Where soy isolates are being considered as the base for an infant formula it is extremely important to limit the intake of the phyto-estrogen or plant derived hormone to the absolute minimum. It is also important to note that dairy derived infant formulas also need to be highly modified to make them suitable for human babies.

On another occasion, I was contacted by a young man who was using soy isolate (a concentrated protein) as a body building aid and his protein intake was equivalent to four times the recommended daily protein intake. He was depositing unwanted fat on his thighs and buttocks, his beard growth was patchy and thin – he was demonstrating female characteristics due to the high levels of female type plant hormones he was ingesting - and he was also experiencing genital and irritable bowel type symptoms and from what he said, I also suspect kidney problems. It is my belief that he was consuming excessive levels of protein and using a form of soy isolate which had concentrated rather than removed the phyto-estrogens. There is much to recommend moderation, diversity and balance in all areas of life: an informed dietary restraint enabling the body to take what it wants from the diet and to reject or handle the rest. Over consumption of any particular food has always been problematic no matter how innocuous that food may seem. We and our health reflect our eating and lifestyle habits.

A fourth issue, is that the introduction of genetically modified organism (GMO) foods has brought further complications into this equation. Internationally, various crops including soy, cotton, canola and maize have been genetically engineered to resist the application of glysophate, a weed killer commonly known as “Roundup”, and to kill predatory insects through a built in pesticide in every plant. The writer believes there are serious moral, ethical, logic and safety issues involved in the use of such engineered foods, the benefits of which convey no positive health or nutritional value to the end consumer and which may yet prove detrimental to the consumers’ health and the environment.

For example, Bt pesticide, which is produced from the natural soil bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis, is a potent poison which ruptures the stomachs of and kills any insects which may attack any crop engineered or treated with it. As an integral part of the plant what do these toxins do to the human intestinal tract? In the USA, there are concerns about possible genetically modified gut bacteria as a result of eating such genetically modified foods: about new and difficult to identify and trace immune system health issues. Fortunately, Australia has been slower in its adoption of these genetically modified crops and no genetically modified soybeans have either been allowed into or grown in Australia. Our company only processes Australian grown soy beans, and other non-GMO gluten-free grains and legumes.

However, there are vast differences between the use of Bt spray and the far more concentrated systemic, engineered versions of this pesticide. The latter is an integral part of the plant and, unlike the spray, it cannot be washed off. In whatever form, Bt is a toxin and irritant with allergenic properties. Personally, I have serious reservations about these types of genetically engineered foods: the concept is obscene and I believe that such foods are inherently dangerous.

Genetically modified soy and corn each contain two new proteins with allergenic properties. genetically modified soy has been found to contain higher levels of trypsin inhibitor enzymes (which are a known soy allergen) than conventional soybeans. Skin prick tests, in the UK and USA, have also revealed a more than 50 % increase in allergic reactions to genetically modified soy compared to the traditional product.

There is an enormous, untested and long term potential for such genetically modified crops to create a host of poisoning, allergen, immune system, genetic aberration, genital deformity, fertility, genetically modified gut bacteria, digestive, eczema, inflammation and nutrition problems not to mention the possibility of new types of diseases. These genetically modified foods have been introduced by the same companies which developed DDT and Thalidomide. The fundamental question lingers: “have they got it right this time?” Unfortunately, it may take several generations for these associated problems to manifest themselves and to be identified, just as it did with DDT. Tracing the causes of and the treatment of these insidious problems may be difficult and expensive. In introducing these products we have ventured into the unknown, not only health-wise but nutritionally and legally.

Despite all the above negatives, I still believe that whole bean soy foods eaten sparingly have an important place in a well balanced diet. Many other staple foods including eggs, wheat, gluten, peanuts, dairy products are equally, if not more, problematic just as some fruits and vegetables can be. At the end of day it is usually a question of the balance, of the degree of tolerance for and degree of exposure to each of these foods that is critical and this may vary from individual to individual. It is also my belief that a modest level of exposure is better than total exclusion. For example, I have a mucus issue with milk fat if I over indulge in dairy products but consumed sparingly I can enjoy a thin sliver of cheese without problem.

Subscribe to free Celiac.com email alerts (1-3 email per month with the latest celiac disease research and information, gluten-free recipes, etc.).

Investigation Details Monsanto's Strong-Arm Tactics in Seed Business

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:10:13 PM GMT

Investigation Details Monsanto's Strong-Arm Tactics in Seed Business

By Chad Garrison in Bidness, News

Mon., Dec. 14 2009 @ 12:55PM

A farmer expresses his distaste toward Monsanto.

The AP is out today with an investigative piece chronicling Monsanto's grip on the genetically-modified seed industry.

Genes developed by the St. Louis-based bio-tech firm can now be found in 95 percent of all soybeans grown in the United States and 80 percent of all corn.

The result is that in just the past dozen years Monsanto has grown from a fringe player in the seed industry to a virtual monopoly. But has it gotten there legally?

That's what the U.S. Department of Justice and attorneys general in Texas and Iowa wants to know. The Associated Press reports that those agencies have begun to look into Monsanto's strict patent contracts that competitors and farmers must sign if they want to partner with the bio-tech giant.

One particular curiosity about those contracts is a stipulation that requires competitors (which use Monsanto's patent technology to create plants resistant to pesticides) to destroy all their seed inventory should they decide to sell the business. This stipulation has allowed Monsanto to gobble up smaller seed manufacturers at rock-bottom prices.

''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,'' David Boies, an attorney with competitor DuPont tells the AP.

A similar contract allows the St. Louis company to void deals and destroy the entire inventory any business that breaks the Byzantine confidentiality agreement Monsanto requires all its partners to sign. The result is a virtual gag, reports the AP, that keeps companies and farmers from complaining for fear that they'll lose their business or be forced into a costly lawsuit.

Monsanto, meanwhile, defends its trade practices and says its seed technology which it claims has boosted yields and profitability for farmers.

USDA seeks comment on genetically modified alfalfa

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:07:59 PM GMT

USDA seeks comment on genetically modified alfalfa

Mon Dec 14, 2009 3:30pm EST

WASHINGTON, Dec 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Agriculture Department on Monday said it determined there would be no significant environmental harm to deregulating genetically modified alfalfa, but said it will open its preliminary finding to public comment before issuing a final decision.

USDA first deregulated two types of Roundup Ready alfalfa in 2005. A federal judge in California ruled two years later that the department acted illegally by failing to fully analyze the environmental impact on neighboring crops.

The federal judge also issued an injunction blocking the sale of the alfalfa seed until the environmental review was complete. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judge's ruling twice.

The draft environmental impact statement released on Monday will be open for public comment for 60 days beginning on Dec. 18 before the USDA will review whether to deregulate the alfalfa.

If the genetically modified alfalfa is deregulated, it would allow the crop, used to feed livestock, to be moved and planted without permits or other oversight from USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.

APHIS said in a statement it will consider all public comments "before finalizing the (environmental impact statement) or making any decisions regarding the regulatory status of the (Roundup Ready) alfalfa."

Conventional seed companies along with environmental and consumer groups sued the USDA in February 2006 to force it to rescind its 2005 approval of the Monsanto Co (MON.N) seed until it completed a full environmental study.

Monsanto, the world's largest seed company, has since asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the appeal court's ruling.

Alfalfa is not the only crop that has come under fire. A similar ruling in September found USDA improperly approved genetically modified sugar beets. The judge also ordered USDA to conduct a rigorous environmental review study. (Editing by Christian Wiessner)

The New GMO Debate: Genetically Engineered Organic Crops

Sat 19 Dec 2009 11:05:48 PM GMT

The New GMO Debate: Genetically Engineered Organic Crops

by Sara Novak, Columbia, SC on 12.14.09

I have written on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a number of times. Large monocultures, which are typical of GMO, can be riddled with pests. As a result, monocultures are often dressed with a toxic cocktail of pesticides so that they can survive the onslaught. But what about organic GMOs? Recently, Michael Olson's Food Chain Radio hosted Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak from UC Davis to discuss the topic of genetically modifying organic crops and you might be surprised what these small farm advocates had to say on the matter.

Considered the "Romeo and Juliet of academic agriculture" Pamela Ronald and Raoul Adamchak, both said on a recent interview on Michael Olson's Food Chain Radio that the way for organic farming to feed the world was through genetic modification. This married couple is a match made in heaven. Ronald, the head of the UC Davis Plant Genetics Lab who teaches the art and science of genetic engineering, recently invented a seed that can survive flooding for 17 days. Currently, according to Ronald, in India and Bangladesh alone, 4 million tons of rice are lost to flooding every year because conventional plants die under water submersion within three days.
Her husband, Raoul Adamchak, who teaches the art and science of organic farming at the UC Davis Student Farm, believes that much can be done to make the current GMO system sustainable through seed modifications such as this, making organic farming a viable option to combat world hunger. But the fact of the matter is that the corporate farming industry in this country makes any sort of GMO, organic or not, a recipe for disaster. Currently, such modification of organic crops is illegal in this country, and with good reason.

Seed Modification Becomes An Antitrust Issue
Currently, the modified seeds that we are most familiar with are Monsanto's Roundup Ready corn crops and herbicide resistant soybean crops, which have wreaked havoc on the agricultural system causing soil erosion, nitrate leeching, and water contamination. Monsanto's quiet monopoly over the seed industry, and as a result the world's food supply, presents the most valid argument against any sort of genetic modification.

According to Yahoo News, "Monsanto's patented genes are 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." They have systematically bought over 20 seed companies according to Food Chain Radio. The most obvious example of Monsanto's dominance can be found in the Roundup Ready corn crop that has spread like the chicken pox to Mexico, corrupting and in some cases, destroying native corn crops, according to the Organic Consumers Association.

So while the idea of organic virus resistant papayas and flood-proof rice may perk the ears of organic consumers, the reality is that in this country the corporate seed industry has systematic control over seed patents. According to Richard Merrill, a well known proponent of organic agriculture in California, portraying infected genomes as the same as traditional trial plant breeding is misleading at best because you can't save seeds. It's illegal to save seeds from GMO plants or to reproduce hybrid varieties with proprietary licenses. Genetically modified hybrid seeds cannot be saved in the same manner as heirloom seeds. You can't plant them the next year and expect the same variety. It's wholly unnatural. In fact, growers become completely dependant on buying the seeds from seed giants year after year.

So it all comes back to the same argument, organic or not, farmers are essentially giving up the wheel to corporate entities that research, develop, and mass produce seeds. Tracts of land planted with commercial seeds are pushing out local crop varieties and erasing the knowledge gained from 10,000 years of farming.

While it wouldn't be prudent to rule out such organic modifications for the future of farming, the present emergence of an unprecedented corporate farming industry weighed down by obvious monopolies, makes calculated and pinpointed modifications impossible.

More on GMOs:
Why GMO Foods Have Failed at Producing Healthy Food for More People
Arguments Against GMOs (and Industrial Agriculture)
Out, Monsanto! No GMOs in National Wildlife Refuge, Says Federal Judge

Should We Allow Organics to be Genetically Modified?

Sat 19 Dec 2009 9:25:41 PM GMT

Should We Allow Organics to be Genetically Modified?

by Kristin Underwood, Sacramento, CA on 12.10.09

Yep, genetically modified organics is the very topic of the next Food Chain Radio broadcast Saturday morning. This tense and testy topic sort of makes the hairs on the back of your neck when you first hear about it. Without knowing either side of the issue, there is just something about it that sounds frankly, well, wrong. So, before we jump to conclusions and assume we already know the answer, probably best that we check out Food Chain Radio to find out more.

The Food Chain Radio is a weekly radio and internet cast that debates a variety of food topics from food scarcity to Indians selling off land to food pirates to the debate over farm raised versus fresh fish. Food Chain airs live Saturday mornings from 8-9am PST and anyone can call or login to interact with the day's guests. The show is moderated and hosted by Michael Olson, a producer for several major television programs, as well as author of MetroFarm, the award-winning book that looks at metropolitan farming.

So why should we even consider genetically modifying organic food? The two guests, Pamela Ronald, Director, UC Davis Plant Genetics and Raoul Adamchak, Instructor of Organic Agriculture, UC Davis Student Farm and they plan to discuss the pros and cons and how something like that might even work. This week's program is being billed as:

"They are married with children: She is the chair of the UC Davis Plant Genetics Lab and he teaches at the UC Davis Organic Farm. Their suggestion of a future filled with genetically-engineered organic foods leads us to ask... Should we allow genetic engineering into organic agriculture?
Topics include why genetic engineering and organic agriculture have been legally separated by the Federal government; what opportunities allowing the technologies to commingle would provide; and given the traditional antipathies involved, how such an allowance could be made."

Currently, to be labeled organic, a food cannot be genetically modified. While some proponents say genetically modifying food is the only way to feed the world's population, particularly with increasing natural disasters like floods, changing rainfall and weather patterns, and droughts. Others say genetically modifying food makes the entire strain homogenous and susceptible to superbugs and leaves us with a more vulnerable, weak food supply. Are there species that we should consider genetically modifying? If so, how do we do this without allowing genetically modified crops to wipe out all other strains? Hopefully Ronald and Adamchak will have some answers, or at least a lively discussion.

To find out how to get involved or where to tune in, check out Food Chain Radio online.

More on Organics and Genetically Modified
Genetically Modified Food: Why We Need More Information
GMOs to Go? China Approves a Locally-Developed Strain of Genetically-Modified Rice
Renegade Genetically Modified Flax Seed is Crippling Canadian Market
TH Forums: Is Genetically Modified Food "Green"?

Distinction Between Agronmic GM & Nutritional GM

Sat 19 Dec 2009 9:15:25 PM GMT

Genetically modified crops: the good news

All discussions of genetically modified crops (Editorial, 4 December) should recognise that there are two basic types of GM. Agronomic GM seeks to improve the growing properties of the plant, for example making it weed- or pest-resistant. Nutritional GM seeks to improve the nutrient profile of the plant. The two approaches differ in critical ways.

First, nutritional GM offers important benefits to consumers, something missing with agronomic varieties. The focus so far is on adding otherwise missing micronutrients (pro-vitamin A, iron and zinc) to the staple starches that form the diet for the poor in developing countries. Deficiencies in these nutrients afflict over 2 billion people, not only harming health, but restricting economic development.

Thus, nutritional GM is relevant for Africa and Asia. Which is why Harvest Plus is about to start 11 large trials in developing countries, and Grand Challenges another five. Importantly, all these projects are funded by public money, from governments and foundations. Initial seeds will be given away, and harvesting seed for future seasons encouraged. Multinational seed companies are hardly involved, for an obvious reason – there is no money to be made from poor subsistence farmers.

Among the diseases targeted for nutritional GM are iron-deficiency anaemia in women and vitamin A deficiency in children, especially the consequent blindness. The trials may not work. But if they do, we will see the benefits quickly, within five years. Then, some of the most serious health problems among the world's poorest people could be substantially diminished by prompt dissemination of nutritionally modified seeds.

If that happens, it would transform the GM debate – much more effectively than any discussion at a learned society in London. Anyone interested in food security should be following the development of nutritional GM closely.

Prof JT Winkler

Director, Nutrition Policy Unit, London Metropolitan University

GE Insulin Deal

Sat 19 Dec 2009 9:06:38 PM GMT

Generex Inks Deal With Sanofi-Aventis for Insulin Supply

December 09, 2009: 09:30 AM ET

WORCESTER, Mass., Dec. 9, 2009 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Generex Biotechnology Corporation (Nasdaq:GNBT) (www.generex.com), the leader in drug delivery for metabolic diseases through the inner lining of the mouth, today announced that it has signed a long-term agreement with Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH (www.sanofi-aventis.com) for the manufacture and supply of recombinant human insulin crystals for commercial and clinical trial use in Generex's proprietary buccal insulin spray product, Generex Oral-lyn(TM). The financial terms of the arrangement were not disclosed.

The API (Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient) Supply agreement will provide the Company with a source of insulin for major regulatory markets including the United States and Canada and a number of other regions where the Company is pursuing regulatory approvals for Generex Oral-lyn(TM).

The Company's regulatory team will commence the process of updating any and all current submissions to include sanofi-aventis' insulin crystal which will be formulated in the Generex Oral-lyn(TM) commercial product.

"We are very pleased to have entered into this long-term supply agreement for insulin crystal," said Anna Gluskin, Generex's President and Chief Executive Officer. "It solidifies one of our key product components which will assist in the smooth transition into commercialization of our flagship product, Generex Oral-lyn(TM), into major markets where we will seek to establish a new paradigm for the treatment of diabetes."

Thanks to almost a century of chemical, pharmaceutical, medical and industrial research, led by Hoescht and its successors, sanofi-aventis can today claim its place as the historic leader in both the production of insulin and the treatment of diabetes.

At the end of the 1990s, the site of sanofi-aventis in Frankfurt, Germany, formerly Hoechst, developed pilot units and large-scale production of human recombinant insulin from a genetically modified Escherichia Coli strain.

As part of the commercial offer provided by the Commercial and External Partnership Industrial Affairs (CEPIA) at sanofi-aventis for human recombinant insulin, Generex, in cooperation with sanofi-aventis, will benefit from sanofi-aventis' ability and expertise to offer quality and regulatory support.

About Generex Biotechnology Corporation

Generex is engaged in the research, development and commercialization of drug delivery systems and technologies. Generex has developed a proprietary platform technology for the delivery of drugs into the human body through the oral cavity (with no deposit in the lungs). The Company's proprietary liquid formulations allow drugs typically administered by injection to be absorbed into the body by the lining of the inner mouth using the Company's proprietary RapidMist(TM) device. The Company's flagship product, oral insulin (Generex Oral-lyn(TM)), which is available for sale in India, Lebanon, Algeria, and Ecuador for the treatment of subjects with Type-1 and Type-2 diabetes, is in Phase III clinical trials at several sites around the world. Antigen Express, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Generex. The core platform technologies of Antigen Express comprise immunotherapeutics for the treatment of malignant, infectious, allergic, and autoimmune diseases. For more information, visit the Generex website at www.generex.com or the Antigen Express website at www.antigenexpress.com.

The Generex Biotechnology Corp. logo is available at http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/prs/?pkgid=3831

Safe Harbor Statement

This release and oral statements made from time to time by Generex representatives in respect of the same subject matter may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements can be identified by introductory words such as "expects," "plans," "intends," "believes," "will," "estimates," "forecasts," "projects," or words of similar meaning, and by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current facts. Forward-looking statements frequently are used in discussing potential product applications, potential collaborations, product development activities, clinical studies, regulatory submissions and approvals, and similar operating matters. Many factors may cause actual results to differ from forward-looking statements, including inaccurate assumptions and a broad variety of risks and uncertainties, some of which are known and others of which are not. Known risks and uncertainties include those identified from time to time in the reports filed by Generex with the Securities and Exchange Commission, which should be considered together with any forward-looking statement. No forward-looking statement is a guarantee of future results or events, and one should avoid placing undue reliance on such statements. Generex undertakes no obligation to update publicly any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Generex cannot be sure when or if it will be permitted by regulatory agencies to undertake additional clinical trials or to commence any particular phase of clinical trials. Because of this, statements regarding the expected timing of clinical trials cannot be regarded as actual predictions of when Generex will obtain regulatory approval for any "phase" of clinical trials. Generex claims the protection of the safe harbor for forward-looking statements that is contained in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

CONTACT:  American Capital Ventures, Inc.
          Investor Relations Contact:
          Howard Gostfrand
          1-877-918-0774
          Beckerman Public Relations
          Media Contact:
          Angelene Taccini
          201-465-8024

EPA decreases corn refuge acres from 20 to 5 percent

Sat 19 Dec 2009 8:54:43 PM GMT

Corn refuge acres decrease from 20 to 5 percent

12/10/2009

The agriculture world has drastically changed over the past 15 years through genetically modified seeds, and now corn is going to change again in 2010. Since 1996, corn seeds containing the bacteria protein, Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have become farmer's staple corn seed because it has a natural insecticide built into its DNA that protects the plant against many insects, including the European Corn Borer.

Monsanto's new seed called SmartStax, has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a reduction in refuge acres from 20% down to 5%. The SmartStax technology was developed by Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto through a cross licensing agreement and research and development collaboration signed in 2007. "The technologies at work in SmartStax will provide increased value on the farm through more thorough control of insects and weeds and from the significant upside potential through refuge reduction. All totaled, we estimate the SmartStax hybrid system could provide an estimated yield benefit of an additional 4% to 10% on the farm," Carl Casale, executive vice president, strategy and operations, Monsanto Company.

The Bt trait is present in each cell of a Bt corn plant. The Bt in each cell emits a toxin that kills many insects. By having the Bt trait built into a plant's DNA, farmers do not have to worry about spraying or handling Bt.

Refuge acres

Ever since in-plant protection technology has been used in fields, the EPA requires farmers who plant Bt corn to sign a statement that promises farmers to plant 20% of their fields as refuge acres. Refuge acres are acres of corn that cannot contain in-plant protection technology, such as Bt. The government runs checks on farms, and will hand out large fines if farmers do not follow the Bt planting guidelines.

The reasoning behind refugee acres is quite simple. Bt kills roughly 99% of European Corn Borers, but a small percentage of borers will survive. The survivors will reproduce larva that will contain a greater number of borers that are immune to Bt. Refuge acres promote the reproduction of standard insects, in hopes that the insects will never become completely resilient to Bt.

Refuge acres are typically planted in the outside rows of a field, or in a corner of a field. That way, farmers can keep track of them easier, and treat those acres with spray insecticides if necessary.

Future of Bt corn

Monsanto has recently announced that their new SmartStax Bt corn seed will be ready for market in 2010. More importantly, the EPA has reduced the amount of refuge acres necessary with SmartStax. Currently, all Bt corn must be accompanied by 20% refuge acres in the corn belt or 50% refuge acres in the cotton belt, now those refuge acres have been decreased to 5% and 20% respectively.

The EPA has said that Bt proteins are not toxic to people, domestic animals, fish, or wildlife; and they have no negative impacts on the environment. The proteins break down rapidly inside humans, according to the Food and Drug Administration.

The reduction in refuge acres for Monsanto's new SmartStax could make an immediate impact for corn farmers. The price tag will certainly be high for the 2010 release, but a 4% to 10% increase in yield should cover any cost increase. Monsanto reported that they plan on having enough SmartStax seeds for 4 million acres, so farmers should be able to run their own trials on this new seed during the 2010 season.

Read more about agriculture and farmland at farmlandforecast.colvin-co.com.

GM tadpoles help detect water pollution

Sat 19 Dec 2009 8:49:03 PM GMT

Modified tadpoles help detect water pollution

Monday, December 7, 2009

By Paul Johnson

LARAMIE — Research conducted by University of Wyoming Professor Paul Johnson and others demonstrates that genetically modified tadpoles work well for rapidly detecting water pollution.

In an article published in Environmental Science and Technology, the scientists demonstrated that African clawed frog tadpoles “light up” in response to a pollutant, and can indicate the presence of several chemicals at the same time.

Johnson, a professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, said the research meets a pressing need to improve technologies for rapidly detecting physiological effects of environmental pollutants.

The basic principle involves creating genetic constructions that enable a green fluorescent protein to be expressed in response to the physiological stress exerted on the tadpoles by pollutants for which the genetic modification was designed.

“Tadpoles are particularly useful as environmental monitors because they develop a complete immune system as well as complex heart and circulatory systems, similar to humans, but maturing over days, and not years,” Johnson said. “In this work we combined genetically modified tadpoles with a detection system developed at UW to detect the presence of heavy metal pollution in river water in real time.”

He said numerous detection methods exist for environmental heavy metal monitoring, but they are very labor intensive and time consuming. Such easy-to-use technologies combining rapidity with living organism measurements had not been developed previously.

© Copyright 2009, The Billings Gazette.

GMOs could affect wildlife - Frankenfuture

Sat 19 Dec 2009 8:45:07 PM GMT

Students Samantha Butenas, Brian Noland, Kyle Plyman and Mark Wagner examined the effects of genetically modified organisms on wildlife around the world.

"While genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have allowed for a new paradigm of development for agriculture, controversy remains as to the safety and potential adverse effects of GMOs on wildlife.

Insect populations in particular, whose destruction remains the object of many GMOs, have rapidly developed resistance to GMOs and the pesticides required for their maintenance. Genetically modified species of trees, also known as 'Frankentrees,' provide cause for concern about the potential imbalances that can result from GMOs.

In addition, genetically modified animals now allow for the realization of a 'Frankenfuture' of destructive potential for natural ecosystems and the wildlife they help to sustain.

Please visit our web site (http://gmorganism.webs.com) to learn more."

'Propagating GM crops a corporate ploy'

Sat 19 Dec 2009 8:41:10 PM GMT

‘Propagating GM crops a corporate ploy’

BANGALORE: ‘‘Scientists have become pawns at the hands of the corporates '' said noted agricultural scientist and food, trade policy expert Devinder Sharma.
While speaking at a public discussion on `` Genetically Modified (GM) Food Crop: How does this matter to a common man? organised by NGO CIVIC at Institution of Agricultural Technologists (IAT) on Monday, Devinder Sharma said, agricultural scientists in the country need to take responsibility for the farmer suicides as it is because of their faulty science that they have to commit suicide, he said.
Devinder Said, contrary to what the corporates and scientists are telling us, there is no shortage of food in the country.
On the other hand, India has produced around 65 million tonnes of surplus food in the year 2003.
He said, 40 years back we were deceived into believing that green revolution will solve the country's farmers' problems and will make the Indian farmer rich.
But he said, according to the National Survey Sample of 2004, the average monthly income of farmer's is a meagre Rs 2,115.

GM seed prices soar

Sat 19 Dec 2009 8:05:29 PM GMT

GM seed prices soar

Genetically modified seed prices are rocketing and, with further increases for 2010, growers are starting to question the value of GM crops, according to the Organic Centre USA.

Charles Benbrook, chief scientist at The Organic Centre said GM seed prices had risen so sharply they were starting to rival fertilisers and agrochemicals as the most expensive crop input.

Farmers purchasing Monsanto's Roundup Ready 2 Soyabeans in 2010 would have to pay 42% more than they paid for the 2009 product, said Dr Benbrook, who added that seed prices were now three times the historic norm.

Maize growers were facing similar price hikes, fuelled partly by seed companies introducing multiple traits into their varieties, he told a Soil Association conference in London on 3 December.

"The more traits they include, the more they can justify charging," said Dr Benbrook. For example, Monsanto's SmartStax maize, which is the first GM variety to include eight individual genes for herbicide tolerance and insect-protection, will be over twice the price of conventional seed when it is launched in 2010, he said. "For farmers to accept this increase it will have to perform very well indeed.

"The basic issue boils down to whether the high and rising prices of GM seeds are justified," said Dr Benbrook. "This has to be through increased yields, lower pest management costs, or a combination of both."

Unsurprisingly, these increases also had a striking effect on farm incomes. "Farmers planting RR2 Soyabeans in 2010 will commit a projected 22% of gross income per acre to seed purchase," said Dr Benbrook. "This is a substantial increase from last year's 16.4%."

Relatively high crop values were supporting this inflated seed price, he said. "But as prices drop we will start to see problems."

Growers who were tempted to move back to conventional seed could find it difficult to get hold of, he noted. "There is a lack of non-GM seed in the USA and farmers are starting to get worried

Bayer Cropscience loses lawsuit in Genetically modified seed contamination.

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:56:49 PM GMT

Bayer Cropscience loses lawsuit in Genetically modified seed contamination.

Saturday, December 5, 2009 - 14:04

St Louis, Missouri, USA - A federal jury in St. Louis ordered Bayer Cropscience a corporate manufacturer of genetically modified seeds to pay Ken Bell of Bell City almost $2million after they were found guilty of contaminating crops since 2006.A number of farmers in the area who is represented by Don McKenna also claims that their farms were contaminated by Bayer Cropscience GM seeds. Another farmer, John Hunter also got $53336 after his farm also got contaminated wtih GM seeds.

This could be a huge win for farmers since Monsanto usually sues farms where they find their seeds that the farmers did not pay for them even though seeds get carried by the wind.

The seeds in this case was rice which probably did not spread through the wind but still managed to contaminate the farms.

Bugs Genetically Engineered to Make Biofuel

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:50:15 PM GMT

Genetically modified microbes engineered to make fuels, like ethanol and diesel, are creating a lot of buzz in biofuels.

The following is a partial transcript; for full story, listen to audio.

America has long dreamed of growing its way to energy independence — ethanol, biodiesel and other plant-based fuels can wean us from climate-changing, budget-busting oil.

But biofuels have baggage. They take lots of energy, fertilizer, farmland and water. Well now some university labs and hi-tech companies promise a way past those problems. These ambitious scientists and entrepreneurs use genetic engineering to get fuel straight out of tiny plants and microbes. It's a process called direct solar liquid energy.

Joule Biotechnologies is in the business of making this kind of energy. In one of its labs, solar converters are being tested.

The converters are tabletop-sized rectangular, plastic frames; each with dozens of clear, skinny tubes running their length. Each tubes bubbles with a greenish liquid.

The bubbles are carbon dioxide; the greenish color comes from a tiny, genetically modified organism. Plants or bacteria, maybe.

"So, we use the tools of synthetic biology in order to start with a base organism, but actually by modifying pathways, create new organisms that we have engineered to directly secrete fuels and chemicals," explains Joule CEO, Bill Sims.

One engineered organism can make ethanol. Another makes diesel fuel. Sims envisions these panels in a sunny locale, soaking up CO2 from a power plant, and sending a constant stream of fuel-laden water to a separation facility.

He says an acre of the solar converters could produce many times what biofuel crops do. "So there's no intermediary like cellulose or like algae that has to be grown, has to be processed as part of their process to create fuels or chemicals. We also don't require fresh water, we don't require agricultural land. We are converting CO2, and what is viewed by most people as bad into something good: renewable, clean fuel."

It might sound too good to be true, but Sims says it really works that way.

"We aren't converting sunlight to electrons, we're converting sunlight to liquid fuels in a cost-effective manner that has essentially and unlimited supply.

"It works for real. We get continued improvements on our productivity, and we're finalizing our negotiations to break ground on a pilot plant in early 2010."

Just what the new organisms are that Joule engineered is a secret. Sims is tight-lipped when it comes to intellectual property, a common trait among the handful of companies trying this technology.

But in academia, things are a bit more open source.

Biochemistry professor Larry Wackett leads a team at the University of Minnesota. They're taking a different approach to direct solar fuels. Wackett says, no matter how much you modify an organism, you can only teach it so many tricks.

"If you try to engineer that organism to do many additional things, it puts stress on it and it's often very difficult to highly engineer that to do all of the things that you want."

Wackett's working on a bacterial buddy system. A genetically modified cyanobacteria, the ancient bugs that were the Earth's first photosynthesizers, and a bacteria called Shewanella, which is good at churning out the building blocks of hydrocarbon fuels.

"Now if you take a photosynthetic organism," says Wackett, "something that harvests sunlight; and then you take another organism that will now take the energy from the photosynthetic organism -- the carbon -- and convert that into something that you want -- like a hydrocarbon -- this could be a very effective team."

Professor Wackett's Minnesota team was among three universities to win highly competitive grants last month from the Department of Energy to develop direct solar liquid fuels. And the Minnesota lab has spun out a small company called, BioCee.

Jim Lane, who keeps tabs on the biofuel industry as editor of the "Biofuels Digest," says these companies already have a nickname: "The Magic Bug Guys." And they're generating a lot of buzz.

"The energy has been building up for several years in research," said Lane. "And the two companies that have gotten a lot of attention lately: Joule Biotechnologies and also BioCee -- they've really proven at the bench-scale that their technology really works."

While there is a lot of excitement around the two companies and the kinds of biofuels they're creating, Lane says they still have a ways to go.

Hosted by Steve Curwood, "Living on Earth" is an award-winning environmental news program that delves into the leading issues affecting the world we inhabit. More "Living on Earth."

GMO Bans, Laws, and Labels from Around the World

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:44:17 PM GMT

GMO Bans, Laws, and Labels from Around the World

by Collin Dunn, Corvallis, OR, USA on 12. 3.09

Prince Charles has called them the "biggest environmental disaster of all time," while agriculture industrialists like Monsanto swear they're safe for human consumption and a boon for the environment. Genetically modified foods are nothing if not controversial, and that controversy spans the globe. From Ireland and the European Union to Africa and Japan, and all the way back to the U.S., various bans, laws, and labels can make GMOs difficult to keep up with. Here's a roundup of the world in GMOs.

Ireland Bans Growth of GMOs

Ireland recently banned the growth of any genetically modified foods, and the country has also made available a GMO-free label that can be placed on animal products like meat, poultry, eggs and dairy, fish, and crustaceans, that are raised with feed free of GMOs. The government's two coalition partners signed the agreement [pdf] that officially declares Ireland a "GM-free Zone." That's good news for no-GMO advocates in the United States, since it imports a good bit of Irish dairy; lots of casein for cheese production comes to the U.S. from Ireland.

Egypt Bans Import/Export of GMOs

In a move that has as many implications for world trade as it does for agriculture, Egypt has banned the import and export of GMOs. That means that none can come in -- meaning they can't import from any countries growing GMO foods they want -- and none can leave -- meaning they can't grow any GMOs, either. This sets in motion a complex agripolitical dance involving many countries where agriculture is a big part of foreign trade.

For example, "A non-GMO policy would not cause difficulties for sunflower oil but it would for soyoil," according to one European trader. "It would mean that soyoil imports would only be possible from Brazil and not from the U.S. or Argentina." The countries are the world's three largest producers, so Egypt's decision cuts two out of that equation; it remains to be seen if the ban will leverage more GMO-free growth in other countries.

Japan Says No to GMO

Though Japan imports a lot of food from countries still growing and exporting GMO foods -- Australia, the U.S., and Canada, to name a few -- they are staunchly opposed to consuming GMOs. Most of the soy and corn -- two of the most frequently modified foods -- that enter Japan is carefully sourced explicitly as "non-GM," using expensive traceability schemes, but that doesn't cover all of their bases. Keisuke Amagasa, of the Tokyo-based No! GMO Campaign, summed it up:

Japan does not produce any GM crops. However, because Japan imports GM canola from Canada, GM contamination has already occurred and it is spreading to a much greater degree than one could imagine. Judging by the ominous precedent of Canada, once GM crops are cultivated, segregation between GM and non-GM will become almost impossible, and keeping pure non-GM varieties away from GM contamination will be very hard.

France Defines GMO-free Labeling

Currently, there is no European regulation on what constitutes GMO-free, although products that contain more than 0.9 percent genetically modified ingredients must indicate GM content on their labels. That doesn't apply to animals, though, and their meat and dairy products don't require a distinction whether they were fed GMO foods or not.

In France, the Haut Conseil des Biotechnologies is attempting to clear things up, when it comes to the labeling used to identify GMOs; their recent recommendations are expected to become law in the second half of 2010. These recommendations include an upgrade to a threshold of 0.1 percent for genetically modified material in plant products and animal feed, and a minimum distance between apiaries and fields where GM crops are grown (though that distance was not specified). Labels could then designate plant products as 'GMO-free,' animal products as 'fed on GMO-free feed' or 'derived from animals fed without GM feed,' and honey as 'biotech-free.' Stay tuned for final results on this one.GMO Sorghum Comes to Africa

Despite the growing tide against GMOs, they're finding their way (legally) into the food systems in some places. In South Africa, the government gave permission to proceed with trials of genetically modified sorghum, with the blessing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and DuPont, among other supporters. The justification is that, while it is one of the few crops that grows well in arid regions, it lacks most essential nutrients and it has poor protein digestibility; modifying it allows more nutrients to be "put" back in. Opponents of the decision are concerned that the introduction of the GMO crop threatens one of Africa's most important heritage crops.

The U.S. Bans GMOs. In Missouri. In a National Wildlife Refuge

While the U.S. has engaged in a much-publicized holdout from widespread GMO bans, a few small events have started the GMO-free ball rolling. A federal judge issued a ruling in Missouri stating that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife shouldn't have allowed genetically modified crops on a national wildlife refuge. That may not sound like much, but, thanks to the ruling, 37 farming contracts -- many being used for GMO soybean and corn crops -- have been canceled.

Will it lead to more widespread action? Whole Foods Market is on board with a GMO ban, having its store-brand products independently tested to certify that they contain zero GMO content -- who'll be next?

Monsanto: GM pesticide claims wrong

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:41:13 PM GMT

GM pesticide claims wrong: Monsanto

GREGOR HEARD

03 Dec, 2009 04:40 PM

MONSANTO has hit out at a report from a controversial American academic which found that rather than reduce pesticide use levels, genetically modified crops actually use higher rates of chemical, and have led to severe problems with glyphosate resistance throughout North America.

US scientist Charles Benbrook, who authored 'The First 13 Years Report', which was released on the website of US lobby group The Organic Center, caused controversy when he visited Australian soils late in 2005 as a guest of the Gene Ethics Network.

Some pro-GM lobby groups, such as the Producers Forum, suggested Dr Benbrook overstated his role with the US National Academy of Science (NAS), claims which Dr Benbrook stridently denied.

In his latest report, he claims GM crops have increased overall pesticide use by 144.4 million kilograms than would have been used if herbicide tolerant or Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) GM crops had not been used.

His report said herbicide use on GM crops has veered sharply upward in recent years.

Crop years 2007 and 2008 accounted for 46 per cent of the increase in herbicide use over 13 years across the three herbicide tolerant (HT) crops, with the biggest rise 31.4pc from 2007 to 2008.

Dr Benbrook acknowledged there was an initial drop in pesticide use when farmers converted to GM crops, but said these gains were lost as resistance issues emerged.

Predictably, the biotech industry took umbrage with the findings of the report.

A spokesperson for Monsanto said the report used inaccurate methodology.

"It is inaccurate and misleading in its assessment of biotech herbicide tolerant traits, as it fails to acknowledge several key benefits that US farmers and citizens have derived from using the technology," she said.

The Australian example painted a different story to the results claimed by Dr Benbrook, she said.

"Australian cotton growers have reduced the use of pesticide spraying by some 85pc since the introduction of GM cotton in 1996."

And she said there were further environmental benefits to consider from the adaptation of GM technology.

"Biotechnology has allowed farmers to adopt no- and reduced-tillage systems, which utilise herbicidal weed control rather than ploughing," the Monsanto spokesperson said.

"This means increased soil health and water retention, reduced run-off, fuel conservation and reduced greenhouse emissions leading to more efficient carbon storage in the soil."

However, Gene Ethics director Bob Phelps said he agreed with Dr Benbrook’s report.

"It's just another case of the promises of the big biotechnology companies not being right," Mr Phelps said.

"We were told GM was going to solve all the world’s food security issues, and that isn’t right, and we were told that it would be good for the environment, now we can see this isn’t right either."

He said GM crops, especially herbicide resistant crops, were wreaking havoc through weed resistance problems.

"Weeds like pig weed are a problem right through North America, and you can see the chemical burden is greater than before as growers have to go to greater lengths to control these problem species."

He said it was common sense that products developed by chemical companies would not use less pesticide.

"Their business is selling chemicals, and if these chemicals are so dire that we need to trumpet lower usage, than shouldn’t we just ban them altogether?"

Dr Benbrook’s report was not all negative towards GM.

He found that Bt corn and cotton delivered consistent reductions in insecticide use, with total reductions of 29.1 million kilograms over the 13 years.

However, his findings were that the advent of glyphosate resistance was a big problem.

"Excessive reliance on glyphosate has spawned a growing epidemic of glyphosate-resistant weeds, just as overuse of antibiotics can trigger the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria," he said.

"Glyphosate resistant weeds were practically unknown before the introduction of Roundup Ready crops in 1996.

"Today, nine or more GR weeds collectively infest millions of acres of US cropland."

However, the Monsanto spokesperson said weed resistance was not a monster created by the use of GM crops.

"The fact is, whenever farmers use the same control methods repeatedly, there is a chance that some pests will develop resistance to a specific crop protection product," she said.

"This effect has been seen since the first crop protection products were developed many years ago, and is not exclusive to the use of biotech crops.

"Growers know they need to have a weed management plan to manage weeds in crop."

Would you eat GMO soybeans as an Omega-3 source?

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:22:16 PM GMT

Canada looks at soy as Omega-3 source

With the hunt for alternative sources of Omega-3 in full swing, Canadian health officials are considering genetically modified soybeans adapted to produce the essential fatty acids.

Omega-3 fatty acids, most commonly found in fish, are important for cardiovascular health and brain development in humans.

For that reason, food guides in countries like Canada recommend people eat fatty fish twice a week.

However, this advice is unsustainable, researchers claim. That's because, in the same way Canada's East Coast cod fishery fell into decline, global fish stocks are falling. Researchers predict there will be a shortage of Omega-3s globally, likely by mid-century.

"It will really be helpful to find alternative sources of Omega-3," Dr. Ussif Rashid Sumaila, director of the Fisheries Economics Research Unit at the University of British Columbia, told CBC News. "That [genetically modified soybeans] is a possible source of dealing with this problem."

The type of Omega-3s found in flax, or in the eggs of chicken fed flax, isn't as easily used by the body as the type found in fish oil. But it is possible to modify soybeans so they make Omega-3s that would offer the same benefits as fish, says David Jenkins, a nutritional scientist at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.

"This would mean you've got a sustainable source of Omega-3 that comes from a plant form and you'd not be destroying the ocean stocks of fish," he says.

Recent research from the Sanford School of Medicine at the University of South Dakota shows that oil from genetically modified soybeans significantly increased levels of Omega 3s.

While Canada considers how to proceed, the U.S. has already approved modified soybeans that contain Omega-3 fatty acids. But the issue could be controversial as many environmentalists are opposed to genetic modification of food. As well, many people suffer from soy allergies.

Researchers are also investigating other possible sources of Omega-3s from the ocean, examining algae or tiny zooplankton which are still plentiful.

EU GMO Corn Approval May Clear Way for Soy Imports

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:18:24 PM GMT

EU GMO Approval May Clear Way for Soy Imports

Dec 1, 2009 2:52 PM, Source: Brock Associates

Richard Brock

The European Commission on Monday approved Syngenta's genetically modified (GMO) MIR604 corn variety for import, a move that may prompt European Union (EU) animal feed makers to resume imports of U.S. soymeal and soybeans.

EU imports of U.S. soybeans and soymeal for animal feed have been at a near standstill since late summer, when shipments totaling more than 200,000 metric tons were refused entry because they contained traces of unapproved GMO corn varieties. The rejections led EU feed makers to voluntarily halt imports of U.S. soy.

The 27-member EU has a zero-tolerance policy on unauthorized GMOs. GMO approvals have been slow due to public safety concerns and have become a point of diplomatic tension.

The Syngenta corn was the last of four unapproved GMO corn varieties that EU feed makers were concerned about. At the end of October, the Commission approved the import of three other GMO corn varieties found in shipments of U.S. soy.

The Commission, the EU executive body, said in a statement that it had authorized the Syngenta corn variety for food and feed uses and imports and processing. "MIR604 maize received a positive safety assessment from the European Food Safety Authority and underwent the full authorisation procedure set up in the EU legislation," it said.

Alexander Doering, secretary general of European feed manufacturers' association FEFAC told Reuters News Service that the clearance should ease short-term concerns over the supply of affordable vegetable proteins used by livestock farms.

"We expect imports to resume now. Basically from now on, imports from North America such as soybean products and also maize products will be considered legal in EU territory," said Doering.

A recent pick-up in U.S. soybean sales to the EU suggests European end users may have been preparing for Monday’s GMO approval.

Last Friday’s USDA weekly export sales report showed France, Germany and the Netherlands purchased cargoes U.S. soybeans during the week ended Nov. 19.

Weekly U.S. soybean export sales to EU destinations totaled 193,600 (7.1 million bushels). Going into the week, U.S. soybean sales to EU member nations for 2009-2010 delivery were only 706,900 tons (26 million bushels). U.S. soybean sales to the EU are still running 30% behind a year ago.

Editor’s note: Richard Brock, Corn & Soybean Digest's marketing editor, is president of Brock Associates, a farm market advisory firm, and publisher of The Brock Report.

New Zealand: GM weed found outside containment area

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:14:27 PM GMT

GM weed found outside containment area

Tue, 1 Dec 2009

News: National

Genetically modified plantlife may have escaped a containment glasshouse at Lincoln University, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) says.

Arabidopsis plants, which have tested positive for GM constructs, were reportedly found immediately outside the glasshouse of the Plant and Food research campus.

MAF Biosecurity is investigating.

Other Arabidopsis plants found within a few metres of the glasshouse tested negative.

Arabidopsis is a widespread weed commonly used within plant genomics, both as a research tool and a teaching aid.

Monsanto Loss Hurts Farmers

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:12:18 PM GMT

Monsanto Loss Hurts Farmers

Posted on November 30, 2009 at 10:05 AM

Click here to view recent posts

Back in September many of you probably read articles about a U.S. District Court issuing an opinion finding that USDA had violated a federal law which allowed genetically engineered sugar beets into the market and planted by farmers. A press release by Earth Justice put it succinctly: "…the Bush USDA''s approval of genetically engineered (GE) "Roundup Ready" sugar beets was unlawful. The court ordered the USDA to conduct a rigorous assessment of the environmental and economic impacts of the crop on farmers and the environment." An environmental impact statement (EIS) is a lengthy and expensive process and document for USDA to undertake. This is a setback for farmers not only in the sugar beet industry but also for others as well. After reading the articles, I decided to read the court's opinion to find out what really happened and how USDA lost the case. After reading the court''s decision, it appears USDA should have lost the case. First a note of self disclosure. I own Monsanto stock, plant Monsanto "Roundup Ready" seeds, and have in the past successfully represented Monsanto on Clean Air Act issues. Judge Jeffrey S. White's U.S. District Court opinion of September 21, 2009, (No. C 08-00484 JSW) strongly suggests USDA and Monsanto did not understand how to handle a case under the National Environmental Policy Act, otherwise known as NEPA. NEPA establishes a national policy that imposes procedural requirements on federal agencies to undertake analyses of environmental impacts of their proposals and actions. NEPA requires that an agency will carefully consider detailed information concerning significant environmental impacts, and of course, these impacts must be made known to the public in an EIS or a less thorough document, an environmental assessment (EA). What were they thinking? When you read the court's opinion, you have to wonder what USDA and Monsanto were thinking when it was determined that an EIS need not be prepared regarding the handling of genetically engineered "Roundup Ready" sugar beets. Monsanto had inserted a gene into the sugar beet to make it glyphosate-tolerant. USDA prepared only an EA which it is allowed to do under NEPA and concluded that it did not have to prepare a full EIS. According to the court, this was a major mistake and assuming the court''s opinion sets forth the facts accurately, it suggests that USDA does not understand how to defend its decisions when NEPA is involved. None of the articles I read about this case said anything about Imperial Sugar Company, a sugar beet processor in California, being concerned about buyers of industrial and consumer sugars expressing "extreme reluctance or emphatic opposition" to receiving such genetically modified beets. Imperial Sugar also claimed some countries would not allow genetically modified products to be imported. This issue clearly concerned the court, and it appears it was not adequately dealt with in the EA. Amazing oversight According to the court, USDA failed to analyze the socio-economic impacts regarding genetically engineered sugar beets. This is an amazing oversight since every EIS trial I have ever handled addressed socio-economics which must be analyzed in environmental reviews when they are related to some natural or physical effect. To overlook this issue is baffling unless the court overstated what happened in this case. The potential for cross pollination of genetically engineered sugar beet seeds with non-genetic sugar beets, swiss chard and red table beets deeply concerned the court. Sugar beet seed production takes place in the Willamette Valley of Oregon and Oregon has rules requiring isolation distance of 1,000 meters between sugar beet varieties. These isolation distances are voluntary. USDA, according to the court, stated in a conclusory manner, "It is not likely that organic farmers or other farmers who chose not to plant transgenic varieties or sell transgenic sugar beets will be significantly impacted…." The court went on to point out that USDA's action might eliminate a farmer's ability to grow non-genetically engineered crops because of the large distances pollen can travel by wind. The court made it clear that it disagreed with USDA''s conclusion that the "…potential for the transmission of the genetically engineered gene is not significant, are not "convincing" and do not demonstrate the ''hard look'' that NEPA requires." In a final attack on USDA and its agency, Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), for its decision, the court said, "…[APHIS] did not consider the effects of gene transmission on conventional farmers and consumers of sugar beet seed or of gene transmission to the related crops of red table beets and Swiss chard. It did not consider the fact that the isolation distances are only voluntary. It did not examine whether the isolation distances were actually followed and likely to be followed in the future. Moreover, there is no support in the record for APHIS' conclusion that non-transgenic sugar beets will likely be sold and will be available to those who wish to plant it…" This court is located in the Northern District of California, in San Francisco - not a friendly jurisdiction for agriculture. USDA and its lawyers at the Department of Justice know California courts are quite sensitive to environmental concerns. I have not read the environmental assessment prepared by USDA so I cannot offer an opinion regarding its factual completeness. However, reading this judge's opinion strongly suggests USDA and Monsanto do not appreciate the intricacies and requirements of NEPA. As a result, the farmer loses. The case is not over. Judge White, in his ruling, scheduled a case management hearing to address remedies for October 30, 2009. This date has been postponed, and a new hearing has been scheduled for this month. This case is worth following if you are a farmer and want to use genetically engineered seeds. The path to obtaining them may become a lot more difficult as a result of environmental requirements of NEPA!

China’s GMO Rice, Corn Approval May Boost Food Supply (Update2)

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:07:32 PM GMT

China’s GMO Rice, Corn Approval May Boost Food Supply (Update2)

Dec. 1 (Bloomberg) -- China, the world’s biggest grain producer, has approved strains of genetically modified rice and corn that may help ensure food supplies in a country facing shortages of water and farmland.

The move “has huge implications because this is the first time a major grain producer is endorsing the use of GMO technology in a food staple,” said Zhu Zhen, biotechnology professor at the Chinese Academy of Sciences. China has declared several corn and rice varieties safe to grow and use, a Ministry of Agriculture statement sent to Bloomberg News said today.

China produces 31 percent of the world’s rice and 20 percent of its corn, U.S. Department of Agriculture data show. Only genetically modified cotton has previously been approved for output on a large scale. The technology may greatly increase yields in China which uses 7 percent of the world’s arable land to feed a quarter of its population, Li Qiang, managing director at Shanghai JC Intelligence Co., said today.

“Corn crops in China yield 30 to 40 percent less than in the U.S. and the GMO technology can boost yield by 12 to 15 percent,” said Li, who spoke by phone from northeastern Heilongjiang. “This approval signals a big step forward in China’s progress in endorsing genetically modified technology.”

Crops planted with the technology will be pest and herbicide-resistant, the ministry said. Further approvals are required before the crops can be grown commercially, it said.

Trial Planting

“Mass-production and commercialization will only take place after trial planting, marketing and public acceptance of the crops,” Li said. “China’s attitude towards GMO crops is cautious but always positive, having realized it is the way to boost yields and farmers’ incomes.”

China’s food security and social stability may be at risk unless the country invests more to fight the effects of drought, a report from New York-based McKinsey & Co. said Nov. 24. Major investments needed include seed technology, water-saving irrigation, planting and engineering measures, it said.

The country currently has a “favorable food security situation,” the China Daily reported Nov. 17, citing Vice Premier Hui Liangyu. Grain reserves are abundant and staple agricultural produce is in sufficient supply, he was cited as saying. China is self-sufficient in all grains and relies on imports to meet its soybean needs.

“I can’t say how much rice output will be boosted by the technology, but China suffered tens of billions of yuan in losses every year because of certain pests,” said Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Zhu. “This technology may help reduce the usage of polluting pesticides and boost yield.”

‘Home Grown’

The government said in July last year it aimed to develop home-grown biotechnology by creating new species and seeds resistant to herbicides, insects and diseases.

“This an important achievement for domestically researched GMO technology with independent property rights and provides a good base for commercial manufacture,” the ministry said in the statement.

Origin Agritech Ltd., China’s third-biggest seed producer, won approval to sell the nation’s first genetically modified corn seed, the company said in a Nov. 21 statement.

China’s Ministry of Agriculture gave final approval to sell corn engineered to produce phytase, a feed additive that helps animals absorb phosphorous and reduce polluted runoff into waterways, Beijing-based Origin said then.

Monsanto Co., the world’s largest seed producer, announced on Nov. 4 that it was opening its first research center in China to strengthen the company’s ties with Chinese research institutions in plant biotechnology and genomics.

--Feiwen Rong. Editors: Richard Dobson, Ravil Shirodkar.

To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Feiwen Rong in Beijing at +86-10-6649-7563 or frong2@bloomberg.net

China Approves First GM 'Phytase' Corn

Sun 6 Dec 2009 11:04:57 PM GMT

China Approves First GM 'Phytase' Corn
USAgNet - 11/30/2009

The authorities have given approval to the world's first genetically modified phytase maize to Origin Agritech.

Origin Agritech Limited, a biotech company based in Beijing, has received the Biosafety Certificate from the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture as a final approval for commercial approval of the world's first genetically modified phytase corn.

The International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications reports that the transgenic corn is the product of a seven-year study by the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences.

Phytase is used as an additive in animal feed to degrade phytic acid, the storage form of phosphorus in plant feed ingredients. Phytase can increase phosphorus absorption in animals by as much as 60 per cent. With the transgenic crop, there is no need to purchase phytase and corn separately. The use of phytase corn should also reduce phosphate pollution caused by animal waste and excessive fertiliser use, according to the report.

Phytase, as an additive for animal feed, is mandatory in Europe, South-east Asia, South Korea, Japan and other regions for environmental purposes.

Genetically modified seed products in China must undergo five separate stages of approval beginning with a phase one laboratory approval to the final receipt of the Biosafety Certificate in phase five.

Dutch Scientists 'grow' meat in laboratory

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:57:09 PM GMT

Scientists 'grow' meat in laboratory

The move towards artificially engineered foods has taken a step forward after scientists grew a form of meat in a laboratory for the first time.

By Nick Britten
Published: 3:18PM GMT 29 Nov 2009

Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.

Researchers in the Netherlands have created what was described as soggy pork and are now investigating ways to improve the muscle tissue in the hope that people will one day want to eat it.

No one has yet tasted the product, but it is believed the artificial meat could be on sale within five years.

Vegetarian groups welcomed the news, saying there was “no ethical objection” if meat was not a piece of a dead animal.

Mark Post, professor of physiology at Eindhoven University, said: “What we have at the moment is rather like wasted muscle tissue. We need to find ways of improving it by training it and stretching it, but we will get there.

“This product will be good for the environment and will reduce animal suffering. If it feels and tastes like meat, people will buy it.

“You could take the meat from one animal and create the volume of meat previously provided by a million animals.”

The scientists extracted cells from the muscle of a live pig and then put them in a broth of other animal products. The cells then multiplied and created muscle tissue. They believe that it can be turned into something like steak if they can find a way to artificially "exercise" the muscle.

The project is backed by the Dutch government and a sausage maker and comes following the creation of artificial fish fillets from goldfish muscle cells.

Meat produced in a laboratory could reduce greenhouse gas emissions associated with real animals.

Meat and dairy consumption is predicted to double by 2050 and methane from livestock is said to currently produce about 18 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases.

It was supported by animal rights campaigners. A spokesman for Peta said: “As far as we’re concerned, if meat is no longer a piece of a dead animal there’s no ethical objection.”

However the Vegetarian Society said: “The big question is how could you guarantee you were eating artificial flesh rather than flesh from an animal that had been slaughtered.

“It would be very difficult to label and identify in a way that people would trust.”

The advent of meat grown for consumers could reduce the billions of tons of greenhouse gases emitted each year by farm animals and help meet the United Nation’s predictions that meat and dairy consumption will double by 2050.

However, the latest breakthrough is certain to cause concern amongst the anti-GM lobby.

Last week Prince Charles, a fierce opponent of GM food, warned that people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.

His comments came as the results of a survey commissioned by the Food Standards Agency revealed concerns about long-term health and environmental impacts of genetically modified products.

It showed shoppers want to be told when meat and milk from cows is genetically modified through clear labelling.

GM supporters say they are aware of risks associated with "engineered" food but believe it benefits the Third World.

Church of South India opposes GM foods

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:42:16 PM GMT

Church opposes GM foods
Thursday, 26th November 2009. 4:48pm

By: George Conger.

The Church of South India (CSI) has urged its government to ban the cultivation of Genetically-modified (GM) foods in India.

On October 15, the Indian government’s Genetic Engineer Approval Committee (GEAC) authorized the commercial cultivation of Bt brinjal, the trade name for genetically modified eggplant, or aubergine. The decision must now be affirmed by environment minister Jairam Ramesh.

Developed by the Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company or Mahyco, an affiliate of US multi-national Monsanto, Bt brinjal was initially approved by the GEAC in 2007. Bt, or Bacillus Thuringiensis, is a bacterium that produces crystals proteins that are toxic to many species of insects and pests. The resulting genetically modified crop produces higher yields.

There are no known adverse effects of Bt brinjal seeds, AB Rai, the principal scientist at the Indian Institute of Vegetable Research which conducted the tests, told Dow Jones. However, protests from NGOs and church groups over the health safety and environmental impact of GM foods caused the government to ask for a second review.

"My objective is to arrive at a careful, considered decision," Mr Ramesh told reporters last month, after GEAC gave its approval to Bt brinjal.

If approved Bt brinjal will be India’s first GM food crop. In 2002 the Indian government approved the cultivation of Bt cotton, a move that has led to the doubling of the nation’s cotton crop, making it one of the leading cotton exporters in the world. The GEAC is also studying genetically modified cabbage, cauliflower and peas with an eye towards authorizing their cultivation.

The environmental activist group Greenpeace denounced the decision, saying GEAC had "mindlessly" approved Bt brinjal despite "informed scientists and citizens of the country" raising safety concerns. The Ecological Concerns Committee of the CSI urged the government to reject the GEAC decision. Committee chairman Dr Mathew Koshy Punnackadu said GM foods poised troubling theological, environmental and economic concerns, and the church could not remain silent on this issue.

“It is obvious that the introduction of Bt brinjal will contaminate the large number of traditional brinjal varieties available to us, particularly those with unique medicinal properties. This will also shift the control of seeds from the farmers to profit-hungry corporations that have already established a virtual monopoly over seeds through the new patent regime,” the Ecological Concerns Committee said.

“What is at stake is not only our food security but also our food sovereignty. Disempowerment of small and marginal farmers and their displacement by aggressive models of corporatised agriculture are the inevitable consequences,’’ the statement said.

Labelling laws in Germany and Austria- GM free only if animals not fed GM feed

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:37:22 PM GMT

Natural produce: Labelling GM foods is crucial

Fans of natural skin care should be able to find out exactly what is in the foods they are consuming and whether or not they contain genetically modified (GM) elements, according to one expert.

Emma Hockridge, policy manager for The Soil Association, said that the organisation is campaigning for clearer labelling of produce because people want transparency from food companies.

She said: "Obviously we have labelling if there are actually GM ingredients, but there is this hidden GM found in our food in terms of animal feed which is used to produce our meat and dairy."

The expert added that after writing to the Food Standards Agency, the organisation will continue to push for compulsory and informative labelling to be introduced soon.

Fans of natural beauty food could be interested to find that labelling laws in Germany and Austria have made clear that products can only be labelled GM free if they are produced by animals not fed with GM feed.

Posted by Jake Slazenger

Would G.M.O. Apples by Another Name Taste Sweeter?

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:34:08 PM GMT

Would G.M.O. Apples by Another Name Taste Sweeter?

By SINDYA N. BHANOO

Consumers might be more willing to bite into genetically modified apples if they were labeled differently, according to research published this month in The Journal of Food Distribution Research.

Participants in the study were more receptive to genetically modified apples when they were labeled “Reduced Environmental Impact,” said the study’s leader, Michael Mazzocco, an economics professor emeritus at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Mr. Mazzocco and his former graduate student, Nadia Novotorova, broke participants up into two groups of 200 each. Both groups were told that apples grown in the Midwest are prone to a disease known as apple scab, and that by introducing a scab-resistant gene into the apples, scab could be prevented.

The apple with the gene inserted would reduce the need for antifungal sprays and allow consumers to purchase more locally grown fruit, Mr. Mazzocco said.

One group of 200 was then given 12 combinations of apples to rank, marked with attributes like price, locally grown (or not) and genetically modified or conventionally grown.

Most people in this group made little distinction between genetically modified and conventionally grown apples, said Mr. Mazzocco, who is recently retired and now works for Verdant Partners, an agribusiness consulting company in Champaign.

The study was financed by the Illinois Council for Food and Agricultural Research and did not receive any corporate backing, according to Mr. Mazzocco.

When the second group was surveyed, references to genetic modification were replaced with the term “Reduced Environmental Impact.” This steered people toward the genetically modified apples, and most participants preferred them.

“In the Midwest you can’t have apples with no sprays, without scab, that are also locally grown,” Mr. Mazzocco said.

“Inserting a gene into an apple is one way to change this,” he said, adding that using terminology such as “reduced environmental impact” makes G.M.O.’s benefits easier to understand.

But introducing new terms may only cause confusion, according to Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition and public health at New York University and author of several books on consumer food choices and food politics.

“It’s a ridiculous euphemism that’s not helpful,” she said. “It does not give the public an opportunity to debate the issues in a straightforward way.”

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center of Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said that consumer advocacy groups and governmental organizations needed to step up to keep the public informed as our food choices grow.

“There’s going to be huge temptations to frame descriptions for foods,” he said. “We need to give consumers accurate information about what they eat and that may mean having reliable Web sites and 800 numbers that people can call.”

GM Corn Pulled Due to Food Safety Concerns

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:30:58 PM GMT

GM Corn Pulled Due to Food Safety Concerns

by Helena Bottemiller | Nov 28, 2009

Monsanto has dropped its push for approval from European regulators on two types of "second generation" genetically modified seeds.

The company informed the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that it was withdrawing its approval request for GM maize LY038 and the stacked variety LYo38 x MON810, both of which were designed for the express purpose of accelerating the growth rate of animals.

Some scientists believe that the company's decision to pull the plug on the approval process was fueled by food safety concerns, rather than the economic constraints cited by the company in its formal withdrawal request.

According to European organic media Green Planet, Monsanto's subsidiary, Renessen, sent EFSA two letters to confirm the withdrawal. Each letters cites economic demands--saying that the "decreased commercial value worldwide" and the state of the highlysene varieties "will no longer be a part of the Renessen business strategy in the future."

The paper also noted that Renessen requested that regulators return all the materials relating to the approval process, including experimental protocols and test results, so that no future research can be done on the project.

Differing studies Cultivation of genetically modified plants: more or less pesticide?

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:28:31 PM GMT

Differing studies

Cultivation of genetically modified plants: more or less pesticide?

(17.11.2009) Two current studies on the environmental influence of genetically modified (GM) plants arrive at differing results. According to one study, significantly more pesticide has been applied to fields since the cultivation of genetically modified plants began in 1996. The other study books substantial environmental relief through GM plants.

One study, authored by Charles Benbrook and published by the American non-governmental organisations The Organic Center and Union of Concerned Scientists, has come to a negative result: since the market entry of herbicide-resistant GM plants in the USA in 1996, the quantity of applied herbicide has increased by 175 million kilogrammes, of which 46 per cent fall in the years 2007 and 2008 alone. According to Benbrook, primarily in the south of the USA numerous weeds have spread in the meanwhile that have developed resistance to the herbicide agent glyphosate (Roundup) suited to the GM plants. Many farmers attempt to combat these weeds through higher doses of glyphosate or through the application of other herbicide agents. For this reason, a further increase in the amount of deployed pesticide may be expected.

In contrast, a positive balance is found in the study conducted by the British agricultural economist Graham Brookes (PG Economics). He ascertained a world-wide decrease in the application of herbicide between 1996 and 2007 due to the cultivation of GM plants. According to the study, approximately 200 million fewer kilogrammes of herbicide were deployed. However, in contrast to Benbrook, Brookes did not compare the total quantity of herbicide deployed but the quantities of active agent. In the case of soy, according to Brooks, a reduction in deployed herbicide agent of 4.6 per cent in comparison to the level of 1996 was found as a result of the cultivation of herbicide-resistant varieties. In the case of cotton, this figure was 15 per cent.

With regard to insect-resistant plants, the studies arrive at similar conclusions: Benbrook determined a reduction in the application of plant protection agents by 28 million kilogrammes since 1996 as a result of the cultivation of Bt maize and Bt cotton.

According to Brookes, the worldwide application sank by as much as 157 million kilogrammes. Once again, this was stated in terms of the active agent. For this study, primarily cotton contributed to environmental relief through insecticide reduction. However, neither China nor India, which have large field areas of Bt cotton, were addressed by Benbrook.

In total, Brookes calculates a global environmental relief of 17 per cent due to the lowered need for insecticide and herbicide in the cultivation of GM plants. In contrast, Charles Benbrook states the stark increase in glyphosate-resistant weeds as the primary problem. As a result, he expects rising costs, declining yields and increasing environmental strain.

See also on GMO Compass:

Further information:

PG Economics

Biotech crops: evidence, outcomes an impacts 1996-2007; Focus on environmental impacts

The Organic Center: Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Use: The First Thirteen Years

Safety of Genetic Engineered Food Argument: Not a Scientific debate but Rhetorical dispute

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:23:24 PM GMT

Safety of Genetic Engineered Food Argument: Not a Scientific debate but Rhetorical dispute

Posted on November 27, 2009. Tags: food safety, genetically engineered food, GM safety debate, gmo, mass produced food, organic farming
Posted by Charles L. Wang

Throughout history, the essence of technological progress has been its unpredictable applications (e.g. polluting industries and printing presses). Innovations are always a double-edged sword. In the past, technology innovations have taken humanity forward beyond anyone’s imagination. Thus some people argue that if we always relied on long-term safety data instead of short-term practicality (provided by innovations) to determine what technology should be and shouldn’t be used, then very little science can actually be applied. (Mokyr 1) Other side argues that some of the new technologies today, such as genetically modified (GM) food, are far too dangerous to allow chances to determine its future.

As with other inventions, GM food does not have enough data to predict its long term safety. Much of the current debate on this subject relies on rhetoric instead hard data and facts. The set of rhetoric on both sides can be divided into 2 value-laden sections: first, trust the advanced experts and leaders who boost their ability to control and manipulate life for our own gains vs. the common wisdom that life cannot be controlled and a more harmonious relationship with the environment should be sought; second, unregulated, profit-maximizing market is always right (Adam Smith) vs. the more complicated notion that long term safety and environmental health needs be guarded sometimes from corporations and the free market system by government control for the common good of all.

The essence of genetically modifying food involves taking the DNA from one organism, purifying its characteristics in a lab, and then putting it back into a host organism’s genes to produce new and useful genetic expressions. GM food relies on this basic procedure to “upgrade” a host’s genomes to give us a better product (e.g. food, animals, bacterial, you name it). “Agricultural [genetic] technology leader” Monsanto Corporation ensures us that the GM food they produce have ‘long-standing commitments to safety, environmental protection, and first-class research.’ (Monsanto.com).

Monsanto’s website also tries to impress its readers through the website’s impressive statistics. By stating that they spend $1.5 million a day on 17,000 employees worldwide, Monsanto promises us that their R&D process is the most cutting-edge worldwide and that we have nothing to worry about in our GM foods. Their scientists screen and test tens-of-thousands of genetic candidates through 5 long phases before their GM foods reach the consumer market. These phases include gene optimization, trait integration, trait development, regulatory submission, and etc; all these phases with impressive names lead up to Monsanto’s crown rhetoric of giving farming plants a “software upgrade” (Pollan 3).

Monsanto website’s image-presentation and its rhetorical-appeal speak to a cultural instinct called “faith in the expert” – such as our natural instinct to trust our white-coat doctors (an image everywhere on Monsanto’s website). Monsanto’s website presents an atmospheric state that Monsanto commands a field of the brightest thinkers in this world, pouring ungodly amount of money into their research, and as a breakthrough result, gained command over our nature’s most precious commodity – our food. Because Monsanto’s bright geniuses and their hard work, we’re able to have more nutritious and price-competitive food as a result. And regarding the actual safety of this breakthrough, Monsanto’s PhD, biotech scientists in the white-coats – again, shown everywhere on their website – are saying “Trust us” – as the experts in this arena – just like how we trust our caring, white-coat doctors whenever we are sick (Pollan 2).

The people who are skeptical of Monsanto’s technology – whose rule-of-thumb tells them that GM food cross the line that is put there by nature – believes that Monsanto is taking “mankind into realms that belong to God and to God alone” (Pollan 4). These people (some who are religious, other who are just skeptical) took a stab at Monsanto’s claims by taking their own trip to one of Monsanto’s $150 million research facility. And immediately, these skeptics started accusing Monsanto of being swashbucklers in their research and people of hyperbole in their claims. The skeptics’ first statement dumbfounded the vital technology (in the first 3 phases out of the 5 total) that makes Monsanto’s “software upgrade” work (DNA hybridization). They described a “gene gun” — used for the new DNA’s insertion — in the following fashion.

The gene gun is a strangely high-low piece of technology, but the main thing you need to know about it is that the gun here is not a metaphor: a .22 shell is used to fire stainless-steel projectiles dipped in a DNA solution at a stem or leaf of the target plant. If all goes well, some of the DNA will pierce the wall of some of the cell’s nuclei and elbow its way into the double helix, a bully breaking into a line dance. If the new DNA happens to land in the right place – and no one yet knows what, or where, that place is – the plant grown from that cell will express the new gene. That’s it? That’s it. (Pollan in the Potato, 207)

Then the skeptics attack the last 2 phases of Monsanto’s 5 phases (before their GM foods reach the consumer market). Monsanto describes these 2 phases — “trait development” and “regulatory submission” — as a meticulous process where “tens of thousands of candidates are screened and tested for every project” (Monsanto.com). After the skeptics examined these 2 phases, they described the screening and selection of tens of thousands of DNA insertions (candidates) as the following: “‘So [they] grow out thousands of different plants… and then look for the best.’” (Pollan in the Potato, 209).

Even Monsanto’s crowned and precious metaphor of “software upgrade” for our food becomes the following in the hands of the skeptics: “throw a bunch of DNA against the wall and see what sticks; do this enough times, and you’re bound to get what you’re looking for” (Pollan in the Potato, 209). So in summary, the skeptics describe Monsanto’s sophisticated technology that costs $1.5 million a day as the following: you dip bullets in the new genes that give you the traits that you want in your plant; then you shoot thousands of host plants (candidates) with bullets dipped in new genetic material; finally you grow them all out and see which ones actually inherited the new genetic expression. The skeptics make Monsanto sound like a bunch of kids messing around in the genetic darkness with a lot of uncertainties unseen and unsolved.

The actual truth of this argument is very complicated despite of both sides’ hyperboles and rhetoric. Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin says that “software upgrade” is a ‘bad metaphor in biology: the genome is very noisy.’ (Pollan 3). Favorable and critical experts of GM food alike have decided that “it may be impossible ever to conclude once and for all that this technology is intrinsically sound or dangerous.” (Pollan in the Potato, 209). And the people actively engaged in both sides of this debate are painfully aware of this. Thus they know how effective rhetoric is used may be the determinant factor of the truth on this subject.

Despite of its uncertainties, should we allow GM Food to be on our markets – guided solely by the capitalistic principle of offering a better product at a better price? To start, the new technology of genetic engineering has already allowed biotechnologists to create numerous novel creations, “such as potatoes with bacteria genes, “super” pigs with human growth genes, fish with cattle growth genes, tomatoes with flounder genes, and thousands of other plants, animals and insects…. Currently, up to 45 percent of U.S. corn is genetically engineered as is[sic] 85 percent of soybeans. It has been estimated that 70-75 percent of processed foods on supermarket shelves–from soda to soup, crackers to condiments–contain genetically engineered ingredients.” (Kimbrell) As statistics show, genetic engineering is a very practical technology for improving our daily lives.

America is also country that is known for its values of practicality and scientific progression, even if these values are sometimes risky and detrimental. Our culture has already taken into account the unsustainable nature of our future in terms of energy, garbage, global climate changes, and weapons-of-mass-destruction, just to name a few issues. Monsanto is trying to encourage their GM food into our markets using the language of our existing culture. To the farmer whose margins are too low and are bounded to expensive chemicals that ‘saddles him with debt, jeopardizes his health, erodes his soil and ruins his fertility, pollutes the groundwater, and compromises the safety of the food he produces’ (Pollan in the Potato, 190), Monsanto’s GM food promises a practical solution: higher margins, fewer chemical spays, and a healthier spud. And to the everyday consumers who can’t tell the difference, a better plant at a better price makes the deal, despite of uncertainties on its long term safety.

Relying on such American values as the short term practicality, Monsanto hope the immediate gain of cheap and efficient supply-chain of food will entice people over the current uncertainties of safety revolving around GM food. “The hope of the industry is that over time the market is so flooded [with GM foods] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender… The total acreage devoted to GM crops around the world is expanding. That may be what eventually brings this debate to an end” (SourceWatch 6).

The skeptics and critics of Monsanto’s GM food invoke upon the values of collective and long-term wellbeing of the human health, global environment, and sustainable ecosystem, all which Monsanto may be violating. Their rhetoric accuses Monsanto of performing a “massive, irreversible experiment with the planet.” (Domingo 1748) Even though no one can empirically prove that GM food is actually harmful, but “is this worth the cheap food and the other slight, modern conveniences brought about by so much uncertainty on our long-term safety?” (Domingo 1748), the critics ask.

Some scientists project that the GM food’s long term problems may consist of our world being contaminated with “biological pollution.” (“Biological pollution” is self-replicating GM pollen spread by the wind. If crossed with other plants, “biological pollution” can create “super-weed”: weed that produces its own pesticide – BT. (Pusztai)) Also the GM food that has pesticide built into its organic structure may be harmful to the human body in the long run. (Mansfield) Finally by pre-emptying so much BT (the only safe insecticide on the market right now) into the environment, bug resistance to BT in the near future is very likely. Without an alternative, safe pesticide in the supply line, the critics charge Monsanto with being irresponsible to the wellbeing of our common environment, our health, and our future.

Another set of rhetoric created by the opponents of Monsanto — in trying to drive GM food off the market — targets common consumer’s cultural fear of rogue scientists creating out-of-control, genetic-mutated monsters out of their own greed, ambition, or their irresponsibleness. These critics call Monsanto’s GM food “frankenplants” – think Frankenstein. Some fierce critics also physically label GM foods with mutants or skull and cross bones in our supermarkets to make their point and the association between genetic engineering and monstrosity. (Ozeki 86) All these rhetoric and symbols aim at invoking the long cultural fears of gene-manipulation becoming out-of-control, self-replicating and destructive monsters — hyped by both the media and mysticism.

The critics hope that by associating our culturally-iconic monsters with GM foods in the minds of consumers, then perhaps the general shoppers will perceive greater risks with buying and consuming Genetically Modified food. And on top of that – out of wishful thinking perhaps, critics hope such rhetoric will prompt the consumers to take greater responsibilities to balance their individual freedom to choose with the freedom to choose safely and responsibly against short-term gains offered by “frankenplants.”

The philosophical argument over risky progression versus collective stability has been a long one. The East and the Middle East region sought the later value, the West, the earlier. And today, the West (especially America) is far more technologically advanced and richer than most of the World, at the cost of global warming, garbage overflow, proliferation of weapon-of-mass-destruction, and unsustainable energy use, just to name a few of the Western problems. Monsanto’s scientists and leaders are a victorious branch and believer of the western ideology – the earlier value stated above. They believe that we are at the point of progression that even life – more specifically the code that describes life – is a solvable equation, pliable to human ingenuity. Thus Monsanto’s rhetoric in the GM food debate reflects this belief.

There are people on the other hand believe that life is sacred and mysterious. From their values and their under-whelmed, firsthand observation of Monsanto’s technologies, these critics challenged Monsanto’s self-claimed, scientific expertise with their rhetoric that Monsanto is taking a “random-shot in the genetic-darkness.” These critics push for a more harmonious, stable treatment of our food supply – the later value stated above. The critics argue that the food market should embrace a “post-materialistic” culture emphasizing environmental preservation, collective welfare, “quality of life,” and planet sustainability, in contrast of Monsanto’s practical, progressive, price-only emphasis. Therefore, these critics of Monsanto argue that GM food should be regulated (perhaps by the government) or even not sold for the collective wellbeing on the environment and human health.

Monsanto, however, speaks directly to the farmers whose price-margins are already too low, and who are bounded to expensive chemicals that are hazardous. Monsanto’s rhetoric promises practical answers: higher margins and fewer chemical spays. And to the consumer who doesn’t know what is potentially at stake, a better plant at a better price makes the deal for them. Monsanto hopes that business and consumer practicality trumps the uncertainties that come naturally with such a high leap in technological progress. And eventually, Monsanto looks forward to the day when “the market [is] so flooded [with GM foods] that there’s nothing you can do about it. You just sort of surrender” (SourceWatch 6).

Bibliography
1. SourceWatch: Monsanto. The Center for Media & Democracy. 15 Nov. 2006.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Monsanto

2. Monsanto Company Information. Monsanto Company. 15 Nov. 2006.
http://www.monsanto.com

3. Pollan, Michael. “Playing God in the Garden: Fried, Mashed or Zapped with DNA.” New York Times Magazine Feb. 1998: 21-28.

4. Mokyr, Joel. The Lever of Riches. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

5. Pollan, Michael. The Potato. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2001.

6. Ozeki, Ruth L. My Year of Meats. New York: Viking Penguin, 1998.

7. “Genetically Modified Food.” Wikipedia. April 12, 2008 . Wikipedia. 13 Apr 2008

8. Kimbrell, Andrew. “Genetic Engineered Food.” Center for Food Safety. 1 Aug 2007. The Center for Food Safety. 13 Apr 2008
http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/geneticall7.cfm

9. Mansfield, Betty K. . “Genetically Modified Foods and Organisms.” Human Genome
Project Information. 24 Jul 2007. 13 Apr 2008

10. Pusztai, Arpad. “Genetically Modified Foods: Are They a Risk to Human/Animal Health?.” Actionbioscience. 1 Jun 2001. AIBS. 13 Apr 2008

11. Domingo, J.L. (2000) Health risks of genetically modified foods: Many opinions but few data. Science 288, 1748-1749.

Debate: Chickens fed GM feed means GM birds 27 Nov 2009

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:18:00 PM GMT

Debate: Chickens fed GM feed means GM birds 27 Nov 2009

An attack on poultry producer Inghams Enterprises could be based on a technicality with some scientific evidence indicating birds fed on genetically modified feed are not modified themselves, reports The National Business Review.

The Commerce Commission recently issued Inghams with a warming claiming it risked breaching the Fair Trading Act through false advertising. The company advertised its products as being GM-free, contained no GM ingredients, no added hormones or artificial colours. Inghams also stated that “Inghams GM policy is clear. Our poultry contains no GM content and are not genetically modified.”

The commission conducted an investigation into the company after media interest regarding its GM policy and its labelling raised concern after allegations of false advertising emerged most recently in June this year.

Inghams claimed its chickens were GM free even though its birds were eating feed mixed with 13% soy, reports state. The commission asked University of Canterbury professor of genetics and molecular biology Jack Heinemann to research whether chickens that have eaten GM feed could contain GM ingredients in their meat.

Prof Heinemann said; “The cumulative strength of the positive detection reviewed leaves me in no reasonable uncertainty that GM plant material can transfer to animals exposed to GM feed in their diets or environment, and that there can be residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM feed."

However, the New Zealand Food Safety Authority said international scientific consensus showed that animals that eat GM feed are themselves not genetically modified.

In New Zealand, food that has been modified, as in the DNA or the protein present in the final food (animal), or if the food has “altered characteristics as a result of the GM process” has to be labelled GM.

In Inghams case, the chickens themselves were not modified - only 13% of the feed was modified.

In an email to NBR, AgSearch scientist Jimmy Suttie said: “Professor Heinemann's use of English, as reported, is confusing. He says (effectively) there is a chance that the plant DNA may be transferred to animals and that this transfer could lead to residual differences… But in response, while it is undeniable that plant DNA is ingested by animals when they eat a feed, it is by no means certain that that DNA will be incorporated into the animal’s genome rather than being fully digested. For example, every time you eat a fresh tomato or lettuce, you consume plant DNA. This is digested by our bodies.”

Dr Suttie said just as consumed tomato DNA does not become a part of your DNA, chicken feed does not become part of a bird’s DNA.

“Even if any DNA were to be incorporated into the eaters genes, this would be as single constituents of DNA (nucleotides) rather than a piece of gene sequence. These constituents carry no genetic information, in themselves. In addition as the genetic code is conserved, then whether this DNA was from a GM or a non GM source is immaterial: the DNA itself is identical."

Suttie went on to say that any residual effect of that DNA being incorporated into the genome is very unlikely, and that the source of the DNA, GM or non-GM would not influence the chance of such incorporation.

“In the vanishing small chance that a residual effect of any DNA was found, the question of the relevance of that, in terms of food safety, is left hanging by Professor Heinemann. Even the professor uses the term 'can be' rather than a more definitive verb,” he added.

Dr Suttie said GM corn, soy and canola have been grown worldwide since 1996, and the products have been consumed safely by animals and humans alike.

Source: The National Business Review

EXCLUSIVE-China gives safety approval to GMO rice

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:15:48 PM GMT

EXCLUSIVE-China gives safety approval to GMO rice

Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:08am EST

* 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. (Editing by Michael Urquhart) ((niu.shuping@thomsonreuters.com; +86 10 6627-1210; Reuters Messaging: niu.shuping.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net)) ((If you have a query or comment on this story, send an email to news.feedback.asia@thomsonreuters.com)

Kenya: Gates Foundation and Monsanto to Develop Genetically Modified Seeds for Small Farmers

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:12:14 PM GMT

Kenya: Gates Foundation and Monsanto to Develop Genetically Modified Seeds for Small Farmers

Thursday, 26 November 2009

KARI is one of the main partners in a new programme funded by the Gates Foundation to develop genetically modified (GM), drought-resistant maize for small farmers in Africa. Monsanto has committed to providing the seeds without royalty payments. Rachel Keeler looks at the implications for the local and regional market.

Many of the emotionally charged headlines that drive Africa’s food security debate are intricately connected to the critical and complex Kenyan seed industry: Kenya is the second largest seed consumer in sub-Saharan Africa, and a key driver of agricultural research on the continent. For decades, donors and private interests have been funneling millions of dollars into the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), in an effort to develop new plant varieties that can repel pests, withstand disease and produce higher yields.

KARI is now one of the main partners in a new programme funded by the Gates Foundation that will attempt to develop genetically modified (GM) maize that can withstand drought. The plan is to distribute the seeds to small farmers in Kenya, Mozambique, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. The technology is coming from Monsanto, the American corporate seed giant that does a lot of work for the Gates Foundation in Africa. Normally Monsanto’s patented seeds come at a high price, which has inspired an endless stream of vitriol from activists who accuse the company of exploiting poor farmers for obscene profits. This time, farmers will receive the seeds royalty free – indefinitely – as part of Gates’ push for a “green revolution” in Africa.

But that has not stopped the critics from questioning the wisdom (and motives behind) introducing expensive farming technology to poor African countries. They also question the implications for human health and the environmental safety of GM food. Anytime you cross poverty, aid, science, and big business, the debates are bound to be endless, and indeed they have been (for a good overview, see recent articles in the Nation , and Economist ). But what is often missing amidst all the rhetoric is a basic look at how the markets might respond to these developments.

GM seeds are not yet legally available in East Africa. Regulations for Kenya’s Bio-Safety Act are still being developed. Nonetheless, Monsanto has been testing GM cotton with KARI for three years already, and plans to launch trials for GM corn next year. Kinyua M’Mbijjewe, the company’s corporate affairs director for Africa, says he expects legislation to be functional soon, and expects the commercial cotton and corn varieties to hit markets even before Gates’ drought resistance maize is ready – probably within the next five years.

Market Outlook
Is there a substantial demand for GM seeds in East Africa? Hugo Wood, chairman of the Cereal Growers Association (CGA) in Kenya, is convinced that GM would make life easier for both commercial and small scale farmers here. “GM is what we need,” he says. Most farmers are concerned about two things: high yields and the reduction of chemical usage. GM promises both. The Bt gene would help small-scale farmers enormously, Wood says, by reducing the amount of insecticide they have to buy. Other genes have been proven to boost yields, and Monsanto is working on developing seeds that require less fertilizer, which could reduce one of the highest input costs for small farmers.

“Farmers are ready to accept technology if it’s beneficial and available, and user friendly,” says Rogers Mugambi, head of sales and marketing at the East African Seed Company based in Nairobi. Good seeds are especially valuable to farmers because while seeds account for only about 10% of total production costs, they have a multiplier effect on eventual yields and therefore profits. “If it’s superior seed, we as farmers don’t mind paying more to Monsanto if we get more out of it,” says Wood. “But if it doesn’t benefit me, I won’t buy it again – I’ll go somewhere else. If farmers aren’t getting what they need, they won’t buy it next year.”

GM cotton and corn have already been successful in South Africa and Egypt. And Monsanto is projecting African markets for its products to grow as climate change, population growth and land and water scarcity increase food insecurity. Burkina Faso is the latest African country to jump into GM – small cotton farmers there are now planting thousands of hectares with insect resistant seeds. That’s important to note because unlike farmers in Egypt and South Africa, Burkinabe producers are much poorer than most East Africans. They can spend an entire year farming cotton to make just a few hundred dollars in profit.

“How we price our product takes cognizance of the farmer’s ability to pay,” M’Mbijjewe explains. The farmers in Burkina Faso are paying patent royalties, but not until after they harvest their crops. At that point, farmers take home at least 50% of the extra profits generated by higher yields driven by the GM technology. The rest is divided between seed distributers and Monsanto. M’Mbijjewe says a similar arrangement will be available to small farmers in East Africa.

Perspectives
A recent Reuters report on African agriculture cites Mariam Myatt of the Johannesburg-based African Centre for Biosafety, as saying: “If India's experience is anything to go by, a Green Revolution would leave Africa's farmers as dependent on banks and seed and fertilizer companies as they are now on seasonal rains.” Myatt makes a valid point, but still: which would farmers rather be reliant on? Farmers in East Africa are constantly complaining about a lack of access to credit, with which they would want to buy fertilizer and good seeds. That would lead to predictable production and profits, rather than the region-wide starvation caused when dependence on rain is interrupted by drought.

Monsanto is the largest seed seller in the world, and although they haven’t lately (due largely to competition from China), usually they make rather hefty profits. But the company also sells a product that many African farmers seem to want. And if the seeds they end up promoting in markets in Africa do not work well, there is nothing compelling farmers to buy them. Since the agricultural sector in East Africa was liberalized, Kenya especially has developed an active seed industry. Monsanto has competition here.

EA Seeds’ Mugambi also says a lot more research will have to be carried out to assure farmers that GM crops are safe and reliable, especially as they continue to see reticence in Europe where consumers and governments have yet to accept the safety of GM food. The company will also have to pick and choose the GM varieties it invests in. Farmers who sell vegetables to Europe will simply refuse to grow any modified crops. Promotion of GM cotton seeds will also face market challenges as the US continues to subsidize its cotton farmers and drive global cotton prices down despite multiple rulings against this by the WTO. But farmers who do want to compete with cash crops like cotton on international markets will want access to the same edge that their counterparts in West Africa and South Africa have.

Still, there are serious problems to consider with the Gates-Monsanto model. Farmers in East Africa retain the power of choice at the shop-front level, but they have very little say over the direction of agricultural research here. Farmers groups say they have not been consulted by researchers, and ask how they can attempt to retain bio-diversity and promote local knowledge in the face of Gates’ highly capitalized funding machine that has taken a keen interest in promoting the bio-technology solution.

While Gates has publicly acknowledged that GM technology is only a fraction of the solution to food insecurity in Africa, critics point out that 30% of his foundation’s grants in 2008 went to bio-tech funding, while 79% of the money spent in Kenya went to the same. When foreign philanthropists have such a large say over policy direction at high levels, it greatly limits the choices for consumers down the line, even if market distortions like this and the perverse consequences of aid are of course nothing new. This is all the more frustrating in a country like Kenya, where industry development depends on government action, and the government so often fails to act or be held accountable when it acts badly.

It is important to note that Monsanto has been accused, by multiple sources and respected research institutions, of limiting innovation in seed technology because it controls such a huge share of the global seed market. The Economist speculates that the company could be one of the next targets for anti-trust authorities at the US Department of Justice – an experience Bill Gates’ Microsoft is all too familiar with.

Opponents of GM crops are motivated by "emotion" not scientific reason

Sun 6 Dec 2009 10:04:33 PM GMT

Opponents of GM crops are motivated by "emotion" not scientific reason

Opponents of GM food are motivated by “emotion” and “ideology” rather than a “reasoned” scientific approach, according to a major report by a government funded quango.

By Andrew Pierce and John Bingham
Published: 5:37PM GMT 25 Nov 2009

The study, which states one of its aims as helping people to "change their views" on the technology, came on the day a major review was launched into the restrictions on GM crops.

In the 80-page report, commissioned by the Food Standards Agency, critics of GM were labelled often sceptical about science in general, relying on “emotive language” and "ideological" points to make their case which were often drawn from “popular press slogans”. But supporters were described as taking a more “pragmatic” line.

The language was interpreted by anti-GM campaigners as an attempt to try to downgrade the importance of the arguments against the so-called "Frankenstein foods". It is also likely to put ministers on a collision course with the Prince of Wales, who is an implacable opponent of the technology.

Only yesterday, presenting prizes at the BBC Radio 4 Food and Farming Awards, the Prince warned people were creating problems by “treating food as an easy commodity rather than a precious gift from nature”.

The Prince’s friends and supporters last night dismissed the research, entitled Exploring Attitudes to GM Food, as the first salvo in a taxpayer funded public relations offensive to try soften up opinion in favour of allowing more genetically-modified produce into the food chain.

Lord Melchett, a director of the Soil Association whose patron is the Prince of Wales, said: “The report is propaganda and a scandalous waste of public money.

"The views of the Prince of Wales have always been supported by the British consumer. There is nothing in this report that will change his mind nor should it.”

The report was based on the findings of a focus group of only 30 people of whom more than a third said at the outset that they thought that the disadvantages of GM technology outweighed the benefits.

The report said: “Research has found that perceived lack of knowledge about the subject area causes the majority of people in a survey situation to give an emotional or affective response to the idea of GM food rather than a reasoned or thought out position.”

Last year the Prince of Wales, in an interview with The Daily Telegraph, warned the expansion of GM crops risked “absolute disaster’’. He accused chemical firms of conducting a “gigantic experiment with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong. Why else are we facing all these challenges, climate change and everything?’’.

Lord Melchett said: “The Prince was not giving an emotional response it was a factual one based on evidence which shows that GM crops use more pesticides, which is bad for consumers, and cause prices of seed to rise which is bad for farmers.

“We remember many scientists telling us we were wrong to ban the feeding of cattle brains to other cattle because at one time there was no scientific evidence this caused any problems. What is happening with GM food should scare the pants off British people.”

Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary, appeared to signal support for GM crops in August when he launched a new food strategy document which showed prices had risen by 20 per cent between 1987 and 2006. A recent poll showed only 17 per cent were in favour of GM food.

Mr Benn said: “If GM can make a contribution, then we have a choice as a society and as a world about whether to make use of that technology and an increasing number of countries are growing GM products.”

There is only one GM trial ongoing in Britain – in Cambridgeshire – and no plans to license any more. Some 54 have been conducted since they were approved in 2000.

Clare Oxborrow, Friends of the Earth’s senior food campaigner, said: “GM crops don’t feed the world – but they do make massive profits for the big businesses that sell patented seeds and the chemicals needed to grow them.”

Dr Julian Little, chairman of the Agricultural Biotechnology Council, said the research demonstrated that the lack of knowledge and awareness about the technology had to be addressed.

“Consumers are right to demand high quality, safe food that has been vigorously tested and should be reassured that GM crops undergo the most rigorous testing and scrutiny in the world,” he said.

“In the last decade alone, more than two trillion meals containing GM ingredients have been consumed, without a single substantiated example of harm to health.”

Last night, A Defra spokesperson said: “Defra recognises that GM crops could offer potential benefits over the longer term. But it is just one possible tool that might be employed to tackle the challenges of food security.

“The safety of people and the environment is our top priority, and decisions need to be based on scientific evidence.

“To meet global needs there will have to be improvements in all aspects of agricultural production, including bigger yields from conventional crops, better sharing and use of existing knowledge, and reductions in post-harvest losses. The UK supports the existing EU controls which require a robust case-by-case safety assessment.”

New Report Proves that GM Crops Increase Pesticide Use and Resistant Weeds

Wed 25 Nov 2009 6:10:25 PM GMT

Watch What You Eat: New Report Proves that Genetically Modified Crops Increase Pesticide Use and Resistant Weeds

Submitted by MargaretS on Wed, 11/18/2009 - 4:45pm.

Green Is Good

GREEN IS GOOD
by Margaret Smith

It's safe to say that one of the biggest annoyances for most farmers has to be weeds. Weeding their crops can be like an old school Looney Tunes cartoon. Just picture it: a farmer is working diligently in the field (with cute classical music in the background, of course). Suddenly, he sees a weed in the middle of his crop. He walks up to it, braces himself, grabs the weed and pulls. Nothing moves. He pulls again, only a little harder this time. Nothing moves. Finally, he grabs that weed and pulls it with all his might, getting red in the face. Nothing moves, and he ends up just falling backwards, like a fool, to the sound of drums crashing.

It's funny, right?

It's also turning out to be all too true. A recent report released by The Organic Center, the Union for Concerned Scientists and the Center for Food Safety found that the widespread use of genetically modified (GM) crops has led to a sharp increase in the use of agricultural chemicals in the U.S., created herbicide-resistant "super weeds" and increased the amount of chemical residues in food.

In the past few years, the agricultural world has seen a growing number of GM crops like corn, soybeans and cotton that are engineered to resist weed-killing herbicides. The effect on food and crops has been hotly debated, but no definite answer could be found before because most of the information from government organizations like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is over two decades old, and many chemical fertilizers are newer than that.

The new report, entitled "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Life in the United States: The First Thirteen Years", found that as GM crops have become more popular, the use of herbicides has increased as well, with herbicide use growing by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008. Forty-six percent of that increase occurred during 2007 and 2008.

On the plus side, the report did find that insecticide use has decreased by 64 million pounds since 1996, since most GM crops carry traits that ward off insects. As farmers become increasingly critical of GM crops and reports continue to be released on the potential health defects those crops can have on consumers, this information could not have come at a better time. The increased use of GM crops and the prevalence of "super weeds" have created this culture that, according to science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety Bill Freese, "may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it's bad news for farmers, human health and the environment."

One of the biggest issues is cost. The price of GM crop seeds has drastically increased in the past couple of years, and cash production costs have risen as well due to the need to create new applications to fight off herbicide-resistant weeds. The Center for Food Safety reports that:

As an example, corn farmers planting “SmartStax” hybrids in 2010 will spend around $124 per acre for seed, almost three times the cost of conventional corn seed. In addition, new-generation “Roundup Ready” (RR) 2 soybean seed, to be introduced on a widespread basis next year, will cost 42 percent more than the original RR seeds they are displacing.

One of the main culprits in GM crops is agricultural company Monsanto and their "Roundup" herbicide. "Roundup" is just another name for the herbicide glyphosate, the dangers of which are hotly debated in the environmental and health world. A study released by an Argentine scientist earlier this year, found that glyphosate can cause birth defects, and these can occur at much lower doses than those commonly used in crop fields. Glyphosate is still the top selling herbicide in the world, however.

That doesn't mean that Monsanto's reputation isn't tainted. Even Dr. Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center and author of "Impacts of Genetically Engineered Crops on Pesticide Life in the United States: The first Thirteen Years", said that the company is largely to blame.

"The drastic increase in pesticide use with genetically engineered crops is due primarily to the rapid emergence of weeds resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto's Roundup herbicide," Benbrook said in a statement. "With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise."

And the hardest part may be that farmers no longer have the option of going back. When GM crops came out, their impact was huge. As the report notes, one North Carolinian even said that this was "the greatest thing in agriculture in my lifetime." It is only recently that many farmers and scientists have begun to see their impact. Relying on these genetically engineered crops has created more problems, and in the end, farmers may be forced to rely on them in order to kill the "super weeds" that those herbicides create time and time again.

GREEN IS GOOD

Chickens fed GM feed do not produce GM meat, scientist says

Wed 25 Nov 2009 6:08:10 PM GMT

Chickens fed GM feed do not produce GM meat, scientist says

Kelly Gregor | Tuesday November 24 2009 - 12:04pm

A very public attack on poultry producer Inghams Enterprises could all be based on a technicality with some scientific evidence indicating birds fed on genetically manipulated feed are not modified themselves.

Last week, the Commerce Commission issued Inghams with a warmingclaiming it risked breaching the Fair Trading Act through false advertising.

Inghams advertised its products were GM free, contained no GM ingredients, no added hormones or artificial colours. The company also stated on its websites that “Inghams GM policy is clear. Our poultry contains no GM content and are not genetically modified.”

Inghams claimed its chickens were GM free even though its birds were eating feed mixed with 13% soy. The commission asked University of Canterbury professor of genetics and molecular biology Jack Heinemann to research whether chickens that have eaten GM feed could contain GM ingredients in their meat.

But the New Zealand Food Safety Authority said international scientific consensus showed that animals that eat GM feed are themselves not genetically modified.

But in Inghams case, the chickens themselves were not modified. Only 13% of the feed was modified, which was done to fight off Round Up resistance.

In an email to NBR, AgSearch scientist Jimmy Suttie said: “Professor Heinemann's use of English, as reported, is confusing. He says (effectively) there is a chance that the plant DNA may be transferred to animals and that this transfer could lead to residual differences.

“But in response, while it is undeniable that plant DNA is ingested by animals when they eat a feed, it is by no means certain that that DNA will be incorporated into the animal’s genome rather than being fully digested. For example, every time you eat a fresh tomato or lettuce, you consume plant DNA. This is digested by our bodies.”

Dr Suttie said just as consumed tomato DNA does not become a part of your DNA, chicken feed does not become part of a bird’s DNA.

“Even if any DNA were to be incorporated into the eaters genes, this would be as single constituents of DNA (nucleotides) rather than a piece of gene sequence.

"These constituents carry no genetic information, in themselves. In addition as the genetic code is conserved, then whether this DNA was from a GM or a non GM source is immaterial: the DNA itself is identical.

"Any residual effect of that DNA being incorporated into the genome is very unlikely, and the source of the DNA, GM or non GM would not influence the chance of such incorporation.

“In the vanishing small chance that a residual effect of any DNA was found,
the question of the relevance of that, in terms of food safety, is left hanging by Professor Heinemann. Even the professor uses the term 'can be' rather than a more definitive verb.”

Dr Suttie said GM corn, soy and canola have been grown worldwide since 1996, and the products have been consumed safely by animals and humans alike.

'Right to know' on GM canola

Wed 25 Nov 2009 6:04:25 PM GMT

'Right to know' on GM canola

November 23, 2009

CONSUMERS have a right to know what products on supermarket shelves contain genetically modified canola oil, say environmentalists.

In a series of submissions to a national review on food labelling - to be made public this week - a wide group of environmentalists say the packaging of food containing GM canola oil should clearly say so.

The director of the Institute of Health and Environmental Research, Judy Carman, said consumers have no way of identifying a number of products in households containing GM canola oil. GM canola is grown in NSW and Victoria and is used in oil form in food including margarine, biscuits, and other snack foods.

Under the national standards for GM labelling, established in 2001, GM canola oil does not need to be identified.

Dr Carman, a former senior epidemiologist for the South Australian Government, said some livestock were fed genetically modified grains, which recent scientific evidence showed was later showing up in small traces in meat products not labelled as containing GM products.

A Victorian group, Gene Ethics, said health and safety must be at the forefront of food labelling.

Tom Arup

France Finds Monsanto Guilty of Lying

Wed 25 Nov 2009 6:00:40 PM GMT

France's highest court has ruled that U.S. agrochemical giant Monsanto had not told the truth about the safety of its best-selling weed-killer, Roundup. The court confirmed an earlier judgment that Monsanto had falsely advertised its herbicide as "biodegradable" and claimed it "left the soil clean." Roundup is the world's best-selling herbicide.

French environmental groups had brought the case in 2001 on the basis that glyphosate, Roundup's main ingredient, is classed as "dangerous for the environment" by the European Union.

In the latest ruling, France's Supreme Court upheld two earlier convictions against Monsanto by the Lyon criminal court in 2007, and the Lyon court of appeal in 2008, the AFP news agency reports.

Monsanto already dominates America’s food chain with its genetically modified seeds. Now it has targeted milk production. Just as frightening as the corporation’s tactics, including ruthless legal battles against small farmers, is its decades-long history of toxic contamination.

Report claims farm chemical use has soared because of GM crops

Wed 25 Nov 2009 5:53:43 PM GMT

Report claims farm chemical use has soared because of GM crops

Friday, 20/11/2009

A report from an organic organisation in the United States says the use of chemicals like pesticide and herbicide has soared because of genetically modified crops.

The Organic Centre says in the past 13 years, an additional 174 million kilograms of chemicals were used.

The report has been criticised by the biotechnology industry, with an evaluation from the United Kingdom saying the report is inaccurate, misleading and fails to acknowledge many factors.

Organic Centre managing director Steve Hoffman dismisses the criticism, saying the information is accurate.

"A lot of the research in this regard is actually suppressed, so we feel it's very important to present research that shows a balanced aspect," he says.

Inghams warned over GM-free claims

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:42:22 PM GMT

The Commerce Commission has warned poultry producer Inghams Enterprises it risked breaching the Fair Trading Act with claims that its chickens contained no genetically modified (GM) ingredients.

The commission said today it had completed an investigation into allegations that claims made in consumer and trade magazines and on television between January 2008 and June 2009 were false or misleading under the Fair Trading Act.

In the advertising, Inghams stated that its chicken products contained "No ... GM ingredients" and "have no added hormones, GM ingredients or artificial colours" when the chickens had been fed soya feed which comprised 13 per cent genetically modified soy.

It stopped the advertising while the commission investigated.

The commission engaged Jack Heinemann, professor of genetics and molecular biology at Canterbury University, to investigate whether animals exposed to feed containing genetically modified material in fact contain "no GM ingredients".

Prof Heinemann said his review showed there could be a residual difference in animals or animal-products as a result of exposure to GM feed.

Can GM rice fill the world's shortfall?

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:35:06 PM GMT

Can GM rice fill the world's shortfall?

MATT CAWOOD

17 Nov, 2009 03:30 PM

Genetically modified (GM) crops are not the only answer to Asia’s looming food deficit, but multinational crop technology company Syngenta argues that they must be part of the mix.

Syngenta made the case for GM technology to journalists in Bangkok two weeks ago, as part of a broader effort to open Asian government doors that have so far remained closed to genetically modified food crops.

Among the Asian nations, only India and China and The Philippines have embraced the technology, with India planting around 7.6 million hectares of cotton in 2009.

The Philippines is the only Asian country to date to introduce a GM grain crop, planting about 400,000ha of maize in 2008.

Syngenta believes it is time for the barriers against GM to come down, so that biotechnology companies can confidently invest in GM research ahead of the looming food crisis.

“Given the projected increase in population and with less land and water available, we will need all available agricultural technologies, including biotechnology, to meet the current and projected global demand for food, feed, fiber, and biofuels,” said Peter Pickering, Syngenta’s head of seeds for the Asia Pacific.

“GM is not the only solution, but it is an extremely powerful one.”

In Asia, the urgency to grow more food from less land and water makes it likely that GM rice will be eventually grown on a broad scale.

The influential International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has thrown its weight behind the GM rice push, running its own GM research programs and collaborations with private companies.

IRRI expects that the first GM rice, the famous “Golden Rice” engineered to synthesise Vitamin A, could be grown in Bangladesh and the Philippines by 2012.

Vitamin A deficiency is reported to affect about 124 million people in Africa and Asia. It is estimated to cause about one million deaths a year and 500,000 cases of blindness.

Golden Rice carries genes from the daffodil and a soil bacteria which allow it to synthesise beta-carotene, an inactive organic form of Vitamin A. Rice can synthesise beta-carotene in its leaves, but the modification carries that ability through to the rice grain.

Syngenta donated several of its patented technologies to the Golden Rice project for humanitarian purposes, with other biotech companies also making contributions—gestures that have done little to mollify Greenpeace’s concerns that Golden Rice is a Trojan Horse being used to soften resistance to GM.

Outside Golden Rice, production traits like water and nitrogen use efficiency, and tolerance to salinity and flooding, are early targets of GM rice research.

Syngenta is not working on specific rice products, Mr Pickering said, but rather on understanding general traits that protect plants from stress.

“Our early stage research into drought resistance may result in traits that could be utilised in rice,” he said.

“Syngenta also has input trait technology such as herbicide and insect resistance which could also be incorporated.”

Improving yield, an all-important outcome if the goal of “more from less” is to be met, is in Mr Pickering’s analysis not simply about increasing grain number or volume but helping the seed to “deliver its genetic potential”.

“We believe that global rice yields could be increased from the current average of around four tonnes per hectare to around six tonnes/ha, using existing technology,” Mr Pickering said.

At Syngenta’s Philippines research facility, yields have sometimes reached four times the global average using existing technology and management.

“This emphasises the point that the key to improving productivity lies in the adoption of existing and new technology, and that biotechnology forms just one part of the complete farmer toolbox.”

IRRI Media Relations manager Sophie Clayton told the Bangkok media workshop that transforming rice from a relatively inefficient C3 plant to a more water efficient, nitrogen efficient C4 plants is also on the IRRI research agenda.

Meanwhile, there are other low-hanging fruit in the quest to deliver an extra 8-10 million tonnes of rice to Asia each year, Ms Clayton said.

Post-harvest losses from inefficient threshing, storage and milling currently accounts for up to 25 per cent physical losses between farm and rice consumer—offering a substantial boost to Asia’s food supply if those losses can be recaptured.

* Matthew Cawood was a guest of Syngenta in Bangkok.

GM’s renegade genes: Ecological costs of a GM plant are higher than benefits

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:30:59 PM GMT

Hungry for answers to the global food shortage

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:26:16 PM GMT

Hungry for answers to the global food shortage

November 15, 2009

David Olive

YANIK CHAUVIN/SHUTTERSTOCK

Every six seconds a child on this planet dies of hunger.

We've had industrial revolutions in the west and more recently in China and South Asia; budding revolutions in "superjumbo" aircraft and plug-in electric cars; and Seinfeld episodes that can be downloaded onto cellphones worldwide.

Yet we remain trapped in some previous century in that most basic of necessities; keeping the world population fed. Remarkably, the facts today point to yet another global food shortage just a few years after the food crisis of 2007-08, which ended only when the Great Recession curbed a debilitating upward spiral in prices of basic staples like rice, corn and wheat worldwide. As the world economy recovers, the prospect of another global food crisis looms large.

The determining factors in famine are mostly man-made. They include civil war and political instability in many, if not most undernourished regions. Protectionism in affluent nations that removes the incentive for developing-world farmers to enhance crop yields in the hope of earning export revenue. A sharp decline in affluent-world donations of agricultural assistance to underfed countries. A growing scourge of crop failure related to global warming. And a ferocious debate between advocates of natural farming methods and those arguing for a new agricultural revolution based on genetically modified (GM) crops.

"We have the economic and technical means to make hunger disappear," said Jacques Diouf, director-general of the U.N. Food and Agricultural Organization last month, in releasing a report showing that the number of people suffering from hunger crossed the one-billion threshold for the first time, in 2008 – a 10 per cent increase in global hunger in just one year.

In a report released last week, UNICEF found that nearly 200 million children in poor nations have stunted growth resulting from malnutrition.

"Eradicating hunger is no pipe dream," said Diouf, citing progress in nations such as Brazil, Vietnam, Nigeria, Mexico and Saudi Arabia that have all invested heavily in small-scale farming. Indeed, 31 nations have met or are well down the path to meeting the goal set by world leaders in 2000 to reduce by half the planet's number of hungry people by 2015.

"What is missing is a stronger political will to eradicate hunger forever," said Diouf. He notes that 13 nations have seen their hunger levels increase, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi, Eritrea, Sierra Leone, Chad and Ethiopia.

As if to prove Diouf's point, U.S. President Barack Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy are among the rich-nation heads of state who won't be attending the FAO's three-day World Summit on Food Security in Rome that begins tomorrow. About 60 heads of state will be there, as will Pope Benedict XVI.

World food output must ramp up by 70 per cent over the next four decades to feed the estimated 2.3 billion more people on the planet by 2050 – or a total global population of 9.1 billion. Achieving that goal will cost an estimated $44 billion (U.S.) a year in annual agricultural assistance, compared with the $7.9 billion spent now.

That money is needed for more and better irrigation systems, state-of-the-art machinery, training for farmers, new and upgraded road networks to get food to market, disease-resistant seeds and fertilizer. The soaring cost of fertilizer in recent years has put it out of reach of subsistence farmers. And the increased use of biofuels has driven up the cost of other food staples, as corn and grains are redeployed from food to energy production, putting these food basics beyond the reach of subsistence-income households.

Climate change is another cause for urgency. Higher temperatures reduce crop yields while spurring a proliferation of pests and plant diseases.

Last month, the International Food and Policy Research Institute calculated that lower crop yields due to global warming will reduce worldwide "calorie availability" 7 per cent by 2050. And that an especially vulnerable South Asia will suffer the biggest drop in crop yields, with rice output falling 14 per cent in the region due to global warming alone.

China has used hybrid rice to boost crop yields from two tonnes per hectare in the 1960s to more than 10 tonnes in 2004. And Chinese scientists are aiming for 13.5 tonnes by 2015.

But modified crops and leading-edge pesticides and fertilizers are a flashpoint for conflict among anti-hunger advocates.

"Chemicals destroy the sustainability of productivity in the long run," insists P.C. Kesvan, a fellow at the M.S. Swaminathan Research Institute in India.

But other Indian economists and scientists are clamouring for genetic engineering, saying GM is no different from traditional plant hybridization save that it's faster and more efficiant.

India so far allows GM seeds only in cotton production, not for edible crops.

"Genetically modified foods are just another set of tools in the tool box, but we need to be able to use those tools," Tomas Lumpkin, director of the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre in Mexico told Reuters last week.

"If we could deploy those (GM crop) varieties so that the farmer in the developing world has the same powerful seed as the farmer in Iowa," Lumpkin said, "why should they be handicapped?"

Another food crisis appears to be inevitable absent a holistic solution.

There must be a "two-track" approach of rich nations providing both emergency food aid and long-term assistance, with agricultural self-sufficiency as the goal. (Some NGOs worry that the affluent world's renewed emphasis on the latter will come at the expense of the former.)

The safety of GM crops must be established once and for all, so that we can move on from a debate that hinders the urgent progress needed. Private-sector donors must become more involved.

The donation last month of $120 million to small-scale farmers in the developing world by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an example for others to follow.

Finally, protectionist affluent nations must open their markets to crop imports from poor countries – a far more effective means of narrowing the income gap between nations than foreign aid. And the most powerful nations must use their influence, through the U.N. and other multilateral bodies, to end the civil, tribal and ethnic wars that disrupt food production in so many of the world's malnourished populations.

The fact that war zones and crop cultivation don't mix is obvious. Yet the starvation in Darfur continues, amid a Sudanese civil war of more than 20 years' duration. Again, a multilateral means of intervening in these crises must be found.

Diouf began a 24-hour personal fast Friday morning. He can be found on YouTube in a video in which he counts to six. When Diouf reaches the count of six, another Ethiopian, Liberian or Bangladeshi child will have died of starvation.

Nigeria: 'U.S. Suit Confirms GM Rice Contamination in The Country'

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:20:56 PM GMT

Nigeria: 'U.S. Suit Confirms GM Rice Contamination in The Country'

Nasir Imam With Agency Report

12 November 2009

Abuja — The legal action instituted against Bayer CropScience AG by farmers in the United States for allegedly contaminating their farms with Genetically Modified (GM) rice seeds in 2006 is a further confirmation of the validity of tests carried out on rice samples collected by the Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) in Nigeria and other West African countries within the same period which showed contamination.

A statement from ERA/FoEN, signed by its Media Officer, Philip Jakpor, said more than 1,000 farmers from Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri, have sued Bayer AG, based in Leverkusen, Germany, in a case filed with U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry who is guiding both sides in talks over out-of-court settlements.

Lawyer for Bayer and attorneys representing Missouri farmers made opening statements on November 4 to a nine-person jury while a second such trial is to start in January, involving farmers from Arkansas and Mississippi claiming that the export market for their crops was curtailed when the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 announced that trace amounts of Bayer's GM rice had been found in U.S. long-grain stocks.

Reacting to the development, ERA/FoEN said the US litigation showed the extent the biotechnology industry and its allies will go to "undermine food supplies" to unsuspecting consumers especially in Africa where there are weak biosafety laws.

"While we hail the suits, it is extremely disheartening that these startling revelations have not compelled the Nigerian government to acknowledge the result of the Nigerian tests or put in place effective legal, administrative and infrastructural framework to check the illegal dumping of unwholesome foods in the country," said ERA/FoEN Executive Director, Nnimmo Bassey.

Bassey noted that the unauthorized distribution of GMO seeds in any guise voids the precautionary principle and that the biotech industry and transnational agribusinesses have over the years pushed GMO to Africa in the guise of food aid while hiding under the cover of the World Food Programme (WFP) funded majorly by the US.

Australia to trial genetically modified sugar cane

Wed 25 Nov 2009 4:06:58 PM GMT

Australia to trial genetically modified sugar cane

www.chinaview.cn 2009-11-13 13:24:28

CANBERRA, Nov. 13 (Xinhua) -- A research body on Friday backed plans to trial genetically modified sugar cane in Australia.

The Bureau of Sugar Experiment Stations (BSES) said the trials will ensure the Australian sugar industry can retain its competitive position.

Multinational science-based products and services company DuPont has been granted approval to conduct small field trials of genetically modified sugar cane varieties in Queensland.

The trials will be conducted in partnership with BSES and are expected to cost around 25 million Australian dollars (23.1 million U.S. dollars) over the next five years.

"Comprehensive research has found that by accessing biotechnology first, the Australian sugarcane industry can retain its competitive position and build a lead role in the commercialization of biotechnology in the global sugarcane industry," BSES Chair Paul Wright said.

Australia produces more than 30 million tonnes of sugar cane every year of which 85 percent is exported.

"another attempt to persuade a resistant British public to consume genetically modified food."

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:42:20 PM GMT

Unlocking the English countryside

The South Downs have become a national park, writes Geoffrey Lean.

By Geoffrey Lean
Published: 5:33PM GMT 13 Nov 2009

Comments 6 | Comment on this article

It passed almost unnoticed, but Thursday was the best day in decades for the tens of millions who love to get out into beautiful countryside. A Bill to open up a path around the whole of England's coastline passed into law, and Britain's 16th national park was formally established after a 60-year delay.

We all like to be beside the seaside – three quarters of us visit the coast at least once a year – but until now we have only been allowed to go to about half of it in England. (Scotland has long had a legal right of access.) The Marine and Coastal Access Act will put this right. And, since Wales is also creating a coastal path, it will eventually be possible to walk round Great Britain's 9,040-mile coastline.

The South Downs were left out when the national parks were established after the Second World War, taken off the proposed list because they were thought to have been too extensively ploughed. There are some 113,000 national parks and protected areas around the world, almost all areas of magnificent, uninhabited wilderness. Britain – where so little land is really wild – has done something different and more difficult, creating parks in beautiful farmed landscapes.

On Monday, I dined with the US government member responsible for national parks, and agreed with him about their breathtaking grandeur. But, as we spoke of the Rockies, I kept thinking that I prefer the tamed beauty of the Yorkshire Dales.

Will our views on GM food be 'modified’?

Stand by for yet another attempt to persuade a resistant British public to consume genetically modified food. The Food Standards Agency – the same quango that constantly condemns the organic produce that people really do want – is about to organise, at ministers’ request, a “dialogue project” to see how consumers “can be helped to make informed choices about the food they eat”.

Tomorrow, the agency will announce the members of a steering group for the dialogue, which it says will “include stakeholders… with different views of GM”. In fact, it seems that only two of the 11 to be named are known to oppose the technology.

It brings back memories of the last time the Government tried this tactic, six years ago. Again, it held a public “debate”, whose purpose – one senior official told me – was to “dispel the myths” put about by “extremists in environmental groups”.

The exercise sought to overturn public opinion that was running at three-to-one against GM, in preparation for starting planting modified crops in Britain. But by the time it had finished, opposition among those who participated had soared to 90 per cent, with the uncommitted becoming increasingly hostile the more they learned about GM.

Many of those who took part ended up seeing the debate as “window dressing used to cover secret decisions to go ahead with GM crop development”.

That could not possibly be what is happening this time. Could it?

Experts urge for GM-free Karnataka

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:35:05 PM GMT

Experts urge for GM-free Karnataka
BS Reporter / Chennai/ Mysore November 12, 2009, 0:41 IST

“We do not want GM (genetically modified) crops which can prove apocalyptic for mankind. Let us say never to Bt-brinjal”. The declaration, along with the demand that state government declare Karnataka GM-free, was made at a state-level conference on genetic engineering, farming and food in Mysore on Saturday.

The conference, jointly held by the Institution of Engineers, Mysore Local Centre, Mysore Grahaka Parishat and Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, wherein experts placed views for and against genetic engineering (GE). They also demanded that the GEAC recommendations be ignored and sustainable agriculture encouraged. Even if Bt-brinjal or cotton is commercially viable, its use should be governed by the commercial acceptability of the technology by the farmer. At this juncture, therefore, introduction of Bt-brinjal is neither desirable nor necessary for the farmer.

However, it supported further independent research on GE and whether it is needed to meet the food needs of the increasing population of the world, until it comes out with a fool proof technologyôproducts acceptable to the farmer.

Till then the seminar called upon the government and its approval agencies to adopt stringent measures in evaluating/assessing the claims and the safety of the GE products to the consumer and the environment. In his keynote address, Michel Pimbert, director of the Sustainable Agriculture Biodiversity and Livelihoods Programme, International Institute for Environment and Development, UK, said genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are increasingly being rejected across the world and evidence for this comes from countries as diverse as Switzerland and the UK as well as Zambia. For India, it was a critical juncture as genetically engineered Bt-brinjal is to be introduced into the market following the field trials.

He countered the claims of the corporate power, chiefly 10 global firms, that GE is the solution to the food crisis and climate change. MGP president S G Vombatkere said everyone should start thinking of GE and its impact.

Countering the arguments, T M Manjunath, consultant, Agri-Biotechnology and Integrated Pest Management, claimed that the global area under GE crops since 1996 had risen in 2008 to 124 million hectares in 25 countries, comprising of 15 developing and 10 industrial countries.

In India, the Bt-cotton area was about 29,000 ha in 2002. and had expanded in 2008 to 7.6 m ha in nine cotton growing states, representing about 82 per cent of the total cotton area, average yield increasing from 308 kg/ha in 2001-02 to 560 kg/ha in 2007-08, turning India from an importer to a net exporter.

“So far biotech crops have not caused any scientifically-proven ill effects on humans, animals and environment. GE is a remarkable manmade technology with 14 years of research and field trials behind it. It has opened floodgates of opportunities,” he claimed.

Lead petitioner in PIL against GM foods in Supreme Court Aruna Rodrigues demanded that the release of Bt-brinjal be stopped. Describing the promises of biotechnology in agriculture as hollow, DDS director P V Satheesh remarked, “We feel the thick blanket of half truths wrap the secrets of the success stories of GE.”

EU meeting on Syngenta GM maize ends in deadlock

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:32:47 PM GMT

EU meeting on Syngenta GM maize ends in deadlock

Fri Nov 13, 2009 10:05am EST

BRUSSELS, Nov 13 (Reuters) - EU ambassadors failed to approve a genetically-modified maize made by Swiss firm Syngenta (SYNN.VX: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) in talks on Friday, meaning the application will now be sent to EU ministers for a decision next week.

"There is no qualified majority either in favour or against, so it will go straight to Council next week," an EU official said after the talks.

Animal feed importers say approval of the GMO maize type MIR604 is crucial for the resumption of imports of soybean and soymeal needed by livestock farmers. [ID:nN02455482]

Genetically modified food is a sensitive issue in many EU countries and has become a point of diplomatic tension.

This summer, over 200,000 tonnes of soybean and soymeal were refused entry to EU ports, largely in Spain, because they contained small amounts of GMO corn (maize) varieties not approved in Europe. (Reporting by Bate Felix; Editing by Keiron Henderson)

Households for peace and wellness: Work for a GMO-free zone

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:24:28 PM GMT

Households for peace and wellness: Work for a GMO-free zone

Nov 11 2009, 4:34 PM · UPDATED

BY LINDA C. REDMAN

For the Auburn Reporter

Did you know that more than 60 percent of the food in a supermarket in this country contains cancer-causing genetically engineered ingredients masquerading as “food.”

If these products – corn, soy, sugar, cotton/cottonseed oil, canola oil and papaya—are not labeled “organic,” then they are probably genetically engineered. Pay attention and try to buy these as real foods with the “organic” label. A food cannot be labeled organic if it contains “Genetically Modified Organisms,” or GMOs. Really, it is safest to only eat organic food and medicine these days as a primary form of health insurance.

GMOs have been called “frankenfoods” because scientist have put genes from insect-repelling bacteria into corn and insecticide-tolerant genes into soy. The soy can then be sprayed with extra amounts of roundup a toxic chemical. So it is not great for the environment either.

GMOs have been shown to promote abnormal cell growth in intestines, cause allergic reactions, and severely stunt the growth of second-generation rats – to name only a few of the adverse effects.

Pictures on pages 22 and 48 of the book, “Genetic Roulette”, by Jeffrey M. Smith, available at the Auburn Library and the Auburn School District Superintendent’s office show the abnormal cell growth and the stunted growth. These pictures were released to the public through the media in Europe after public hearings. And that is what caused Europe to mostly ban these ingredients from its food supplies.

Smith has a Web site, www.responsibletechnology.org, YouTube video speeches.

Also, many manufactured medicines, including some that appear to be “natural”, can have hidden, genetically-engineered ingredients that have severely disabled and even killed many people. Try to get these “GMO-free.”

Cows, geese and deer have been observed completely avoiding GMO versions of a food to eat the non-GMO version nearby.

If only 5 percent of consumers consciously avoid dangerous genetically-engineered ingredients, it is viewed as a “trend” and “industry” adjusts quickly to meet our desires. This is how small numbers of informed shoppers can lead our food industry towards healthier products for all our neighbors.

If you would like to see Auburn become a GMO-free zone, please let the City Council know your opinion on this. Let anyone running for public office know your opinion on this, and vote for the ones who you feel will represent you. You also can write me if you want my vote on this issue.

If you are currently having any digestive distress, you can get a good food allergy test to see what foods you might need to rotate or avoid at Meridian Valley Lab in Renton. You can walk in anytime without a doctor’s order, and it costs about $137. A company named “Spud!” will deliver regionally-produced organic groceries to your door for no extra delivery cost. Their number is 1-877-632-3424.

Eco-village, South King County ‘meet-up’

Persons interested in meeting who like the idea of learning more about the concept and possibly being involved in creating an ecological village in the South King County region are invited to meet next to the play area of Les Gove Park, 11th and Auburn Way South, on the first and third Sundays at 3 p.m.

Auburn resident Linda C. Redman holds a B.A. in Peace and Global Studies from Earlham College. She offers affordable Wellness and Win/Win Conflict Resolution Services. For appointments call 253-486-8088. Her Web site is: www.eco-peacevision.us

Nigeria: 'U.S. Suit Confirms GM Rice Contamination in The Country'

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:22:18 PM GMT

Nigeria: 'U.S. Suit Confirms GM Rice Contamination in The Country'

Nasir Imam With Agency Report

12 November 2009

AllAfrica - All the Time

GM traces prompts bread recall in Denmark

Mon 16 Nov 2009 5:17:44 PM GMT

GM traces prompts bread recall in Denmark

LUCY KNIGHT, JUST BACK FROM DENMARK

16 Nov, 2009 03:30 AM

THE removal of several bread labels from supermarket shelves in Denmark this week due to traces of genetically modified grains has not shifted the mood of the country's government to push ahead with research into the highly controversial crops.

The country's Minister for Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Eva Kjer Hansen, says she believes there could be a place for the crops in Europe to help address broader concerns about food security, pesticide use and drought tolerant crops.

But Mrs Kjer Hansen's comment coincide with the removal of certain bread lines from stores across the country due to traces of GM ingredients, believed to have been sourced from Canada.

All GM ingredients are banned in Europe, although the regulatory authority behind the bread's removal did also advise there were no known health concerns associated with the bread in question.

In an interview with Rural Press this week, Mrs Kjer Hansen said more needed to be done to address the food needs of the growing number of people in the world.

She said she says she sees some opportunities in GM plants but there was a heavy debate on their use in Denmark and whether the country should be opened up to GM.

"We have people starving when we look around the world today. We know that we have a growing population, which means that we need even more food production than we have today," Mrs Kjer Hansen said.

"We need to have farming and food production going hand in hand with climate efforts and nature.

"I believe that we still have some research to do on GM, and there is a lack of development in some GM plants.

"But we've just done a report on this in my ministry and what we can see is that there is a potential and some possibilities, especially in the areas of droughts and reducing the use of pesticides."

Mrs Kjer Hansen said the Danish public should be open to the possible ways GM could help growing food and environmental needs.

"I think we have to look at what the possibilities are and then we can always argue about whether we then want to use them or not."

Danish Food and Agriculture Council chairman, Michael Brockenhuus-Schack, spoke of the huge conflict between the anti-GM sentiment across Europe and the need for farmers to be more efficient and productive to survive.

He said the debate surrounding GM crops was huge in Denmark, both in society and politically within the national Government and the European Commission.

"There's a lot of public concern about this and you would probably need more public discussions to have consumers feel more confident before you could very strongly market GM crops in Denmark or in Europe," Mr Brockenhuus-Schack said.

"But here in Denmark we have a minister that has been very much in favour of GM, and we have very good legislation and are one of the first countries to allow co-existence.

"This addresses how GM crops can be implemented alongside ecological and non-GM crops.

"We also have a special education program – we call it the GM drivers licence – so that you can actually grow these crops.

"So that framework is already in place, but the public concern is such that we don't have that many crops…

"We feel that if we are going to be efficient and compete on the world market we also need the possibilities that modern biotechnology provides for us."

SUPERWEEDS intro of gm herbicide-tolerant crops has created a dire situation in the U.S. south

Sat 14 Nov 2009 1:20:09 AM GMT

'Superweeds' jam the pesticide treadmill

The introduction of genetically modified, herbicide-tolerant crops has created a dire situation in the U.S. south – as weeds become more herbicide-resistant, farmers trying to maintain their 10,000-acre-plus “megafarms” are forced to apply increasing amounts of weedkiller. According to Tom Philpott and others, this pesticide treadmill is beginning to break down. Nine strains of amaranth (a.k.a. pigweed) have been labeled as noxious weeds in the U.S. One variety in particular, Palmer amaranth, has become resistant to glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s flagship herbicide Roundup. Amaranth and other so-called "superweeds" have thrown a wrench in the machine of industrial agriculture. Pigweed is sturdy enough to “stop a combine in its tracks” and reduce yields by up to 68%, which is forcing many farmers to abandon chemical weedkillers in favor of mechanical cultivators and hand weeding. The situation is so bad in Macon County, Georgia, that 10,000 acres of farmland were deserted. The qualities that make amaranth a particularly pesky weed are the reasons it has been cultivated as a food source by Indigenous peoples in the Americas since 3400 BC: it is prolific (producing up to 10,000 seeds at a time), drought resistant, reaches maturity quickly, and has an extended period of germination. It is also exceptionally nutritious; containing 30% more protein than other cereal grains and, like quinoa (a pseudocereal), it is a complete protein. The Aztecs used it as a food staple but when the Spanish priests discovered that they were also using it in religious ceremonies, they banned the sale, consumption, and cultivation of amaranth. The plant has outlasted the Spanish, bested Roundup and is being reintroduced in many places throughout Mesoamerica as an inexpensive, healthy, localized solution to hunger problems.

In response to its current superweed crisis, Monsanto blames farmers for the overuse of glyphosate, and recommends mixing glyphosate with older herbicides like 2-4,D -- one of the active ingredients in Agent Orange. They are right about the overuse part -- in the ten years after "Roundup Ready" crops were introduced, glyphosate use went from 7.9 million pounds per year to 119 million pounds per year. And as for mixing glyphosate and 2-4D? Monsanto appears to have anticipated the superweed dilemma, as they patented that combination in 2001.

shareMORE Rodale Institute: 'Superweeds out-flank glyphosate' | Digg This

Environment group cries out over genetically modified rice

Fri 13 Nov 2009 4:45:51 AM GMT

Environment group cries out over genetically modified rice

By Ben Ezeamalu

November 11, 2009 01:13AMT

print email

The Environmental Rights Action/Friends of the Earth Nigeria (ERA/FoEN) has said that the legal action instituted by farmers in the United States against Bayer CropScience AG confirms the validity of the tests it carried out on rice samples in Nigeria and other West African countries at the same period which showed contamination.

The suit

In the suit, over 1,000 U.S. farmers are accusing the Germany-based Bayer AG for allegedly contaminating their farms with Genetically Modified (GM) rice seeds in 2006.

Attorneys for both parties made their opening statements to a nine-person jury on November 4 while a second trial will start in January, involving farmers from Arkansas and Mississippi who claimed that exports for their crops were reduced when the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced, in 2006, that trace amounts of Bayer’s GM rice had been found in US long-grain stocks.

In a reaction to the development, the non-governmental organisation said the legal action in the U.S. shows the extent the biotechnology industry and its partners will go to “undermine food supplies” to unsuspecting consumers especially in Africa where there are weak bio-safety laws.

Call for action

“While we hail the suits, it is extremely disheartening that these startling revelations have not compelled the Nigerian government to acknowledge the result of the Nigerian tests or put in place effective legal, administrative and infrastructural framework to check the illegal dumping of unwholesome foods in the country,” said Nnimmo Bassey, the executive director of ERA/FoEN.

Mr. Bassey said that the unauthorised distribution of GMO seeds in any guise voids the precautionary principle and that the biotech industry and transnational agri-businesses have over the years pushed GMO to Africa in the guise of food aid while hiding under the cover of the World Food Programme (WFP), funded majorly by the U.S.

In 2006, there were reports that LL Rice 601, a strain of long rice that has been genetically modified so that it is resistant to herbicide, had contaminated food supplies in Europe and Japan. Consequently, the organisation embarked on monitoring rice supplies in West Africa, a region that imports most of the rice destined to Africa.

It collected samples from market shelves in Nigeria, Ghana, and Sierra Leone; and tested in a laboratory. Results showed that LL Rice 601, the same variety that contaminated the U.S. farms, was in circulation in the countries sampled.

“It is now evident that the U.S. and other GMO-producing countries do not want GMO on their soil but will do everything to push it down to Africa,” said Mr. Bassey.

Mr. Bassey reiterated his organisation’s earlier demand for a prohibition of all rice imports from the U.S. unless such imports are certified and confirmed GM-free.

“Nigerians demand that the Federal Government as a matter of urgency put in place strict bio-safety laws using the African Model as the minimum standard to be applied. Anything short of this will undermine our food sovereignty and the health of Nigerians,” he said.

Monsanto’s New Soybean Yields at Low End of Forecast

Fri 13 Nov 2009 4:42:18 AM GMT

Monsanto’s New Soybean Yields at Low End of Forecast (Update2)

By Jack Kaskey

Nov. 10 (Bloomberg) -- Monsanto Co., the world’s largest seed producer, said the increase in farmers’ yields generated by its new genetically modified soybeans is at the low end of its forecast range.

Roundup Ready 2 Yield soybeans, which were planted on 1.5 million acres in their first year on the market, boost yields 7.3 percent, St. Louis-based Monsanto said today in a presentation on its Web site. The company said as recently as Sept. 10 the seeds increase yields 7 percent to 11 percent.

Monsanto Chief Executive Officer Hugh Grant is counting on new SmartStax corn and Roundup Ready 2 soybeans to add $1 billion to profit by 2012. Some investors are losing confidence in Monsanto after growers and seed distributors told OTR Global, a Purchase, New York-based research firm, that the new soybeans aren’t meeting yield expectations.

“The shares will likely remain range-bound until the company addresses outstanding questions on Roundup Ready 2 Yield performance in 2009-2010 and pricing in both corn and soy,” Laurence Alexander, a New York-based analyst at Jefferies & Co., wrote in a report today. He rates the shares “buy.”

Roundup Ready 2 soybeans are “consistently delivering a step-change yield improvement over competitive varieties” in early-season trials, Monsanto said today in a statement. The company plans to provide more detail on yields during an investor presentation today beginning at 2:30 p.m. New York time, said Kelli Powers, a spokeswoman.

TIMELINE: History of Monsanto Co

Fri 13 Nov 2009 4:33:12 AM GMT

CORRECTED: TIMELINE: History of Monsanto Co

Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:44pm EST

In 1982 entry, corrects reference to Monsanto and Times Beach controversy

(Reuters) - Over its 108-year history, Monsanto Co, the world's largest seed company, has evolved from primarily an industrial chemical concern into a pure agricultural products company.

Following is a timeline of the St. Louis, Missouri-based company's history.

* 1901 - Original Monsanto founded as a maker of saccharine by John F. Queeny and named after his wife, Olga Monsanto Queeny.

* 1920s and 1930s - Manufacturers sulfuric acid and other chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which are later implicated in reproductive, developmental and immune system disorders.

* 1940s - Manufactures plastics and synthetic fabrics

* 1960s - Establishes agricultural division with focus on herbicides.

* 1962-1971 - Becomes one of principal companies supplying herbicide known as Agent Orange to U.S. military for use in Vietnam War. Agent Orange is later linked to various health problems, including cancer.

* 1976 - Commercializes Roundup herbicide, which goes on to be a top seller around the world.

* 1982 - Some 2,000 people are relocated from Times Beach, Missouri, after area is contaminated with PCB by-product dioxin. Critics say a St. Louis-area Monsanto chemical plant was a source but company denies any connection.

* 1994 - Wins regulatory approval for its first biotech product, a dairy cow hormone called Posilac.

* 1996 - Introduces first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, which tolerate spraying of Roundup herbicide, and biotech cotton engineered to resist insect damage.

* 1997 - Spins off its industrial chemical and fibers business into Solutia Inc amid complaints and legal claims about pollution from its plants. Introduces new biotech canola, cotton and corn, and buys foundation seed companies.

* 1998 - Introduces Roundup Ready corn.

* 2000-2002 - Restructures in deal with Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc; separates agricultural and chemicals businesses and becomes stand-alone agricultural company.

* 2002-2003 - Jury finds Monsanto plant in Anniston, Alabama, polluted community with PCBs. Monsanto and Solutia agree to pay $600 million to settle claims brought by 20,000 Anniston residents of PCB ground and water contamination.

* 2003 - Solutia files Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

* 2004 - Monsanto forms American Seeds Inc holding company for corn and soybean seed deals and begins brand acquisitions.

* 2005 - Environmental, consumer groups question safety of Roundup Ready crops, say they create "super weeds," among other problems.

* 2006-2007 - Buys several regional seed companies and cotton seed leader Delta and Pine Land Co. Competitors allege Monsanto gaining seed industry monopoly.

* 2008 - Acquires sugarcane breeding companies, and a Dutch hybrid seed company. Sells Posilac business amid consumer and food industry concerns about the dairy cow hormone supplement.

* 2008-2009 - U.S. Department of Justice says it is looking into monopolistic power in the U.S. seed industry.

* 2009 - Posts record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Announces project to improve the living conditions of 10,000 small cotton and corn farmers in 1,100 villages in India; donates cotton technology to academic researchers.

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Walter Bagley)

Who's who in biotech seed arena

Fri 13 Nov 2009 4:32:14 AM GMT

FACTBOX: Who's who in biotech seed arena

Tue Nov 10, 2009 8:07pm EST

(Reuters) - While Monsanto Co is considered a leader in research, development and marketing of genetically modified crops, a handful of other corporate giants are also staking a claim to feeding the world with biotech corn, soy and other crops.

The companies all say they are focused on products that will increase crop yields, aid farmers and offer better nutrition for consumers. Here's a look at some of the top players:

* Monsanto Co - Based in St. Louis, the company posted record net sales of $11.7 billion and net income of $2.1 billion for fiscal 2009. Among its key products are corn, soybeans and cotton that tolerate weed-killing treatments and resist pests.

* Pioneer Hi-Bred - Subsidiary of DuPont based in Johnston, Iowa. Produces, markets and sells hybrid seed in nearly 70 countries worldwide and is the closest rival to Monsanto for market share in U.S. biotech corn seed market. Revenue totaled $4 billion in 2008.

* Syngenta AG - The Basel, Switzerland-based company operates in 90 countries and generated 2008 sales of $11.6 billion. Collaborating with International Rice Research Institute to improve rice.

* Dow AgroSciences - Subsidiary of Dow Chemical Co based in Indianapolis, Indiana. With global sales of $4.5 billion, company offers insect-protected corn and cotton, among other seed products, and is expanding its research into wheat.

* BASF - Based in Ludwigshafen, Germany, this leading global chemical company is increasingly focusing its health and nutrition division on plant biotechnology to increase crop yields. Like its rivals, BASF is working on a drought-tolerant corn seed. Revenue in its agricultural division totaled 3.4 billion euros in 2008.

* Bayer CropScience AG - The unit of Bayer AG, had 2008 sales of 6.4 billion euros and operates in 120 countries. The company is pursuing 56 "bioscience" research projects involving six crops

(Reporting by Carey Gillam; Editing by Walter Bagley)

Proceed with caution

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:41:46 AM GMT

Proceed with caution

SPEAKING UP

THE release and use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remain controversial and there is still a debate going on regarding their risks and adverse impacts on health and the environment.

GMOs are regulated internationally and at the national level, as evidenced by the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which has been ratified by 157 countries, including Malaysia. Other international standards such as those governing GM foods as set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (the joint Food and Agriculture Organisation/World Health Organisation body), also reflect international concern over the risks of GMOs.

Contrary to widespread belief, the United States, which is the world’s largest producer of GM crops, does not require any safety testing for GM foods. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) merely encourages the developers of GM foods to undergo a voluntary consultation process and to submit a summary of its assessment of the GM food. The FDA does not conduct a comprehensive review of data generated by the developer, despite the fact that it is highly unlikely that a GM food developer is going to highlight any adverse effects of its product. The FDA merely evaluates the submission, considers whether there are any unresolved issues and responds to the developer by letter; in effect stating that it has seen the assessment and does not disagree with the conclusions. (See www.fda.gov/Food/Biotechnology/default.htm)

While GM crops are regulated in the US by the relevant agencies, two recent court cases suggest that this is grossly insufficient. In September this year, a US federal judge ruled that the government had failed to adequately assess the environmental impacts of GM sugar beets before approving the crop for cultivation, and thus violated the National Environmental Policy Act. The decision echoes another ruling in 2007, involving GM alfalfa. In that case, the judge later ruled that farmers could no longer plant the GM alfalfa until the Department of Agriculture wrote the environmental impact statement; to date this has not been done and GM alfalfa, with rare exceptions, is not being grown.

GM crops have been in commercial use for 13 years, but so long as GM food is not labelled, as is the case in the US, it is impossible to monitor for any effects on health, as there is no way of knowing what people are eating and if any ill effect is caused by GM food. So, any claims of “no effect” are bogus.

Independent biosafety research is absolutely crucial. In May 2007, French researchers, led by Giles-Eric Seralini, published their reanalysis of Monsanto data and concluded that there were indications of liver/kidney toxicity in rats fed Bt corn MON863, saying that “with the present data it cannot be concluded that GM corn MON863 is a safe product”. While this conclusion was rejected by some regulators, importantly, it was not invalidated.

Another review found that there are few studies designed to reveal health effects of GM food/feed, and that they demonstrate a very worrisome trend: studies conducted by industry find no problems, while studies by independent researchers often reveal effects that should have merited immediate follow-up. Such follow-up studies have not been performed, largely due to the lack of funds for independent research, and the reluctance of producers to provide GM materials for analysis.

Even where GM crops or food have been approved for commercial use, these decisions have not been unanimous. For example, in Europe, approvals of GMOs have been granted despite the objections of individual countries. In Europe, cultivation of GM crops is only of one corn event – MON810 – and France and Germany have recently banned its cultivation on environmental grounds, joining Austria, Hungary, Greece and Luxembourg.

Should any doubts linger about the safety of GMOs, the precautionary principle must apply. This means that when an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically. This approach underpins the Cartegena Protocol on Bisoafety and Malaysia’s Biosafety Act 2007.

Lim Li Ching
Biosafety researcher
Third World Network

Learn the Truths and Myths of Morgellons

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:26:35 AM GMT

Learn the Truths and Myths of Morgellons

by Zephyr Faegen, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) The Mystery of Morgellons disease has been debated for years by medical professionals and lay persons who have dedicated their time to studying this cryptic and debilitating condition. Because of significant public pressure, Morgellons disease has gained significant recognition in the last 8 years and has lead to the formation of independent research groups, and the Morgellons Research Foundation. This all began because of one woman's love for her child, combined with the complete abandonment of the mainstream medical community's ability to provide any real medical diagnosis or treatment within their known paradigm.

In 2001 Mary Leitao, a biologist and former Medical lab technician, found that her two-year-old son was developing sores under his lips. The child soon complained of bug-crawling sensations under his skin. Hearing this, she examined the wounds on his lips and took samples. She examined the tissue taken from her son under a rudimentary home microscope and found that there were red, blue, white and black fibers imbedded within the taken tissue samples. Being a concerned mother, she proceeded to take her son to the doctor. This lead to multiple tests on the child and eight more doctors that failed to find any diagnosis within the known medical paradigm. Eventually, Leitao took her son to Dr. Fred Heldrich, a Johns Hopkins pediatrician with a reputation for solving mystery cases. The end result was Heldrich's suggestion that "Leitao would benefit from a psychiatric evaluation and support".

Out of frustration and feeling abandoned by the mainstream medical society, Leitao began researching any known literature describing her son's symptoms. During her research she found the work of two men from the 1600`s, Sir Thomas Browne and Dr. Michel Ettmuller. Both men observed, wrote and illustrated what they described as hair-like structures protruding from wounds on the backs of patients combined with convulsions and coughing. They named this condition The Morgellons. Though not a perfect match to what her son was suffering from, it was the closest thing she found in any known medical material. Using Morgellons as a temporary label for her son's condition, Leitao began to seek out others with like symptoms. She started a website called the Morgellons Research Foundation (MRF) in 2002 (http://www.morgellons.org/index.html). The object of the site is to give people suffering from this strange condition an outlet to be heard and to find emotional and medical support.

Since 2002 the MRF has registered over 14,000 households who suffer from symptoms like Leitao's son. The foundation has created such a following and has put so much political pressure on government officials that the Center for Disease Control (CDC), with the help of Kaiser Permanente Northern California and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, has been forced to begin a comprehensive study of self-diagnosed Morgellons sufferers, the majority of which reside in California where the study is being focused.

The biggest question of all about Morgellons is where does it come from? As we move forward in today's society we are finding that the foods we eat and the air we breathe are becoming more and more dangerous to our health. These factors are being looked at very seriously as contributing factors of Morgellons. Currently there are three main theories that pose a spectrum of possibilities.

The first theory is that Morgellons is caused by genetically modified organisms (GMO's), and through bug bites from insects that have been modified through their interaction with GMO plant material. This theory is supported by the fact that the use of a genetically modified plant bacteria called Agrobacterium tumefaciens is used to infect and modify the DNA of plants with a pesticide in order to create stronger and more bug-resistant plant crops. In a study from 2001 by Dr. Vitaly Citovsky at the State University of New York Stony Brook, it was found that when introduced to Human DNA, genetically modified material containing this bacterium successfully invaded, modified and corrupted human DNA. Though this was done under laboratory conditions Dr. Citovsky himself stated that it may be prudent to be careful or at least aware that presently, it appears that Agrobacterium is the only example of trans-kingdom DNA transfer.

The second theory is that Morgellons symptoms are caused by the introduction of the controversial chemtrail programs that have appeared across the United States. These vaporous trails, produced in a grid pattern by jet airplanes, have had a lot of media coverage over the last few years, but they have yet to be officially recognized by the United States government except for a bill proposed by representative Dennis Kucinich in 2001 (H.R. 2977). The bill was rejected and quickly rewritten by Kucinich's office to have no mention of chemtrails at all. Though there have not been any official studies done on the connection of chemtrails to Morgellons, there has been a significant contribution of material from the private scientific community. The current theory is that components of the chemtrails are being inhaled by individuals in affected areas and are interacting with the body in two ways. First is that inhalation of the chemtrail material compromises the person's immune system. Secondly, by compromising the immune system the person is then open to infection by bacterial, fungal, viral, or even nano-technological components that are in the chemtrail vapors.

The third theory is that Morgellons is an infection of nanotechnology. Several independent studies on Morgellons fibers taken from patients have shown that the fibers consist of both inorganic and unidentifiable materials. One group of fibers was sent to a forensic scientist at the Tulsa Police Crime Lab in Oklahoma for analysis. After analyzing and cross-referencing the morgellons fiber with the FBI`s national database, it was found that it did not match any known fiber within the database. Other studies claim that fibers can withstand temperatures of up to 1400 degrees Fahrenheit.

Whatever Morgellons disease is, it should be treated with great concern, care and the best professional insight and research possible. For more information on Morgellons please look through the links below.

References:

CDC Morgellons website: http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermo...
The Morgellons Research Foundation: http://www.morgellons.org/
Current Wikipedia definition of Morgellons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons
Dr. Citovskys Study: http://www.morgellons.org/suny.htm
GMO/Morgellons connection: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f...
WINR Interview on Morgellons: http://www.worldinternetradio-winr....
A Media Report on Chemtrails: http://s52.photobucket.com/albums/g...
Chemtrails/ Morgellons: http://www.rense.com/general71/mmor.htm
H.R. 2977: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bil...
Tulsa Crime Lab statement as reported by ABC: http://www.morgellons.org/docs/Tuls...
A study on a Morgellons fiber: http://www.cherokeechas.com/rSmith0...
GMO & Nano Tech resource site: http://nanotransformation.com/
Nano fiber analysis: http://www.carnicom.com/morgobs2.htm

Does the world need Monsanto’s fishy soya?

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:23:39 AM GMT

From The Sunday Times

November 8, 2009

A wonder food to be taken with a pinch of salt

Charles Clover

Great news for farmers, consumers and our overfished seas, or so we are told. The biotechnology industry in America claims it has invented something that could finally live up to the promises of 20 years ago and benefit consumers and the environment as well as farmers. It is a soya bean genetically modified to produce the omega-3 fatty acids that reduce the risk of heart disease and confer a wide range of other health benefits.

The main source of omega-3 fatty acids has hitherto been fish oil. So Monsanto’s GM soya bean, which has just received a notice of safety from the US Food and Drug Administration, could, it is claimed, relieve pressure on the world’s fish stocks as well as improving the health of millions. In the process it could make people who loathe GM technology, such as the Prince of Wales, have to eat their organic Fairtrade cotton hats.

Or could it? When I first read these remarkable claims in New Scientist last week, I found myself plunged back into familiar territory, a kind of big sky country where nothing is ever undersold and where nothing is what it seems.

Don’t get me wrong, I have never been entirely at home with those who believe genetic manipulation goes against the will of God. We’ve been at it for centuries anyway. Nor am I one of those who would refuse a designer heart if it happened to have been grown in a pig. I believe we should at least listen to people such as our chief scientist, Professor John Beddington, and his colleagues at the Royal Society who think Britain must not rule itself out of the GM technology market and that GM technology could one day be needed to feed the world.

That is not a trivial task. The wobble in the world’s food supply that began two harvests ago, which set rice and grain prices soaring, made scientists think about how we can feed a society of 9 billion people in 40 years’ time. Since the green revolution in the 1960s, world food production has risen from 1.84 billion tons to 4.38 billion tons. Scientific development is clearly vital to the new agricultural revolution — as Professor Sir David Baulcombe, chairman of a Royal Society study, said last month. It is just that there are different views about which technology has the answers. Indeed the most immediate things that the society recommends — using ecology to manage pests in crops, for example — aren’t anything to do with whizzo GM science at all.

The green revolution succeeded but its ugly downside was that industrial agriculture did not do much for the countryside, the rural poor, or arguably the quality of our food. In the countries that used the first GM crops, the same features have persisted and pesticide use has soared — contrary to predictions. GM monocultures have grown at the expense of rainforest and the climate. The big biotech companies have made huge profits.

Which brings us to the question of whether the new GM soya is going to feed the world — or is it really designed to feed the American appetite for food additives? Certainly an omega-3 enhanced oil that doesn’t taste of fish and could be added to margarine and other processed foods has its attractions. The soya oil with omega-3s that Monsanto has engineered seems to be taken up by the body more efficiently than current linseed-based additives. The crop is more suited to temperate North America than Brazil, so it might not displace much rainforest.

Will it take pressure off the world’s fish? I’m not so sure. GM soya isn’t going to stop people catching small fish and grinding them up as fishmeal. Monsanto says its soya is primarily designed for feeding to humans, not fish, so the big problem of finding substitute foods for farmed fish remains unresolved.

The greatest fallacy would be to suggest that Monsanto’s new product might somehow tackle the problem of the 84,000 Americans who died of heart disease and might not have done if they had eaten a sufficient amount of fatty acid in their diets, according to a 2005 study. Those people who died of heart disease had poor diets. Eating a healthy balanced diet gives you enough omega 3s without any need for additives in processed food. For the same reasons, hunger, poverty and nutritional problems in the developing world can’t be fixed by growing commodity crops. What people need are better diets.

What nobody tells you about GM crops is how far off are those that are theoretically worthwhile. Compared with air travel, biotech is still building with wire, wood and paper. Remember golden rice, the crop that was going to address vitamin A deficiency? That’s still under development. The Royal Society says that developing crops that are resistant to disease, drought, salinity, heat and heavy metals will take eight to 16 years. It will take longer than that to develop wheat or rice capable of fixing nitrogen from the air, thus reducing the need for fertiliser.

Monsanto’s new soya is undoubtedly part of a new era. The agri-business giants have learnt from their failure to win general public approval, particularly in Europe. They have realised that to achieve that they must provide benefits to the public. I suspect that biotech companies will eventually invent something we need — and the opposition to GM, justified until now, will fall away. But does the world need Monsanto’s fishy soya? The jury is out.

Monsanto puts across GM case

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:20:16 AM GMT

Monsanto puts across GM case

6 November 2009

THE world’s farmers and growers have been set a monumental challenge – they must produce as much food over the next 50 years as they have during 10,000 years of civilisation.

Only then will there be enough food for a population set to reach 9 billion by 2050 says the UN.

Not only that, farmers will be required to produce this food using the same area of land, using less water and using less energy.

With such a backdrop, David Stark, one of the first scientists to introduce genetically modified crops to farmers in the 1980s, has urged policy makers to adopt GM.

“We have the opportunity to make a real difference for how future generations live,” said Mr Stark, now vice-president of consumer traits at biotech giant Monsanto.

Mr Stark was speaking to industry experts at a seminar in Westminster last week (Thursday, November 6) on the future of British agriculture.

He said: “We have a commitment at Monsanto to use all our technology, not just GM, so that seeds we sell 20 years from now will have double the yield from what they had in 2000 and will use one third less input.”

He said GM technology would be part of that solution.

He was part of a project that developed high starch potatoes, high solid tomatoes and higher oil in oilseeds in 1989 and believes new technologies are coming through to provide human and environmental sustainability.

“We are a couple of years away from launching soybean with Omega 3 to benefit health.

“We are designing crops that sip, not gulp water. Our sipping maize could be ready for the market in a couple of years and it will be broadly applicable.

“People need healthy food that does not impact on the environment and I think we can do that,” said Mr Stark.

He also tried to dispel the criticism that large multinational companies were out of touch with the very people they try to help.

“I understand there is still a big mistrust of us I understand that because multinationals tend to be faceless. But I am Monsanto. This is the face. Our benefits are very real and we are very real.”

FSA fails to alert public to banned GM ingredient

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:17:50 AM GMT

FSA fails to alert public to banned GM ingredient

Ecologist

November 6th, 2009

Campaign group finds traces of unauthorised GM linseed in loaf of Marks & Spencer bread and calls on Government food watchdog to issue public alert

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has defended itself after failing to alert consumers to the presence of unapproved genetically modified food in UK supermarkets.

Small amounts of GM linseed were found at the end of September this year in batches of unidentified produce from Canada.  

The FSA alerted the food industry to the contamination and advised processors test any batches of linseed for genetically modified material to ensure produce was not affected. 

However, the Agency decided against alerting the general public to the issue.

‘As with any incident, we did a risk assessment and did not judge there to be a health risk to consumers,’ said an FSA spokesperson.

‘Consumption of small amounts of this GM linseed does not present a health risk. However, the product has not been licensed for sale as required under European law so should not be present in any foods.

‘Where unauthorised GM material is found, the Agency works with importers and local authorities to identify where the affected product has been distributed and to remove it from sale,’ said the FSA spokesperson.

Marks & Spencer

GM Freeze claim to have found traces of GM linseed in a loaf of bread they bought from a Marks & Spencer store after the FSA issued its industry alert. They had sent a sample to be analysed by Genetic ID’s laboratory in Augsburg, Germany.  

They criticised the FSA for failing to alert the public that they could be purchasing GM produce unauthorised for sale in Europe.

‘Once again the body which is supposed to be the consumer’s watchdog has failed when it comes to a GM contamination incident,’ said GM Freeze campaigner Eve Mitchell.

‘It’s time Parliament stepped in to ensure UK food is safe. For all we know this GM contamination has been in our food for years without any safety testing’

GM grass trial aims to cut cows' gas

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:12:01 AM GMT

GM grass trial aims to cut cows' gas

4:00 AM Friday Nov 6, 2009

A plan to grow paddocks of genetically modified grass created to cut the greenhouse gases produced by cows is in the pipeline at Crown-owned company AgResearch.

The proposal has already provoked criticism from anti-GM groups, who say outdoor trials could jeopardise New Zealand's reputation as a GM-free dairy exporter.

If successful, the grass could take a slice off New Zealand's methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which make up about half the country's emissions under internationally agreed standards.

AgResearch's applied biotechnologies manager, Jim Suttie, said an application would not be made to the Environmental Risk Management Authority until next year.

Enough grass would be needed in the test paddocks to feed "tens" of animals, but the location and size of the trial had not been decided.

When it was, iwi and others in the community would be consulted before the application was made.

Suttie said it was too early to say how much of a difference the grass could make to greenhouse gas emissions.

A trial mixing ordinary cut grass with lipids, or fat, found animals fed the mixture gained more weight from eating the same amount of food - reducing the number of animals needed to produce the same amount of milk or meat and potentially cutting emissions from each beast.

The goal of the trial would be to grow grass with double the lipid content of the best previously created.

GM-free campaigner Claire Bleakley said the trials would divert money from work being done using non-GM legumes and grasses to cut greenhouse gases and increase productivity in animals.

She said the Government should keep funding that research to give farmers the option of staying GM-free.

In May, Federated Farmers used the verbal image of New Zealand cows "grazing outdoors on GM-free grass" to rebut criticism by a British dairy company trying to persuade shoppers to boycott Fonterra's Anchor butter.

But exporters believe animal emissions from making milk and meat will also become an issue for shoppers.

Suttie said that although high-lipid grass had not been tested, it should cut emissions by growing each beast to productive size more quickly, and helping it digest food more efficiently.

Methane and nitrous oxide are both waste products produced by grazing animals.

If Erma approval was granted, Suttie said, the first test would be to graze animals on the GM grass and see if they would eat it. Researchers would then measure the emissions and growth of the animals.

This year, a GM vegetable trial by Crown company Plant and Food Research was axed after campaigners discovered plants supposed to have been destroyed had been left to flower.

Asked about concerns that the grass would escape, Dr Suttie said "quite a bit of thought" was needed to design proper controls.

"Of course it is going to be an issue and it is something that AgResearch takes very, very seriously."

Attack of the Genetically Modified Flax Seed

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:08:57 AM GMT

Nope, it’s not a spooky tale left over from Halloween. After word got out that Canada’s flax seed crops had been cross-contaminated with a genetically modified variety, the country’s entire flax industry is in peril.

When the European market got wind of the contamination, they blocked all Canadian flax imports. According to an article in the Globe and Mail, flax prices have fallen from around $11 per bushel to $2 or $3. Flax farming is $320-million industry in Canada…that is a lot of folks’ livelihoods at stake!

The strain of GM flax, called Triffid, was developed at the University of Saskatchewan in the 1990s and was supposedly taken off the market back in 2001. The contamination shows just how hard it is to keep GM crops under control.

Triffid was deemed safe for human consumption, but we really lucked out in this respect. Remember the Starlink corn fiasco? Triffid-contaminated seeds have been popping up all over Europe. The Globe and Mail reports:

Since early September, confectionery companies there have been yanking pastries and other baked goods containing flax from their shelves, blaming imports from Canada for the contamination. The genetically modified seeds have been found in 34 countries, according to the Canadian Biotechnology Action Network.

Canadian authorities are still trying to track down the farmers who planted the Triffids. While it’s illegal to sell the GM flax, it is legal for farmers to grow it as long as they disclose that fact.

Global Outlook Series on GE -a Collection of Market Briefs and Concise Summaries of Research Findings

Fri 13 Nov 2009 2:02:55 AM GMT

Research and Markets: This Global Outlook Series on Genetic Engineering Provides a Collection of Market Briefs and Concise Summaries of Research Findings

Thu Nov 5, 2009 6:24am EST

DUBLIN--(Business Wire)--
Research and Markets
(http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/276dc3/genetic_engineerin) has
announced the addition of the "Genetic Engineering - Global Outlook" report to
their offering. 

The global outlook series on Genetic Engineering provides a collection of market
briefs and concise summaries of research findings. The report offers a bird's
eye view of the industry, highlights latest developments, and discusses demand
drivers, issues and concerns, and regulatory environment. Discussion on the
industry's most noteworthy regional market, the US, is amply detailed with
unbiased research commentary to provide the reader a rudimentary understanding
of the prevailing market climate. The report also provides select data on
regional markets. Also included is an indexed, easy-to-refer, fact-finder
directory listing the addresses, and contact details of 169 companies active in
the market. 

Key Topics Covered:

INDUSTRY OVERVIEW

* Genetic Engineering: A Prelude 
* The Evolution and Progress of GM Crops 
* GM Crops Gain Global Acceptance 
* GM Cultivation Gains Prominence in Developing Nations 
* Rising Prices, Food Shortage Make Biotech Grains Attractive 
* Challenges to GM Crops Adoption 
* Biotech Regulatory Measures Hinder Crop Domestication 
* Governments Not to Give Up on GM Hope 
* US - The Largest Producer of GM Crops 
* Major Market Participants

MARKET DYNAMICS

* Global Food Demand to Drive Need for GM Crops 
* Genetic Engineering - A Solution for Food Crisis! 
* Harmful or Healthy: Breaking The Myth About GM Crops 
* Non-food Sectors to Benefit from GE Technology 
* Genetic Engineering and Enzymes

ISSUES AND CONCERNS

* The GM Food Issue Continues 
* Nations at Crossroads to Accept or Object GE Crops 
* Nations Set Global Agenda to Settle GM Crop Controversies

REGIONAL TRENDS

* US Soybean and Corn Crop to Witness Robust Growth 
* GMO Crops' Future Hinges on Co-Existence Measures in EU 
* UK Government's GM Crops Proposal Faces Rebuff 
* Spanish Transgenic Corn Plantation Increases 
* Chinese Biopharmaceutical Market to Continue its Growth Spurt 
* India - The Leading Cultivator of Bt Cotton 
* GM Crops to Earn Good Returns for Australia 
* Biotechnology - A Boon for Agriculture in Malaysia 
* Biotech Crops Cultivation Zooms in South Africa

GENETIC ENGINEERING: AN OVERVIEW

* 
* The Concept 
* Molecular Basics - The Gene 
* Genome - The Information Pool 
* Evolution of Genetic Engineering 
* The Human Genome Project 
* Gene Therapy 
* Human Genetic Engineering 
* Genetic Engineering in Animals 
* Role of Biotechnology in Agriculture 
* Genetically Modified Foods 
* Genetic Engineering and Food Processing 
* Genetic Engineering and Regulatory Environment 
* Patents - An Overview

GENE THERAPY - A REVIEW

* 
* Factors Influencing Gene Therapy's Future Development 
* Factors Hampering Gene Therapy Future Development 
* Commercialization: A Road Uphill

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

* Anti-Clotting Drug from GE Goats to Win Approval 
* British Midlands University to Reveal Genetic Code of 
* Genetically Engineered BMPs to Facilitate Bone Formation in 
* GE Finds Application in Obesity Control 
* Trubion Develops Advanced mAbs 
* New Study Reveals microRNA's Role in Heart Failure 
* Cell-based Assays to Aid in Early Drug Discovery 
* Inhibition of SHIP Gene to Minimize Risk in Stem Cell Transplants 
* Drug Discovery to Employ Chemical Genetics 
* GE to Aid in the Discovery of New Enzyme Sources 
* Demand for Lactose-Free Products Boosts Enzymes Applications Market

MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS

* RJH Industries Acquires Philippines Royal Oil 
* Monsanto Takes Over Aly Participacoes 
* Monsanto Acquires De Ruiter Seeds Group 
* Lydall Announces Acquisition of DSM Solutech 
* Biotie Completes Acquisition of elbion 
* Pfizer Animal Health Acquires Catapult Genetics 
* Monsanto Completes Marmot Acquisition 
* BioEnergy Takes Over Assets of OmniGene Bioproducts 
* BRAIN Takes Over Industrial Biotech Assets of MerLion Pharmaceuticals 
* MTS Health Investors Acquires DNA Diagnostic Center 
* Bayer HealthCare Takes Over Direvo Biotech 
* QIAGEN Completes Acquisition of Corbett Life Science 
* ChemVentures to Acquire BioFocus DPI Chemistry Facility 
* Nanobac Pharmaceuticals to Take Over DNAPrint Genomics 
* GlaxoSmithKline to Take Over Genelabs Technologies 
* Invitrogen Merges with Applied Biosystems 
* NitroMed Enters into Definitive Merger Agreement with Archemix 
* Monsanto Completes Acquisition of Delta & Pine Land 
* Inverness Medical Innovations Acquires Biosite 
* Avesta Biotherapeutics Takes Over Siegfried Biologics 
* Entelos Takes Over Iconix Biosciences 
* Illumina Takes Over Solexa 
* Celera Group Acquires Atria Genetics 
* CytoDyn Acquires Advanced Genetic Technologies 
* Takeda Europe to Take Over Paradigm Therapeutics 
* AmerisourceBergen Announces Acquisition of IgG of America 
* GlaxoSmithKline Plans Praecis Acquisition

RECENT INDUSTRY ACTIVITY

* Eureka, Glycos Partner to Develop Bacterium for Biorefinery 
* Genzyme Acquires Rights to MabCampath, Fludara and Leukine 
* Quantel Announces Genetic Engineering Technology Support for Lasergraphics 
* USDA to Deregulate Syngenta's GE Corn 
* Archer Daniels, Deere & Company and Monsanto to Form Partnership 
* Genzyme Collaborates with ICGEB 
* Veredus Partners with STMicroelectronics to Establish Bio- Application Lab 
* Invitrogen Gains License for Stem Cell Line 
* Millipore Enters into Agreement with Solabia 
* Advanced Cell Forms Joint Venture with CHA Biotech 
* Luminex Enters into Agreement with Mingyuan 
* ProGenTech Inks Agreement with Human Genetic Signatures 
* Monsanto and China National Seed Group Sign Agreement 
* Monsanto and Syngenta Sign Royalty-Bearing Licensing Agreement 
* Affymetrix Signs Definitive Agreement with Panomics 
* Sanofi-Aventis to Use Regeneron's Genetic Modification Method 
* Monsanto to Build DEKALB Corn Seed Production Facility 
* Qatar Receives Grant to Augment Agro-Genetic Engineering Capacity 
* Monsanto Expands Jerseyville Facility 
* Sirtris Pharmaceuticals Obtains Approval for NamPRT 
* Origin Agritech Obtains License for Phytase Corn 
* Shenyang Xiehe Establishes Genetic Engineering Subsidiary 
* BioServe Enters into Alliance with DNAPrint Genomics 
* Evogene Teams Up with Ormat on Biodiesel 
* EMD and Dendritic Nanotechnologies Enter into License and Supply Agreement 
* AureoGen Biosciences Enters into Agreement with Takara Bio 
* Shanghai Wanxing Inks Agreement with Blue Blood Biotech 
* Stem Cell Sciences Signs Agreement with RIKEN Centre 
* Olympus and National Center for Biological Sciences Open New Facility 
* Biocentury Obtains Approval for Hybrid Cotton Seed in India 
* Novozymes to Expand Operation Base 
* Cell Therapeutics to Develop More Targeted Treatments for Cancer

PRODUCT/SERVICE LAUNCHES

* Affymetrix Introduces MyGeneChip Program 
* Genomnz to Unveil DNA Testing Service 
* Whatman Introduces EasiCollect 
* Nanoxis Launches Membrane Protein 
* Few Important Terms Used in Genetic Engineering

GLOBAL DIRECTORY 

For more information visit
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/276dc3/genetic_engineerin

Research and Markets
Laura Wood, Senior Manager,
press@researchandmarkets.com
U.S. Fax: 646-607-1907
Fax (outside U.S.): +353-1-481-1716 

Copyright Business Wire 2009

© Thomson Reuters 2009. All rights reserved. Users may download and print extracts of content from this website for their own personal and non-commercial use only. Republication or redistribution of Thomson Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Thomson Reuters. Thomson Reuters and its logo are registered trademarks or trademarks of the Thomson Reuters group of companies around the world.

Farmers Skirt Rules on BTCorn, Study Says

Fri 13 Nov 2009 1:58:40 AM GMT

November 6, 2009

Rules on Modified Corn Skirted, Study Says

By ANDREW POLLACK

As many as 25 percent of the American farmers growing genetically engineered corn are no longer complying with federal rules intended to maintain the resistance of the crops to damage from insects, according to a report Thursday from an advocacy group.

The increase in farmers skirting the rules, from fewer than 10 percent a few years ago, raises the risk that insects will develop resistance to the toxins in the corn that are meant to kill them, the report says. And it raises questions about whether the Environmental Protection Agency and the agricultural biotechnology industry are adequately enforcing the rules.

The data “should be a wake-up call to E.P.A. that the regulatory system is not working,” Gregory Jaffe, the report’s author, wrote in a letter Thursday to Lisa P. Jackson, the administrator of the federal agency. Mr. Jaffe is the biotechnology project director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a Washington advocacy group that does not oppose genetically engineered crops but favors stricter regulation.

The crops in question, called BT corn, have bacterial genes spliced into their DNA that cause the plants to make toxins that kill certain insects when they feed on the crop. In 2008, about 49 million acres of BT corn was grown, accounting for 57 percent of domestic corn acreage.

So far there appears to be little sign that insects are growing resistant to the toxins in the corn. If they were to, however, it would not only render the crops ineffective but would hurt organic farmers who use sprays of bacterial BT toxins as natural pesticides.

To stave off such resistance, E.P.A. requires farmers in the Corn Belt to plant 20 percent of their fields with non-BT corn to serve as a refuge for insects. The idea is that if an insect becomes impervious to the BT toxin, it is likely to mate with a nonresistant insect from the refuge, and the offspring would not be resistant.

Four big biotechnology companies — Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Syngenta and Dow AgroSciences — jointly do an annual survey of corn growers to assess compliance.

Mr. Jaffe obtained these reports from the E.P.A. under the Freedom of Information Act. From 2003 to 2006, about 90 percent of farmers growing corn resistant to the corn borer established refuges of the required size. But the rate fell to 80 percent in 2007 and 78 percent in 2008.

Only 74 percent of farmers were setting up a big enough refuge for corn resistant to the rootworm in 2008, down from 89 percent in 2006. And only 63 percent of farmers had their rootworm refuges close enough to their fields.

Nicholas Storer, chairman of Agricultural Biotechnology Stewardship Technical Committee, the industry group that does the surveys, said the seed companies recognized the problems and for the last two years have been undertaking a “Respect the Refuge” campaign, sending postcards to farmers and putting billboards alongside highways in the Corn Belt.

“We’re not happy to see negative trends,” Dr. Storer said.

The E.P.A. said it would evaluate the report and take action if necessary.

Monsanto makes more inroads in China

Fri 13 Nov 2009 1:32:33 AM GMT

Monsanto makes more inroads in China

By Georgina Gustin

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Thursday, Nov. 05 2009

Biotech seed giant Monsanto announced Thursday the opening of a new research
facility in China, its latest venture into the world's largest potential
consumer market.

The facility in Beijing will serve as a base for Monsanto collaborations with
Chinese scientists and is the first of its kind in that country.

"Monsanto has made a commitment to develop advanced biotech and breeding
technology in China," said Steve Padgette, vice president of biotechnology for
the company, who was in China for the formal unveiling of the facility. "The
establishment of the center will give Chinese researchers access to our global
research network and to our industry-leading product development pipeline."

The research center has three goals: to conduct independent research, seek
opportunities to collaborate with Chinese scientists, and provide technical
support to Monsanto's business in China, Padgette said.

Monsanto already has forged several partnerships with Chinese researchers and
government-backed biotech research enterprises. The Chinese government has been
supporting research, especially into genetically modified rice, the country's

Comments: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/emaf.nsf/comments?ReadForm&db=stltoday%5Cbusiness%5Cstories.nsf&docid=BEDBC8B39DD0AA74862576650006F060

most consumed grain.

But China has yet to authorize genetically modified rice for consumption,
officials here say.

"They're still finding their way. They're still talking about authorizing their
first genetically engineered rice variety, but it hasn't happened," said Mike
Wach, of BIO, an industry group that represents Monsanto and other biotech
companies. "I think they're still struggling."

Rice growers and consumers have been resistant to genetically modified rice,
and no company grows it commercially for food consumption. Earlier this year,
Greenpeace protestors stood outside Monsanto's Beijing office with banners
reading "Monsanto: Hands Off China's Food."

"There's certainly been some resistance," Wach said, "and (China) probably
feels that pressure. It's a major crop for them."

China grows some genetically modified cotton, and imports genetically modified
corn and soy, after relaxing import rules in 2004. The country is the largest
export market for American soybeans, 90 percent of which contain Monsanto
traits.

The company recently announced a collaboration with Huazhong Agricultural
University in China and established a $1 million RMB scholarship to encourage
biotech research.

Qifa Zhang, a top scientist at the university, said the new center will expand
the partnership. "The establishment of the center will have a key role in
further strengthening our collaboration and speeding up commercialization and
marketing of new technology," Zhang said in a statement.

Last year, Monsanto announced it would pour $84 million into a joint venture
between the China National Seed Group Corp.

"We already work with several research institutions on novel agricultural
traits," said Monsanto's John Mclean, who will head up the new center. "We
firmly believe that technological advances will increase productivity and
contribute to finding solutions to the challenges facing agriculture."

AU: Horticulture body sits on the fence on GM produce

Fri 13 Nov 2009 1:29:38 AM GMT

AU: Horticulture body sits on the fence on GM produce

Fruit and vegetable representative groups think it's too early to have a position on genetically modified food.

India has just released a GM eggplant and field trials of GM bananas are underway outside Innisfail in north Queensland.

Kris Newton, from the Horticulture Australia Council, says most of the fruit and vegetable breeding research is done with natural techniques.

"We don't have a policy and that's a very deliberate decision on the part of the industry since there are very strong views on either end of the spectrum," she says.

"I imagine the vast majority don't care much one way or the other."

Source: abc.net.au

Publication date: 11/4/2009

GM potato gets roasting in South Africa

Fri 13 Nov 2009 1:26:47 AM GMT

GM potato gets roasting in South Africa
afrol News / SciDev.Net, 4 November

The Pretoria government's Executive Council for Genetically Modified Organisms dismissed the application for a permit to release the potato. Both safety and economic grounds were given for the rejection.

The potato, SpuntaG2, contains a gene from the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis, which acts like a built-in pesticide against the tuber moth (Phthorimaea operculella). The moth is reported to cause rand 40 million (US$ 5 million) of losses to the South African potato industry each year.

Developers had hoped the potato would allow farmers to use fewer pesticides, reducing costs and helping the environment.

At a meeting held in Cape Town last week to discuss the ban, Gurling Bothma, a scientist at the ARC-Roodeplaat Vegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute, described the government's decision as frustrating.

"I think they did not understand our results," Mr Bothma told the meeting.

The Department of Agriculture, Forests and Fisheries has expressed concerns about the damage the modified potatoes would do to trade, as South Africa does not have the means to segregate GM crops from non-GM. Several trade partners want guarantees agricultural products are non-GM.

Another worry is that farmers would still need to spray SpuntaG2 to counter other pests. Moreover, the industry's biggest problems relate to a lack of water and fertiliser, not pests, according to government.

Julian Jafta, director of genetic resources at the department, says inadequate toxicity information is another factor in the rejection of SpuntaG2. Little information is available on the effects of inserting the new gene on potato allergen content .

Also opposing the introduction of the modified vegetable is Potatoes South Africa, an organisation representing commercial and smallholder potato farmers.

Ben Pieterse, research and development manager of Potatoes SA, said: "We support biotechnology and the future benefits it can bring. We will, however, not support any products that can cause health risks."

In addition, Mr Pieterse fears consumer resistance to GM potatoes would reduce consumption - South Africans currently eat 35 kilograms of potatoes per person annually. Exports would also suffer, he says.

But he argued for the continuation of GM potato research "in case a time will come in future when this technology is needed - then we should be ready," he told the science media 'SciDev.Net'.

But ARC-Roodeplaat scienties Mr Bothma told 'SciDev.Net' that there was a strong possibility that all GM potato research in South Africa would now cease due to lack of funding.

South Africa is the only country in Africa to have commercially released GM food crops - maize and soya - and the only country in the world to have allowed the genetic modification of the staple food, maize, according to the African Centre for Biosafety, which campaigned against the potato.

The appeal decision is expected within three months.

By Munyaradzi Makoni
- South Africa's Agricultural Research Council has appealed against the government's decision to reject a locally developed genetically modified (GM) potato it was hoping to release to farmers. The decision has split the industry.

GM-food regulation creates controversy in Turkey

Fri 13 Nov 2009 1:23:00 AM GMT

GM-food regulation creates controversy in Turkey

SEVİM SONGÜN
ISTANBUL - Hürriyet Daily News
Wednesday, November 4, 2009

New regulations regarding controls for genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, are “insufficient and imprecise,” according to experts.

Activists, meanwhile, are up in arms against allowing genetically modified food, or GM-food, in Turkey, due to the unpredictable results on human health and nature. Some academics say GM-food is not dangerous to health, but the strict rules on GMO in European Union-member countries may even risk Turkey’s candidacy, one academic said.

Regulations on GM-foods are very strict in EU member countries compared to the United States. Measures exist to separate GMO products from conventional and organic products. Six countries including Austria, France, Greece, Hungary, Germany and Luxembourg, banned the cultivation of GM-food completely, daily Milliyet reported Wednesday.

Activists fear that recent regulations in Turkey will make it impossible to control the cultivation, importation and consumption of products containing GMOs.

If Turkey implements regulations on agriculture that are against European Union regulations, the regulations may result in a halt in trade between both sides and even risk Turkey’s EU candidacy, said Can Baydarol, an academic.

Activists expected a law to pass on biosecurity issues. However, the government published a regulation on GMOs in the Official Gazette on Oct. 26, explaining that it aims “to protect human health and life, animals’ health and prosperity and consumer interests.”

Environmentalists and some food experts criticize the regulation. Ahmet Atalık, head of the Chamber of Agricultural Engineers’ Istanbul branch, said the regulation puts human and animal health in danger, as well as opening the way for “irreversible change” in nature.

On behalf of corporations?

The regulation says GM-food should be controlled and should have necessary permission before entering the market. However, it also says that if food or feed contains GMO at rate of minimum 0.9 percent, it will be “treated as GM-food” which means that food or feed containing less than 0.9 percent GMO will not be treated as such.

“I want to consume ‘GMO-free’ products and the regulation does not leave this to my choice. What if I do not want to consume these products even if they have less GMO than the said amount, how will I recognize them?” said Atalık.

Claiming the regulation is “prepared by GMO companies,” Atalık said he believes one of the articles contains proof. “The regulation forbids GMO-free producer companies to mention that it on their products. This does not serve the public good, but the good of GMO corporations,” he said.

Speaking to private CNNTurk channel on Wednesday, Muzaffer Aydemir, the head of Protection and Control Office at the Agriculture Ministry, said the article is in accordance with the Agriculture Act that stipulates there should not be “unnecessary warnings” on food products.

Aydemir said that as controls start it will be clear to the public that the regulations actually “ban GM-food which includes harmful substances.” He said the regulation serves to fill the void until a full law comes into force.

Victor Ananias, the head of Buğday Association, an organization which aims to support ecological life, said the opposite. Ananias told Hürriyet Daily News & Economic Review that the new regulation allows GM-food and only bans it in baby food. “If GM-food is dangerous for babies, then why are they permitted for women who are giving birth?” Ananias said.

Despite harsh criticism and protests from environmentalists, some academics said GM-food is a scientific issue, which critics are “falsely depicting as hazardous.”

Selim Çetiner, an academic from Sabancı University, said there is not a single case in which human health was affected negatively from consuming GM-foods. “This technology is also seen as a solution to hunger,” he said.

“The health aspect of the GMO is exaggerated in Turkey. It has economic and environmental aspects too,” said Ali Esat Karakaya, the former head of the International Union of Toxicology. "Noting that 70-80 percent of processed food consumed in the U.S. contains GMOs," Karakaya said: “Do Americans have any idea about science?”

Karakaya said those speaking about the dangers of GMO are not experts. Scientific institutions such as the Scientific and Technical Research Council of Turkey and universities are still silent on the issue. “Silence allows disinformation to seep into the public sphere,” he said.

Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops ‘Contaminated’ by Modified Rice

Wed 4 Nov 2009 3:18:53 PM GMT

Bayer Blamed at Trial for Crops ‘Contaminated’ by Modified Rice

By Andrew M. Harris

Nov. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Bayer CropScience AG is responsible for financial damage sustained by Missouri farmers when their rice crops were contaminated by genetically modified seeds, the growers’ lawyer told a federal court jury in St. Louis.

Their trial is the first of a series the Bayer AG unit is defending against farmers from five states making similar claims. More than 1,200 such cases have been filed.

“Bayer was supposed to be careful,” attorney Don Downing told the jury of four men and five women during his opening statement yesterday. “Bayer was not careful and that rice did escape into our commercial rice supplies.”

The farmers, who grow rice in southeastern Missouri, claim the export market for their crops was curtailed when the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 2006 announced that trace amounts of the genetically modified rice, designed by Bayer to be herbicide resistant, were found in U.S. long-grain stocks.

Bayer and Louisiana State University had been testing the rice, which hadn’t been approved for human consumption, for resistance to the company’s Liberty herbicide.

Bayer’s genetically modified strains “contaminated” more than 30 percent of U.S. ricelands, Downing told jurors.

Rice Futures Fall

Within four days of the USDA announcement, a decline in rice futures cost U.S. growers about $150 million, according to a consolidated complaint filed by the farmers. News of that contamination caused futures prices to fall about 14 percent.

As a result, farmers like plaintiffs Ken Bell and Johnny Hunter got less cash for their crops than they otherwise could have, Downing said. The men haven’t asked for specific money damages.

Exports also fell, the growers said, as the European Union, Japan, Russia and other overseas markets slowed for testing or stopped their imports of the U.S.-grown long grain rice.

Defense lawyer Mark Ferguson said Bayer CropScience wanted to do right by its farmer clientele.

“Everyone at Bayer regrets that this happened. Farmers are Bayer’s customers,” Ferguson told jurors during his opening remarks. “The one thing that they were trying to avoid, happened.”

Claims Disputed

The Bayer unit said biotech rice, called LibertyLink, posed no food safety issues.

Ferguson disputed claims that U.S. rice growers are still suffering financially from the release of Bayer’s LibertyLink rice, arguing that crop prices have since recovered and exceeded pre-contamination levels.

Bayer’s containment protocols were equal to or exceeded industry standards when the test rice escaped into the general supplies, the defense lawyer said.

“Even the best practices can’t guarantee perfection,” Ferguson said.

The USDA deregulated one of the two grains implicated in the lawsuits in November 2006, approving it for human consumption, the company has said. The strain has never been commercially marketed.

Farmers in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Missouri filed separate lawsuits against Leverkusen, Germany- based Bayer and its CropScience unit, which were consolidated before U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry for pre-trial proceedings.

The farmers’ lawyers told the jury Bayer was rushing its herbicide-resistant rice through testing to compete with St. Louis-based Monsanto Co., which was developing its own herbicide-resistant crop seed varieties.

‘Very Profitable’

“If you’re first to the market with a new product, it can be very, very profitable,” Downing told the jury. The evidence will show that in its haste, Bayer became sloppy, the lawyer said.

“Bayer did not keep track of its genetically modified seed,” Downing said later.

“This is a living, growing organism,” plaintiffs lawyer Grant Davis, Downing’s co-counsel, said in his opening statement. “That’s why you have to be so careful.”

Ferguson disputed that his client was rushing, telling jurors Bayer withheld from the market a different FDA-approved herbicide-resistant rice because of concerns it would adversely affect growers’ ability to sell their rice on the world market.

‘Reasonable Precautions’

“Safety is not an issue in this case,” Ferguson said. From a food-standpoint, Bayer’s LibertyLink rice is ‘no different than conventional rice,” he said.

“Bayer did fulfill its duty to take reasonable precautions” against contamination, he said..

Ferguson said only a lack of regulatory approval prevents it from being imported into the nations of the European Union, which he blamed on “political opposition” to genetically modified foods.

Testing of one of the LibertyLink strains at Louisiana State University was completed in 2001. While there has never been a specifically identified contamination event, Ferguson said, studies suggest an event of cross-pollination with ordinary rice or a mixing of regular and genetically modified seed occurred then.

Perry in August 2008 rejected the farmers’ bid to proceed as a single injured class, subdivided by state, finding there were too many ways for them to market their crops, meaning they weren’t all injured in the same manner.

Public Nuisance

Perry last month threw out the farmers’ claim that Bayer had created a public nuisance, as well as Bayer’s defense that there could have been an intervening cause, other than negligence, that led to the contamination.

Jury selection was completed Nov. 2. The trial may last until early December, Perry said.

The case is In Re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, 06-md-01811, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Harris in St. Louis federal court in ataharris16@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 4, 2009 00:01 EST

JAPAN: Time for food manufacturers to provide info on GM products

Tue 3 Nov 2009 8:15:46 PM GMT

Time for food manufacturers to provide info on GM products

The link between soft drinks and genetically modified (GM) foods is just one facet of the wide use of GM crops in food products. It is estimated that about half of the grains imported by Japan are GM foods whose safety has been confirmed. While GM crops are not used in such products as natto (fermented soybeans), tofu and snack foods, GM-derived cooking-oil, as well as beef and eggs from cows and chickens that have been given GM feed are already on the market.

In Japan, many food manufacturers are reluctant to label GM foods for fear of a consumer backlash. Furthermore, as GM labeling is not mandatory for high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) -- a sweetener made using GM corn -- and cooking oil because GM genes do not remain in those products after processing, consumers have no way of knowing if such products were made from GM ingredients.

It is true that the government recognizes the safety of GM corn, and that the major Japanese soft drink manufacturers that were found to use GM-derived HFCS in their beverages are at no institutional fault. But it is also true that consumers are being denied the opportunity to make their own choices. Major supermarket chain Aeon and some consumers' cooperatives voluntarily provide GM information for their products, but they are still a minority.

Some 80 percent of corn grown in the U.S. -- Japan's major source of imports -- is genetically-modified, making it difficult to secure non-GM corn supplies. To share the costs and other elements of the current situation with consumers, it is time for food manufacturers to provide GM information not only for their beverages, but for other products. (By Kazuyuki Endo, Lifestyle News Center)

Greenpeace Calls for GM corn to be banned

Tue 3 Nov 2009 8:12:07 PM GMT

Published: 7:03PM Monday November 02, 2009

Source: ONE News

WATCH the video (1:50)

The Green Party is calling on food safety authorities to join the European Union in withdrawing approval for genetically modified corn.

The controversial corn has been approved for human consumption in New Zealand in case it ever got into the country's food chain.

The corn, originally for animal consumption, contains extra lysine - an essential amino acid needed to make protein in the body.

However, critics say that when it is cooked lysine is combined with sugar, which can cause health problems.

"It's been associated with such things as Type 2 Diabetes, and with Alzheimers and with cancer," Canterbury University scientist Jack Heinemann told ONE News.

Heinemann says European officials have now taken his views on board, including claims the trials were flawed.

"They've effectively asked Monsanto to re-do all of its studies using the proper controls," says Heinemann, talking about food giant Monsanto's successful bid in getting approval for the modified corn.

However, other authorities aren't so concerned.

"We've talked to the Europeans - this withdrawal is just on commercial grounds, nothing to do with safety. Our system in New Zealand and Australia is well regarded right around the world, and we certainly won't be changing it," says Lydia Buchtmann of Food Safety Australia New Zealand.

However, Buchtmann conceded that the corn was never cooked and tested.

"We looked at the data and came to the conclusion that cooking made no difference to safety," she adds.

Beware: Genetically modified omega 3 oils to appear in frankenfoods

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:54:43 PM GMT

Beware: Genetically modified omega 3 oils to appear in foods

October 30, 11:59 AM Atlanta Wellness Examiner James Williams

Monsanto, the company which spent an astounding eight million dollars last year on lobbying, is planning to flood the food market with poor quality omega 3 oils from its genetically modified (GM) soy beans.

Monsanto, which is trying to control the world's farming market and infect nature with its genetically modified seeds, plans to sell its omega 3 frankenfood to processed food companies. The food companies will then claim that their frozen dinners and microwave meals are healthy because they contain omega 3 oils.

Yet you can bet your bottom dollar that the packaging on these TV dinners won't reveal that the omega 3 oils are from GM soy. If you've missed the headlines, you can learn why GM-food has a suspicious history and why these food ingredients are considered unhealthy.

More astoundingly, is the timing of this press release from Monsanto. Just last week, a poorly designed study doubting the benefits of omega 3 oils from fish somehow passed the peer review process and was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. What's the connection?

One of the authors involved in that study denouncing the effectiveness of omega 3 oils from fish was Dr. William Harris, who is a scientific advisor for Monsanto. So here we have someone who is represented as a scientist, and is an advisor for a:

GM-food producing company (Monsanto);
GlaxoSmithKline (pharmaceutical company);
The processed food company Unilever who sells GM food;
his own business which analyzes the quality of omega 3 oils.

This information comes from the rear page of the study released last week which you'll see on the above graphic and is damning evidence of a conflict of interest in terms of violating scientific impartiality. It is also a clear instance of how science, medical journals, pharmaceutical companies and the food companies are working together, and not for the good of humanity - but for profit because GM-soy is very cheap.

If Monsanto can buy enough studies and lobbyists to create (unfounded) doubt on the effectiveness for fish oils, they can create a market for their GM franken oils from soy and make a huge profit.

More About: food · medicine

GM Crops Dominate US Farms, but Organic Increasing

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:49:01 PM GMT

GM Crops Dominate US Farms, but Organic Increasing
By Steve Baragona Washington 29 October 2009

As farmers across the United States are bringing in the harvest, silos are filling up with record or near-record quantities of corn and soybeans. To an extent not seen anywhere else in the world, U.S. farmers have embraced varieties that are genetically modified -- GM for short. But that doesn't tell the whole story. There's another movement shifting a small portion U.S. farming away from GM crops and toward organic agriculture. With experts calling for a variety of approaches to deal with the growing demand for food,

Meet the corn earworm. Keeping the earworm and its cousin, the European corn borer, out of crops is one of the main reasons Champlain, Virginia, farmer Jay Hundley plants genetically modified corn.

"We've seen an advantage on that," Hundley says, "the European corn borer, they can be a problem. It pretty much tends to them 100 percent. Corn earworm, it does have an affect on them, and you don't see anywhere near as many in the cornfields."

Jay Hundley

Hundley also grows GM soybeans. They are designed to make killing weeds easier because these soybeans will survive treatment with an herbicide called Roundup.

Roundup kills nearly all of the weeds farmers commonly deal with. Hundley says the herbicide-tolerant soybeans give him more flexibility when he sprays his fields -- and he likes that convenience.

"It's time savings, stuff like that. We don't have to be there today. We can wait until tomorrow," Hundley said.

The GM seeds cost more. And his contract with the seed company doesn't let him save them to plant the next year. But, he says, the benefits outweigh the costs.

Farmers across the United States have come to the same conclusion. This year, 85 percent of the corn and 91 percent of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. No other country grows nearly as much.

While the vast majority of corn, soybeans and cotton in the United States are genetically modified, a small but growing group of farmers are going in a different direction.

About 200 kilometers north, in Adamstown, Maryland, Nick Maravell is also farming corn and soybeans. But Maravell does not raise genetically modified crops. "What we're trying to do is encourage things that would happen naturally," Maravell said.

Maravell is one of an increasing number of organic farmers -- those who don't use chemical fertilizers, insecticides or weed killers. Organic cropland makes up a tiny fraction of the total acreage in the United States -- just one half of one percent in 2005, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. But that figure represents a doubling of total organic acreage since 1997.

Part of the reason Maravell doesn't grow GM crops is because he is concerned about unintended consequences.

"With genetically modified organisms, they have been released into the environment. They can take on a life of their own. That is, they can reproduce and spread and cross-breed with other species," Maravell says, "and i don't feel that we have really quite mastered what we're doing with these yet."

The GM crops have received a green light from regulators in the U.S. Much of Europe remains opposed, but the scientific body advising Europe's food safety regulators recently said current varieities are unlikely to harm health or the environment.

But Maravell says another reason he doesn't grow GM crops is because he doesn't need them to get good yields.

"As an organic farm, we present an alternative," Maravell says, "and as you can see, we produce crops here. We're not overrun with insects, disease, or weeds. We can do it without the genetically modified [crops]."

In a good year, Maravell admits he doesn't produce as much as his neighbors who use chemical fertilizers and GM crops. But in a dry year he says he out-produces them.

And Maravell's organic products fetch a premium price, which helps his bottom line.

With the need to protect the environment and feed the planet both growing steadily, many experts predict farmers will call on both genetically modified and organic agriculture to meet the demands.

Monsanto asks Supreme Court to review alfalfa ban

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:46:16 PM GMT

Monsanto asks Supreme Court to review alfalfa ban

By Jeffrey Tomich

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

Friday, Oct. 30 2009

Monsanto Co. asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower court's decision to
ban the planting of genetically modified alfalfa until an environmental review
is complete.

The petition by Creve Coeur-based Monsanto argues that taking biotech alfalfa
off the market creates an unnecessary burden for alfalfa hay and seed growers.

"We feel the court took some real drastic actions when it didn't need do,"
company spokesman Garrett Kasper said.

Zelig Golden, staff attorney for the Center for Food Safety, a Washington-based
advocacy group, disagrees. Other courts have rejected arguments by Monsanto and
the Department of Agriculture, and the Supreme Court should, too, he said.

The Center for Food Safety was part of a coalition of environmental groups and
alfalfa growers that sued the Agriculture Department in 2006, arguing that the
agency unlawfully approved Monsanto's alfalfa, which is genetically modified to
resist applications of Roundup herbicide.

In June, a federal appeals court voted 2-1 to uphold a 2007 district court
ruling and to maintain a two-year-old injunction preventing farmers from
planting the crop.

The injunction doesn't affect farmers who have already planted Roundup Ready
alfalfa, which makes up about 1 percent of the U.S. crop.

In a separate but similar case, a federal judge last month ruled that the
Agriculture Department unlawfully approved Monsanto's Roundup Ready sugar beets.

The Center for Food Safety is likewise seeking a ban on the planting of
genetically modified beets until an environmental impact statement is complete.
The group argues a ban is necessary to prevent non-genetically modified sugar
beets from being contaminated through cross-pollination.

"The court found that the USDA didn't do its job," Golden said. "Until it does
its job, that harm is a real possibility."

While Monsanto's genetically modified alfalfa is planted on relatively few
acres, 95 percent of North American sugar beet acreage is planted with Roundup
Ready seeds, meaning an injunction could have significant consequences, the
company said.

"Our goal is to make sure the judge is aware of the ramifications of that,"
Kasper said.

COA Chief vows no imports of genetically modified Rice

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:39:55 PM GMT

COA chief vows no imports of genetically modified rice

Wednesday, October 28, 2009
By S.M. Yang and Flor Wang, CNA

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Following the dispute arising from the government's decision to allow imports of U.S. bone-in beef and offal to Taiwan, new concern that genetically modified U.S. rice might be next to gain permission to enter Taiwan prompted a denial from the head of the Council of Agriculture (COA) Wednesday.

COA Minister Chen Wu-hsiung issued the denial to reporters following a news report the previous night that quoted an official of the Department of Health (DOH) as saying that Taiwan is ready to open its market to genetically engineered rice from the United States.

"The COA will not take the liberalization measure that would allow such rice from the United States to enter Taiwan, " Chen said, adding that "I will step down if imports of U.S. genetically engineered rice are permitted."

"The COA has `absolutely no plans' to allow such opening, " he stressed.

Any foreign country hoping to export long grain rice to Taiwan will be required to submit official documents to verify its genetic footprint, Chen said.

In response to the news report, the COA's Agriculture and Food Agency (AFA) issued a statement later that same day to clarify that the government will not open the market to foreign imports of genetically modified rice, nor has it approved any such products to enter Taiwan.

Although the DOH is making preparations to include some genetically engineered food in its food safety assessment operations, the statement said this does not mean that Taiwan has allowed them to hit the local market.

It also pointed out that Taiwan's development of genetically altered crops will prioritize grain that will not be used for food.

AFA Director-General Chen Wen-teh said the government does not favor imports of foreign genetically altered rice, although it has to abide by the regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO), which allocates a quota every year for Taiwanese imports of foreign rice.

At present, Taiwan only allows imports of non-genetically modified rice from Vietnam, Japan and the United States, Chen noted.

Peasant Farmers plead for GM crops ban in Orissa India

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:26:53 PM GMT

Farmers plead for GM crops ban in Orissa

OUR CORRESPONDENT

Bhubaneswar, Oct. 27: Farmers from 1,200 villages in Orissa have urged chief minister Naveen Patnaik for a legislation to ban the sale, trade and cultivation of all genetically modified (GM) crops.

The peasants have requested Naveen to take action so that farmers cultivating Bt brinjal are not pushed to extremes due to crop failure as some of the farmers in the state did in the recent past.

Petitioners have pointed out that brinjals are a source of income for many small-time farmers in Orissa. Explaining that Bt brinjal and Bt cotton poses health hazards, farmers wrote that: “For the first three years, the crop gives a marginally higher yield. But, in the fourth year, the yield usually comes down, leading to a loss in net agricultural income.”

Not only does the yield lower, a pest called American Bollworm that the genetically modified crop is supposed to be resistant to, gets immuned to the crop. The Bt toxin also kills friendly insects leading to further pest attacks and hence more expenses on pesticides.

If Bt Brinjal is approved for commercial cultivation in Orissa, farmers will lose traditional varieties and face the same fate as that of Bt cotton farmers all across the country. Since Brinjal is a food crop, farmers will be affected by its toxicity directly, the memorandum said.

In Orissa, Bt cotton seeds are already being traded through illegal means for four years now. “The matter is urgent as now its introduction has been approved as well,” said Debjeet Sarangi, an anti-GM activist, adding that Kerala chief minister has written to Prime Minister explaining the need to ban GM crops in the country.

Roses are red- Wait, no they're not!

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:18:06 PM GMT

Roses are red- Wait, no they're not!

A Japanese firm has announced it is set to sell the world's first genetically-modified blue rose.

There is no natural blue pigmentation in the flower to allow a blue rose to be genetically bred naturally.

But in 2004, a company managed to develop a natural blue rose by splicing the gene that leads to the synthesis of the blue pigment Delphinidin in petunias. Now the 20-year research project is set to hit Japan, marketed as a "luxurious gift for special occasions such as wedding anniversaries."

They will be sold for 2,000 and 3,000 yen ($22 and $33) per stem, about 10 times more expensive than normal.

Copyright WENN.com

What Happens When Wild Boars And Fallow Deer Snack On Genetically Modified Corn?

Tue 3 Nov 2009 7:11:50 PM GMT

What Happens When Wild Boars And Fallow Deer Snack On Genetically Modified Corn?

ScienceDaily (Oct. 28, 2009) — The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation funded a study to address two controversial questions: When wild boar and deer, traditional menu items in the fall, eat genetically modified corn, do transgenic residues accumulate in their meat? Do they spread GM corn via their feces? The answer in each case is no, according to scientists at TUM, the Technische Universitaet Muenchen. They recommend, however, that such studies be conducted separately for all GM plants.

Deer stew, roast of wild boar, venison ragout -- come fall, all varieties of game are in season for gourmets. However, ever since the worldwide surge in genetically modified corn, critical consumers' appetites have abated somewhat. After all, it was not clear precisely how wild animals digest transgenic corn and whether or not residues actually accumulate in meat, for example. Molecular biologists from the Technische Universitaet Muenchen (TUM) have shown that there is no need for concern -- also with regard to the inadvertent dispersal of genetically modified corn via wild animal feces.

Only a few weeks ago we could still observe them: whole families of wild boar rummaging in the corn fields in early fall, feasting on corncobs. Corn -- or maize, as it's known to scientists -- is a high-energy delicacy for local game, which is why it is used specifically for winter feeding and to divert animals from farmers' fields. Today, with GM (genetically modified) maize acreage increasing worldwide, biologists are discussing a highly controversial question: What happens when a wild boar takes a snack in a transgenic maize field or when deer feed on imported GM maize in winter? Molecular biologists at the TUM can now provide answers to these questions.

With funding from the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, a research team from the TU München examined in detail how fallow deer (dama dama) and wild boars (sus scrofa) metabolize GM maize and whether they inadvertently disperse germinable transgenic seeds in the landscape via their feces. To find answers to these questions, the scientists working for Prof. Heinrich H.D. Meyer from the Chair of Physiology selectively fed fallow deer living in outdoor enclosures and wild boars kept in pens genetically modified corn chaff and grain corn for several weeks in a row. The respective control groups were fed conventional maize over the same time period. All the while the scientists collected samples of feces from every group to be analyzed for germinability at a later point in time.

After completing the experiment, the TUM physiologists took a number of samples from all of the wild animals: from the digestive tract, all internal organs, blood, muscles and other kinds of tissue. They then applied immunological techniques and polymerase chain reaction to look for transgenic components. They found them only in the digestive tract of GM-fed wild boars: Here they found evidence for small fragments of the gene that had been introduced into the GM maize. However, outside of the gastrointestinal tract the scientists found no trace whatsoever, neither in the tissue of wild boars nor in that of the fallow deer. Hence, there is no need to worry when enjoying a game dish: "The meat of the animals we examined was entirely free of transgenic components," said Prof. Meyer.

Organic farmers and environmentalists are much more concerned about the uncontrolled spread of GM maize via wild animal feces. Yet here, too, Prof. Meyer can ease everyone's worries. His team examined the collected samples of feces for intact maize corns capable of germination. A truly insignificant number makes it through the gastrointestinal passage at all: For wild boars a mere 0.015% of the conventional and 0.009% of the transgenic maize kernels were excreted intact. Only one single maize plantlet could then be grown under standard laboratory conditions, and one further seedling showed abnormal growth. The fallow deer were even tougher on the maize: Not a single intact and thus germinable maize corn could be found in their feces.

However, the digestion process is not as effective for all seeds and all animal species, as the scientists were also able to show. They had additionally fed all examined animal groups with conventional rape. They found not a single intact rape seed in the wild boar feces -- but in those of the fallow deer there were plenty, and 13.6% of those were capable of germination. "This shows that such studies need to be conducted separately for all genetically modified plants," Prof. Meyer concluded.

Journal references:

Wiedemann et al. Fate of genetically modified maize and conventional rapeseed, and endozoochory in wild boar (Sus scrofa). Mammalian Biology - Zeitschrift fur Saugetierkunde, 2009; 74 (3): 191 DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2008.07.002
Guertler et al. Fate of recombinant DNA and Cry1Ab protein after ingestion and dispersal of genetically modified maize in comparison to rapeseed by fallow deer (Dama dama). European Journal of Wildlife Research, 2008; 54 (1): 36 DOI: 10.1007/s10344-007-0104-4

Adapted from materials provided by Technische Universitaet Muenchen.

Modified Crops Reveal Hidden Cost Of Resistance

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:59:37 PM GMT

Modified Crops Reveal Hidden Cost Of Resistance

ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2009) — Genetically modified squash plants that are resistant to a debilitating viral disease become more vulnerable to a fatal bacterial infection, according to biologists.

"Cultivated squash is susceptible to a variety of viral diseases and that is a major problem for farmers," said Andrew Stephenson, Penn State professor of biology. "Infected plants grow more slowly and their fruit becomes misshapen."

In the mid-1990s, the U.S. Department of Agriculture approved genetically modified squash, which are resistant to three of the most important viral diseases in cultivated squash. However, while disease-resistant crops have been a boon to commercial farmers, ecologists worry there might be certain hidden costs associated with the modified crops.

"There is concern in the ecological community that, when the transgenes that confer resistance to these viral diseases escape into wild populations, they will (change) those plants," said Stephenson, whose team's findings appear on October 26 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "That could impact the biodiversity of plant communities where wild squash are native."

Stephenson and his colleagues James A. Winsor, professor of biology; Matthew J. Ferrari, research associate; and Miruna A. Sasu, doctoral student, all at Penn State; and Daolin Du, visiting professor, Jiangsu University, China, crossed the genetically modified squash into wild squash native to the southwestern United States and examined the resulting flower and fruit production.

Unlike a lab experiment, the researchers tried to mimic a real world setting during their three-year study.

The researchers then looked at the effects of the virus-resistant transgenes on prevalence of the three viral diseases, herbivory by cucumber beetles, as well as the occurrence of bacterial wilt disease that is spread by the cucumber beetles.

"When the cucumber beetles start to feed on infected plants they pick up the bacteria through their digestive system," explained Sasu. "This feeding creates open wounds on the leaves and when the bugs' feces falls on these open wounds, the bacteria find their way into the plumbing of the plant."

The researchers discovered that as the viral infection swept the fields containing both genetically modified and wild crops, the damage from cucumber beetles is greater on the genetically modified plants. The modified plants are therefore more susceptible to the fatal bacterial wilt disease.

"Plants that do not have the virus-resistant transgene get the viral disease," explained Stephenson, whose team's work is funded by the National Science Foundation. "However, since cucumber beetles prefer to feed on healthy plants rather than viral infected plants, the beetles become increasingly concentrated on the healthy -- mostly transgenic -- plants."

During a viral epidemic, the transgene provides modified plants with a fitness advantage over the wild plants. But when both the bacterial and viral pathogens are present, the beetles tend to avoid the smaller viral infected plants and concentrate on the healthy transgenic plants. This exposes those plants to the bacterial wilt disease against which they have no defense.

"Wild and transgenic plants had the same amount of damage from beetles before viral diseases were prevalent in our fields," said Stephenson. "Once the virus infected the wild plants, the transgenic plants had significantly greater damage from the beetles."

Results from the study show that over the course of three years, the prevalence of bacterial wilt disease was significantly greater on transgenic plants than on non-transgenic plants.

According to the researchers, their findings suggest that the fitness advantage enjoyed by virus-resistant plants comes at a price. Once the virus infects susceptible plants, cucumber beetles find the genetically modified plants a better source for food and mating.

"Our study has sought to uncover the ecological cost that might be associated with modified plants growing in the full community of organisms, including other insects and other diseases," said Ferrari. "We have shown that while genetic engineering has provided a solution to the problem of viral diseases, there are also these unintended consequences in terms of additional susceptibility to other diseases."

HUNGER/ Hypocrisy and the U.N.

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:54:33 PM GMT

HUNGER/ Hypocrisy and the U.N.

Henry Miller

venerdì 23 ottobre 2009

Bill Gates may be the world's richest person--and also the most generous, as measured by amount of philanthropy--but we shouldn't assume this makes him the most perspicacious. His intentions are admirable, to be sure. After spending years and billions of dollars on international health issues, particularly those of developing countries, Gates announced last week that his multibillion-dollar foundation will now focus on agriculture, because raising the productivity of poor farmers will have a "massive impact" on hunger.

Gates' announcement coincides with another report on hunger from the United Nations, this time from the World Food Programme, which posited that the global economic crisis has increased world hunger to a level that has left more than a billion undernourished. "It is unacceptable in the 21st century that almost one in six of the world's population is now going hungry," said Josette Sheeran, executive director of the World Food Programme. "We know what is needed to meet urgent hunger needs--we just need the resources and the international commitment to do the job."

This is hypocrisy of the vilest sort. In fact, U.N. agencies, programs and policies themselves have prevented farmers in the developing world from obtaining the tools they need to become more productive. That gets us back to Bill Gates and his big plans: His choice last year of former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan to head a new group intended to achieve a "green revolution" in African agriculture, the Alliance for a Green Revolution--established with an initial $150 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation--was incomprehensible. If past performance is any indication, the only things likely to become greener are the numbered bank accounts of Annan and his cronies.

Lest anyone forget, Annan's tenure as secretary general of the U.N. was marked by unprecedented corruption (including the Iraq Oil-for-Food debacle), incompetence and profligacy. The organization lacked any semblance of accountability and was (and is) populated by sleazy second-raters chosen for positions under a kind of nationality-based affirmative action scheme--such as Jacques Diouf, director-general of the U.N. Food & Agriculture Organization; and Jorgen Schlundt, head of the World Health Organization department concerned with food safety, zoonoses (diseases that spread from animals to humans) and infectious diseases.

How ironically appropriate were Annan's remarks in assuming his new position: "Africa should rely on African solutions--local labor, seeds and markets--without seeking imported biotech 'magic bullets' or the promise of more open foreign markets." He assured his listeners, "We are not embarking on a major genetically modified exercise."

Although "genetically modified" products could alleviate famine, water shortages and disease for millions, and even lead to the development of edible vaccines incorporated into fruits and vegetables, Annan's technophobia is no surprise. During his tenure at the U.N., a virtual alphabet soup of agencies and programs--WHO, UNEP, FAO, UNIDO, CBD, to name just a few--conducted a relentless, pointless and cynical war on biotechnology, also known as genetic engineering or genetic modification. The outcome--unscientific, highly politicized and excessive regulation of biotechnology--has prevented critical advances in agricultural and pharmaceutical research and development and has been especially catastrophic for poor nations.

The U.N.'s attitude toward plants that have been genetically improved to conserve water--a commodity which is, of course, critical for agriculture--is illustrative. Development of these plants is being hampered by over-regulation--including by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, the FAO/WHO U.N. agency that sets international food standards; and by the onerous, unscientific Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, which regulates field trials under the aegis of the U.N.'s Convention on Biological Diversity (the "Biodiversity Treaty").

In spite of the scientific consensus that the new techniques of genetic engineering are essentially extensions, or refinements, of conventional (but less precise and less predictable) techniques of genetic modification, both U.N. entities have established requirements for the products of genetic engineering (whether plants or food derived from them) that no conventionally modified product could meet.

The U.N.'s periodic warnings of dire, impending shortages of water belie its actions, which not only exacerbate water shortages and are harmful to health, but will also thwart the organization's own overblown Millennium Development Goals. The most ambitious objective, "to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger" by 2015, certainly cannot be accomplished without innovative technology--which, in turn, cannot be developed when bans and excessive regulatory barriers impede innovation.

Like much else that transpires within its agencies and programs, the U.N. regularly defies scientific consensus and common sense, instead pandering to extremists and, not coincidentally, adopting policies that expand its own scope and responsibilities. The result is vastly inflated research and development costs, less innovation and diminished exploitation of superior techniques and products that could offer more crop for the drop.

"Helping the poorest smallholder farmers grow more crops and get them to market is the world's single most powerful lever for reducing hunger," Gates said last week as he announced $120 million in grants for agricultural research and development. Kofi Annan possesses neither the judgment to recognize the right lever nor the political courage to push it. If Gates is to have any hope of achieving his laudable goals, he should do what we all do in the face of a software glitch--reboot. Or more precisely, give Annan the boot.

First published in Forbes. com

GM crops no panacea for food security: US scientist

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:51:50 PM GMT

GM crops no panacea for food security: US scientist Saturday, October 24, 2009
By Shahid Husain

KARACHI: Senior US scientist Dr Michael Hansen has said genetically modified crops are not the panacea for food security. Rather, the answer to food security lies with small-scale, ecologically rational, sustainable agriculture that focuses on local food systems.

“If you look carefully at global data, the most engineered crop is soybean. Ninety per cent of US acreage, 98 per cent of Argentina acreage and 60 per cent of Brazil are engineered,” he said.

“Scientific data show that on an average Roundup soybean has 10 per cent lower yield than non-engineered soybean. So if you want to feed more people, genetically-engineered soybean will not be the answer,” he said.

In an exclusive interview with The News recently, Dr Hansen, who is associated with the Consumers Union (USA), a non-profit publisher of consumer reports, said: “There is a global agreement under the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTDI) and it basically answers the question what kind of agriculture will be most useful in feeding the poor of the world. This four-year assessment, involving 400 scientists, concluded that ‘business as usual is not acceptable.’ They say the answer is not high technology such as genetic engineering or nano technology; rather the answer lies with small scale, ecologically rational agriculture that focuses on local food systems, reforms of trade laws and enabling policy environment and paying attention to gender issues.”

Asked to comment on giant US multinational Monsanto’s claim that Bt cotton requires less water and is pest free, he said: “It’s wrong! In 2002, Bt cotton smuggled from Australia was planted in Sindh. A detailed survey of 138 farmers in four districts reporting growing Bt cotton on 4,249 hectares showed that local cotton variety non-engineered NIAB-78 received six irrigations while Bt cotton received 11 to 12 irrigations which resulted in increased cost of 1,750 rupees per acre. That clearly shows that Bt cotton uses more water.

“Similarly, in 2002, farmers were surveyed in five districts in Punjab. There the cost in terms of rupee per acre for water was Rs2,600 for Bt cotton and Rs2,100 for non-Bt cotton. Bt cotton used 25 per cent more water in Punjab than non-Bt cotton and almost 100 per cent more water in Sindh.”

Asked to what extent the apprehension was true that with the introduction of Bt cotton and other genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) seed business in Pakistan is likely to be monopolised, he said: “The answer is yes.”

Citing a report of the US Department of Agriculture and the Pakistan Annual Cotton Report released in May 2009, he said Monsanto has gained approval for a plan to introduce advanced genetically-modified crop technology and hybrid technology in Pakistan.

“Approval was granted by the Economic Coordination Committee of the Cabinet. In exchange, Monsanto would bring advanced genetically-modified hybrid seed technology to Pakistan.

The government has promised a law called the Plant Breeders Rights and Seeds Act and they will vigorously enforce that law. Such a law will effectively give Monsanto monopoly control over the seed industry in Pakistan since Monsanto is the largest seed company in this country.”

Asked to what extent the claim that GMOs are drought-resistant is true, he said: “While it is true that transnational chemical corporations such as BASF and Monsanto are taking out patents on ‘climate ready genes’ such as genes from drought tolerance, heat tolerance and flood tolerance, Monsantoís field test of drought tolerant corn and drought tolerant maize shows that under drought conditions, the drought-tolerant maize has higher yields. However, under normal conditions, maize has less yield than conventional seeds.

Then there are also other problems with tolerant crops: work with drought-tolerant wheat shows the same results. Increased yields under drought but lower yields when there is normal rainfall.”

He said in the meantime, in the last 10 years the International Centre for Improvement of Maize and Wheat (CIMMYT) has released 50 variations of either hybrid or open pollinated maize varieties. So that means that genetically-engineered hybrid has not produced any useful drought-tolerant wheat varieties while conventional breeding has produced them.

“It makes more sense to go with the conventional technology such as traditional plant breeding that has already shown results in this area while genetically-modified technology has produced no useful results,” he said.

Ireland Bans Gm Crops

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:48:44 PM GMT

Ireland Bans Gm Crops

Ireland has been making eco-headlines of late for taking the unusual step of banning the cultivation of genetically modified crops. The Green Isle now joins a growing number of countries that have opted to ban the growing of GM crops including Japan, Egypt and Germany.

GM Free Ireland reports that the Irish Government will now ban the cultivation of all GM crops and introduce a voluntary GM-free label for food – including meat, poultry, eggs, fish, crustaceans, and dairy produce made without the use of GM animal feed.

The policy was adopted as part of the Renewed Programme for Government agreed between the two coalition partners, the centre-right Fianna Faíl and the Green Party, after the latter voted to support it last week. The agreement specifies that the Government will "Declare the Republic of Ireland a GM-Free Zone, free from the cultivation of all GM plants".

Friends of the Earth Europe's GMO campaign coordinator Helen Holder said "All around Europe, countries are putting up bans or other limits to growing genetically modified crops and the Irish government is to be congratulated. The EU should drop genetically modified food and crops, and instead support green farming which is good for the economy and for the planet".

Visit: http://www.gmfreeireland.org/

Are GM Foods The Key To Feeding The World?

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:45:51 PM GMT

Are GM Foods The Key To Feeding The World?

In a somewhat controversial statement made on Wednesday, England’s elite science academy, The Royal Society, said that world must utilize genetically modified crops in order to feed a rapidly growing global population and reduce the environmental damage of large-scale farming.

The academy’s report referred to the “grand challenge” of feeding an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050—a statement corroborated by a report issued earlier this month by the UN’s Food and Agricultural Organization which stated that current food production will have to be increased by 70 percent by halfway through the century in order to feed the explosive population growth in developing countries.

Royal Society chair and Cambridge University professor David Baulcombe summed up the problem for Reuters reporters as one of balancing the need for a dramatic increase in food production without further increasing the environmental impact of farming.

“The problem is such an acute one, doing that sustainably [farming] without eroding soil, overusing fertilizers is an enormous challenge,” he explained.

“There isn’t a lot more land to use, and from the point of expense and using fossil fuels, we want to use less fertilizer.”

“The food supply problem is likely to come to a head 10, 20, 30 years from now,” he explained, highlighting the time crunch that this will put scientists in to develop robust new genetically-tweaked crops.

The solution, however, will not be found solely in the development of new super-crops but also in taking new, innovative and environmentally friendly approaches to land management.

A number of scientists report that farming directly and indirectly accounts for as much as a third of the greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere each year. According to some, practices like clearing large swathes of forests for farmland may have nearly as large an impact on the atmosphere as the production of the fossil fuel-based fertilizers used to enrich the soil.

After years of food over-production in much of the western world, growing populations and changing diets in developing countries as well as increased demand for biofuels and soaring energy prices are reinvigorating interest in long-term agricultural investment.

According to a report by UN agencies released last week, an estimated billion people worldwide will suffer from malnutrition in 2009 as a result of food shortages and the global economic slump.

Not everyone, however, believes that GM crops are the solution to the hunger problem. The environmental group Greenpeace has stated that the real solution lays in helping small-time farmers in developing countries get their products to the market, and that all the hoopla surrounding GM foods only distracts from the real issues.

“Poverty and hunger are the same thing,” said Greenpeace’s European GM policy directory, Marco Contiero.

Contiero also added the world is already producing enough crops to feed itself and the problem lies rather in the “fair” distribution of existing supplies.

According to the Royal Society’s report, some of the challenges faced by researchers in the coming years include developing strains of crops that are not only disease and pest resistant, but also able to withstand drought, heat and high levels of salinity and toxic heavy metals.

Baulcombe says that there is cause for optimism, however, as significant advances in genetic engineering have drastically improved the predictability of results for today’s genetically modified plants.

“We’re looking at a different base than 10 years ago,” he said.

---

On the Net:

The Royal Society

Call to ban Bt Brinjal

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:39:15 PM GMT

Call to ban Bt Brinjal

Express News Service

First Published : 21 Oct 2009 03:09:00 AM IST

Last Updated : 21 Oct 2009 06:49:10 AM IST

CHENNAI: A week after the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee, the biotechnology regulator of India, gave its nod to cultivate Bt brinjal, activists and farmers under the banner of Tamil Nadu Women’s Collective staged a demonstration in the city demanding a complete ban on the crop in the country.

According to R V Giri, general secretary of Consortium of Indian Farmers Associations, Tamil Nadu chapter, the introduction of the Bt (Bacillus Thuringiensis) variety would render cultivatable land infertile. Once Bt brinjal seeds are used in a farmland, no other seed varieties could be cultivated there, he added. “In fact, agrarians will be forced to depend only on Bt brinjal seeds from then on, which means it has to be imported from the United States,” he noted. He said the Bt seed was an invention of Monsanto, a US based agriculture firm.

While one kg of the Bt seed costs Rs 150, the traditional seeds in the country is priced anywhere between Rs 10 and Rs 15. “Our nation is independent as far as agriculture sector is concerned. If Bt varieties spread here, the country may soon become dependent on Western countries in this sector as well,” Giri cautioned.

On health hazards, Giri alleged that people eating it could even become impotent. He wondered why the Centre approved GM varieties at a time when several other nations had banned them.

Anbumani’s call: Former Union minister for health Dr Anbumani Ramadoss urged Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to place at least a 10-year moratorium on all GM crop environmental releases. In a letter to the PM, he said since the State Governments have an authority over agriculture and health and Kerala and Orissa do not want such crops to be introduced, the Union Government should not take any step violating this constitutional authority vested with State governments.

EU farm ministers refuse to okay new GM maize strains

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:35:50 PM GMT

EU farm ministers refuse to okay new GM maize strains

(AFP) – Oct 19, 2009

LUXEMBOURG — European Union farm ministers refused to give their seal of approval on Monday to plans to allow the import of genetically-modified maize from US growers, diplomats said.

During a meeting of European Union agriculture ministers in Luxembourg dominated by crisis in the dairy sector, nations were unable to agree on proposals to greenlight the latest batch of so-called 'Frankenstein foods.'

Agriculture Commissioner Mariann Fischer Boel sought the go-ahead for two strains of corn produced by Monsanto and another by rivals Pioneer to be cleared for import by European firms.

Several sources told AFP that the decision would ultimately be left up to the commission itself, because if no agreement can be reached by the ministers Brussels will have free rein to choose.

Fischer Boel argued that a shortage of soya for animal feedstuffs and over-reliance on US exporters meant the EU had to get over old fears about new products.

She slammed regulations that meant one large shipment of soya was turned back from EU borders this summer because traces of unauthorised GM maize, that she said were harmless, were found in its containers.

"We have to rely on science and not on emotions," said Fischer Boel. "The commission will take a clear decision and that will be a yes," she vowed.

Only a handful of genetically modified crops have been approved for cultivation in the European Union, but of them only Monsanto's MON810 maize, approved in 1998, is so far being grown.

The MON810 case has become a source of transatlantic friction. The United States has warned Europe against using environmental issues as an excuse for protectionism.

Six European countries -- Austria, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary and Luxembourg -- had adopted safeguard clauses to ban its cultivation on their territory.

GM food can cause cancer

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:31:18 PM GMT

GM food can cause cancer

French scientist Gilles-Eric Séralini unmasked the dangers of genetically modified brinjal, almost approved for commercial production in India. He shared with Savvy Soumya Misra his findings on Bt brinjal and Roundup Ready soybean

On the data submitted on Bt brinjal by Mahyco for approval from the Indian government

The data submitted to the Genetic Engineering Approval Committee (geac) of the Union environment ministry is not valid; it has not been signed by the scientist who conducted the tests. What is more scandalous is that the studies on the effects of Bt brinjal were conducted for just three months. If the product is to be consumed by humans, the tests should have been for a period of at least two years—the lifespan of a rodent.

Worse, Mahyco tried to cover up the side-effects by jumbling data on various types of brinjal in a way that it was hard to compare Bt brinjal with normal brinjal. I am sorry to say people in the geac did not carefully assess the data. It is also not clear how the geac overlooked the fact that Bt brinjal has a protein that induces resistance to antibiotics. Mahyco has not studied hormonal impacts of Bt brinjal—Bt toxin found in it could lead to reproductive health problems.

On his findings on Roundup Ready soybean that tolerates herbicides

Our study found that even minute doses of Roundup (a natural herbicide) disrupt sex hormones like androgen and estrogen. The inert ingredients in Roundup Ready (RR) soybean like polyethoxylated tallowamine kill human cells and disrupt the synthesis and action of human sex hormones. The research was published in this year’s July edition of the journal Toxicology. Some pregnant women who consumed RR soybean developed disorders. This combined with certain studies on animals in labs (conducted by others) made us conclude that Roundup is an endocrine disruptor.

On claims that GM plants reduce the need for pesticides

This is a false projection. Bt plants, in fact, are designed to produce toxins to repel pests. Bt brinjal produces a very high quantity of 16-17mg toxin per kg. They affect animals. Unfortunately, tests to ascertain their effect on humans have not been conducted. RR soybean that makes up 63 per cent of GM plants in the world contains high amounts of Roundup. The US food and drug administration (usfda) has allowed up to 400 ppm Roundup residues in animal feed. It is much more than what we recommended. There was a paper published in June in Scientific American saying usfda would review the approval accorded to RR soybean because of our study.

On other tests that were needed

Apart from increasing the period of trial, tests should be conducted to ascertain the effect of such food on hormones. For studies on health impact, the quantity of GM crop in the diet given to rodents should be specified. The tests should be conducted on a higher number of animals.

On the health impact of herbicide-tolerant crops like RR soybean

Toxins in GM plants can cause cancer, hormonal and reproductive problems and disorders of the nervous system. These chronic diseases are exploding all over the world and to our knowledge bacteria or viruses are not causing them. They may be due to chemicals contained in food. So, we definitely do not need food full of synthetic chemicals.

On the effect on bees and butterflies

GM food will affect pollinators. The genetic pollution that artificial foods will usher will multiply many times over with passing time. The whole ecosystem will get polluted as all GM plants either contain or produce toxins.

On GM feed reaching humans through cattle and swine

Animals fed on GM food may have immunological defects and other problems that can affect humans who consume their meat. These animals should be labelled; Europe is preparing to label animals fed on GM crops. Labelling is important to trace the origin of animal products so that they can be recalled, if necessary.

On Monsanto, the biotech giant that licensed Mahyco to develop Bt brinjal, criticizing your study on its blog

The Monsanto blog said my choice of cells for the study was not biological but political. This argument is void. The blog said we used high concentration of Roundup residue. This is incorrect. We tested different Roundup formulations on fresh placenta, embryonic cells, umbilical cord cells and hepatic cell lines. Even when the formulations were diluted almost 100,000 times, the cells were destroyed. The actual concentration in GM food and feed is much higher than what we tested. Consuming it can even lead to defects in newborns.

Too late to shut the door on GM foods

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:25:41 PM GMT

Too late to shut the door on GM foods

Consumers said no to the GM farming giants a decade ago, but that didn’t stop millions of tonnes of their soya entering the food chain

Publish Date: Sunday,18 October, 2009, at 11:36 PM Doha Time

By Felicity Lawrence/London

Ten years ago, when the genetic modification of food was first offered to the British public, it responded with a resounding no, and politicians and the food industry said GM would not be foisted on reluctant consumers. As far as most people are concerned, that is still the situation today; they think their diet remains GM-free.

A report from the Royal Society this week will spark an intense new phase in the GM debate, however, during which the public may be surprised to discover how far GM has already penetrated our food supply.

The report’s contents are strictly embargoed but it’s a safe bet that its authors, many of whom work in biotechnology research, will argue that we need to put aside any suspicions and embrace GM if there is to be any chance of feeding the world’s growing population in the face of climate change and growing scarcity of water and land.

The government has been waiting for the report since a cabinet meeting at the turn of the year. Back then the prime minister, all secretaries of state with responsibilities that touch upon food, the chief scientist Sir John Beddington, and the then chair of the Food Standards Agency Dame Deirdre Hutton, got together to discuss what they saw as an urgent dilemma: they believed that the official line on GM had become untenable, according to a well-placed source.

Of the 2.6mn tonnes of soya imported into the UK last year, nearly two-thirds was genetically modified. The vast majority of this came from the Americas and was used as animal feed, although most people remain unaware of it. GM soya oil is also now used in quantity in the catering industry, according to government reports.

“We are living a lie”, is how one senior food industry executive put it in discussions with Whitehall officials.

“My wake up and worry moments are about high levels of GM being found in the UK feed chain where it’s claimed to be GM-free,” a leading retail figure has told the Guardian.

Shipping in GM soya is perfectly legal, so long as the varieties imported are ones that have been authorised by the EU. The variety of GM soya that currently dominates global production, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready, has been authorised by the EU.

However, some newer varieties have not yet been approved here. Importing even trace levels of unauthorised varieties is illegal, and industry has been pushing hard to have the approval process speeded up. Any GM food sold directly to the consumer also has to be labelled.

With so much imported GM soya in the system, a senior official told us: “It seems increasingly unlikely that food on the shelves in the UK is free of GM. Identity-preserved chains (in which manufacturers and retailers track the source of their soya at every stage back to non-GM plantings) are becoming very, very difficult and there is just so much GM coming in, the probability is that, if you tested food from the supermarket shelf, you would find traces of GM in it. There is great anxiety about it.”

In fact a special report on food commissioned by the prime minister from the Cabinet Office strategy unit highlighted GM as an immediate domestic issue back in the summer of 2008. It said: “Consumer confidence in UK regulations, regulators and food supplies might be prejudiced if GM feed was found in systems claiming to be GM-free or if non-authorised varieties were detected in the UK food chain. If non-authorised material is found, there are also significant cost implications associated with recall.”

Perhaps fortunately for industry and government, almost no GM testing of food products is currently conducted. To keep ahead of a crisis, the cabinet meeting decided that the independent Royal Society report would represent an opportunity for a respectable shift in government position.

Several departments have been persuaded that GM will be needed to tackle the pressures of population growth and climate change. Many scientists have also argued that GM research could make some contribution to calming the “perfect storm” threatening global food supply that Beddington has warned we face in the coming decades.

It was also agreed that the Food Standards Agency should reopen the debate with the public about GM – which it did last month by announcing new research on consumer opinion. Announcements from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) over the summer also began to frame GM as a new moral imperative in feeding the world.

The anti-GM lobby meanwhile have been squaring up for a fight over the Royal Society report ever since the project was conceived. A group of development and environmental charities wrote an open letter last October, accusing the Royal Society of failing to look at the real causes of the global food crisis. They said that the new work would be “of limited value” if it focused on “proprietary technologies” controlled by agribusiness.

They also asked why it was needed when a UN-sponsored four-year review, involving more than 400 international scientists and chaired by Defra’s own chief scientist, Professor Robert Watson, had already concluded that GM technologies were unlikely to have more than a limited role in tackling global hunger.

The concentration of corporate power in commercial seed and agrochemical production is unprecedented, as is its crossover with the powerful US-based commodity trading corporations Cargill, ADM and Bunge.

In the space of less than three decades, intellectual property rights have been applied to 82% of the global seed market, according to data collected by campaign group ETC.

Three companies now control nearly half of the total global market in proprietary seeds, worth $22bn (£13.5bn) a year. In 2007, the US-based Monsanto accounted for nearly a quarter of the total global market (23%), followed by another American company, DuPont (15%) and Swiss-headquartered Syngenta (9%).

Just six companies –the above three plus Bayer, BASF and Dow AgroSciences – control three-quarters of the global agrochemical market.

Until recently they were often engaged in bitter litigation with each other – DuPont is currently claiming that Monsanto operates an illegal monopoly in the US, an allegation denied by Monsanto and being investigated along with soya seed price hikes by the US department of justice.

But the more recent trend has been to form strategic alliances. For example, in 2007 Monsanto and Syngenta dropped litigation over intellectual property rights against each other and agreed cross-licences instead.

For John Fagan, chief scientist at Cert-ID, it is this corporate concentration and the realities of global trade that are at the heart of the UK government’s perceived dilemma over GM. Fagan does not believe the dilemma is a real one. His company is the leading US certifier of non-GM soya for import from Brazil to Europe and the idea that GM-free chains of supply are too hard to maintain is “garbage” he says.

Brazil has more than enough GM-free soya to keep the UK going and, despite the fears of the food and farming industry and Whitehall departments, will continue to plant non-GM so long as it gets paid to keep different supplies segregated.

“The big US agricultural commodity traders Cargill, ADM and Bunge have major biotech seed research projects of their own,” said Fagan. “They have deep alliances with Monsanto and Syngenta. They want US GM soya to be accepted uncritically in Europe and they would prefer every soya bean on the planet to be equal to every other soya bean because that’s what profitable commodity trading is about.”

There is unease among scientists too that agribusiness restricts the kind of research on GM that might actually spread any potential benefits. An editorial in Scientific American magazine complained recently that it was “impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised”-- Guardian News and Media

Opensourcing GM flowers: “Biopiracy” in the name of art

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:22:53 PM GMT

Opensourcing GM flowers: “Biopiracy” in the name of art

Imagine a do-it-yourself genetic piracy kit where you could clone genetically modified (GM) plants in your own kitchen and, if you were crazy or creative enough, set them free. Well that’s exactly what the Common Flowers / Flower Commons project has set out to do: revert flower cuttings into their genetically modified origins by transforming cuttings with basic kitchen utensils to create living flowers.

For this years Ars Eletronica art festival in Austria, artists Shiho Fukuhara & Georg Tremmel used as their specimen the “Moondust” blue carnation which was developed in 1995 by Japanese beer and whiskey brewer Suntory. The blue carnation quickly and quietly received approval for limited release and was promptly shipped to Columbia where it was clipped and cloned and shipped around around the world in the global cut-flower market.

How much say did the citizens of the world have in all of this? Not much, apparently, which is partly what gets exposed in Tremmel and Fukuhara’s exhibit.

The Moondust carnation was the first ever genetically modified consumer product not destined for a human or animal stomach (i.e. non-food). On the assumption that the modified genes wouldn’t work their way into the global food-chain, the approval happened without much public hoopla or scrutiny.

Common Flower / Flower Commons takes this apparent scientifically sanctioned sense of security in the global release of a GM flower and uses it to test the limits of how safe the public feels. From the artist statement: “…because the plants are ofﬁcially considered “not harmful” and therefore legally permitted to grow outside, we took the next logical step and released the blue GM carnation into the environment. This action should ask questions about the state of intellectual property, ownership and copyright issues surrounding the bio-hacking and bio-bending of plants.” Yowza. Sure should.

Fukuhara and Tremmel wanted to create an “opensource” population of Moondust flowers. And, lest the public, you know, freak out, they had a plan. “At the moment we content ourselves to a closed Beta release, as we still can not judge the wider public reaction towards the released plants. We can however conﬁrm, that the blue carnations have been successfully release in the areas of Setagaya, Japan and Cologne, Germany.”

A gesture for art outside of the gallery if there ever was one.

Now, as it turns out, festival organizers were also alarmed about the possibilities, and the flowers were not released. But, as Tremmel explained in a recent interview, part of the goal was to demystify biotechnologies. “The instructions for hacking the plants is quite simple, its possible that they are growing now in someone’s house, getting ready to be planted outside in the spring”.

As for attracting the attention of authorities – say the plant and animal copyright police – Tremmel says there has been very little concern expressed about the project. He did say that he and Fukuhara have received a letter from the Austrian Federal Ministry for Health, Subsection Gene Technology, but that because the matter is still ongoing, he couldn’t say much.

Got a question or concern? Contact the artists. I suspect they would love to hear from you.

And, in case you’ve been wondering, Suntory has indeed developed the next in their line of blue flowers: the once thought impossible blue rose – and, no doubt also coming soon, blue weeds in a garden near you.

Britain will starve without GM crops, says major report

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:18:09 PM GMT

Britain will starve without GM crops, says major report

A new row over genetically modified foods being introduced into our shops has broken out after a Royal Society report recommended GM crops should be grown in Britain.

By Robert Mendick and Patrick Sawer
Published: 7:00AM BST 18 Oct 2009

Oilseed rape, one of the four main commercial genetically modified crops Photo: EPA

The study concluded that GM crops are needed to prevent a catastrophic food crisis by 2050.

But the report has sparked a backlash from opponents of GM foods who say they present a threat to the livelihood of small farmers.

They fear the Government will use the 100-page study, due to be published this week, to force the introduction of GM technology back on to the political agenda. Many in the Cabinet and Whitehall appear to be convinced that Britain can no longer resist its introduction into the UK market.

Previous plans to grow GM crops commercially in the UK had to be scrapped following a concerted campaign by environmental protesters and a backlash by consumers who refuse to eat so-called 'Frankenstein foods'.

However, the Royal Society report, which has taken more than a year to compile, is expected to say that Britain should no longer resist their introduction.

A source told The Sunday Telegraph: "The report will say the right GM crops should be used in the future to alleviate food shortages. This study is going to move the debate forward. The Government will have to take notice of this.

"The world is undergoing dramatic change and it won't be long before people are thinking 'where is my next meal coming from?' Where GM has been proved effective at either increasing yields or else resistant to diseases it should be used in the UK. GM crops need to be looked at one by one. They are not the only solution to world hunger but they are part of it."

The report entitled Reaping the Benefits: Towards a Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture, was commissioned in July 2008 in response to a UN report which predicted that world food production needs to double by 2050 to sustain a global population expected to reach nine billion.

The remit of the Royal Society working group – made up of eight eminent scientists and chaired by Professor David Baulcombe, Professor of Botany at Cambridge University – was to examine "biological approaches to enhance food-crop production".

The report looks at a series of options to increase crop yields in the UK and around the world by between 50 per cent and 100 per cent, and although GM – the altering of the genetic make-up of a crop to produce better growing results – is only one option it is likely to be the most controversial.

The fear of the effect of GM crops on surrounding harvests led to eco-activists destroying field test sites which was a major factor in forcing producers to withdraw proposals to grow GM in the UK at the beginning of the decade.

Only one GM crop, a type of maize engineered by the American agricultural biotech firm Monsanto, has even been approved for planting in the European Union. It is currently farmed commercially – albeit on a relatively small scale – in Spain. But outside the Europe Union GM crops are grown on as much as 125 million hectares of land, mainly in north and South America and the Indian subcontinent.

However nearly two-thirds of the 2.6m tonnes of soya imported into the UK last year was genetically modified and GM soya oil is widely used in the catering industry.

Environmental campaigners are suspicious that the Royal Society report is part of a renewed attempt to force GM crops on to the British public.

They point to an announcement slipped out last month by the Food Standards Agency (FSA), the Government body in charge of food safety, to hold a new round of public debates on the value of GM. When a similar exercise was carried out in 2003, the public failed to be persuaded of the need for GM.

A Cabinet meeting at the start of the year, which included Gordon Brown, the chief scientist Sir John Beddington and the then chair of the FSA, Dame Deirdre Hutton, is understood to have concluded that Britain's official stance of opposition to GM crops had to be altered.

Cabinet papers leaked at the time showed the government appeared to be ready to go ahead with GM crops despite what it recognised would be considerable public resistance.

It is understood the Royal Society report will present the Government with a perfect opportunity to begin the process of winning the public round to GM foods.

A DEFRA spokesman said: "We have not yet seen the report, but we look forward to its release and will read it with interest. Our top priority is to safeguard human health and the environment and always follow the science. We recognise that GM crops could offer a range of potential benefits over the longer term."

But environmentalists said last night that the Society's terms of reference were flawed and accused scientists of using the public's fears over climate change to try to influence the debate on GM.

Kirtana Chandrasekaran, Friends of the Earth's food campaigner, said: "There is no scientific evidence that GM produces huge yields. The public doesn't want it, small scale farmers don't want it and yet the Government keeps on pushing it. It's completely outrageous."

Many experts and academics regard the argument that GM can solve the world's food crisis as deeply flawed.

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, in London, said: "There is no technical fix to the huge issue of food security. If there were a 'people's GM', I wouldn't be against it. But the problem with GM is the way it has been introduced, primarily as a way of maintaining the sales of pesticide companies."

Bill Gates says ideology threatens hunger fix

Tue 3 Nov 2009 5:09:14 PM GMT

Bill Gates says ideology threatens hunger fix

Thu Oct 15, 2009 2:29pm EDT

By Christine Stebbins and Roberta Rampton

DES MOINES, Iowa (Reuters) - The fight to end hunger is being hurt by environmentalists who insist that genetically modified crops cannot be used in Africa, Bill Gates, the billionaire founder of software giant Microsoft, said on Thursday.

Gates said GMO crops, fertilizer and chemicals are important tools -- although not the only tools -- to help small farms in Africa boost production.

"This global effort to help small farmers is endangered by an ideological wedge that threatens to split the movement in two," Gates said in his first address on agriculture made during the annual World Food Prize forum.

"Some people insist on an ideal vision of the environment," Gates said. "They have tried to restrict the spread of biotechnology into sub-Saharan Africa without regard to how much hunger and poverty might be reduced by it."

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in recent years has turned its focus to helping poor, small-holder farmers grow and sell more crops as a way to reduce hunger and poverty.

The foundation, which has committed $1.4 billion to agricultural development efforts, announced on Thursday nine new grants worth a total of $120 million aimed at raising yields and farming expertise in the developing world.

Funding will go to legumes that fix nitrogen in the soil, higher-yielding varieties of sorghum and millet, and new varieties of sweet potatoes that resist pests, Gates said.

The Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA) will get $15 million to help train analysts and encourage farmer-friendly policies on seeds, markets, land tenure and women's rights in five countries that have made strides in developing agriculture.

"Externally imposed solutions do not necessarily work," AGRA President Namaga Ngongi told Reuters, noting "people who are likely to live with the consequences of the decisions if they do not work" need to be more involved.

Gates told the World Food Prize forum, which honors people who make major contributions to reducing hunger, that farmers need training and access to markets, not just new seeds.

"People are always telling me not to be too naive about the path from the trials to the breakthrough advance to how that will get out to the small-holder," Gates said.

The World Food Prize was established by Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Prize-winning scientist known as "the father of the Green Revolution" for his work with rice and wheat.

Gates acknowledged the first Green Revolution had negative impacts on the environment as it dramatically raised yields.

"The next Green Revolution has to be greener than the first," Gates said. "It must be guided by small-holder farmers, adapted to local circumstances, and sustainable for the economy and the environment."

The Gates Foundation is working with research partners on drought-tolerant maize using both conventional crop-breeding techniques and biotechnology, Gates said, noting he hopes seeds will be available in two or three years.

The impact of those new varieties could help convince skeptics of the benefits of biotechnology, he said.

"The technologies will be licensed royalty free to seed distributors so that the new seeds can be sold to African farmers without extra charge," Gates said.

"I hope that the debate over productivity will not slow the distribution of these seeds," Gates said.

He also called on research companies to adapt technology to the needs of small farmers, and to make them available without royalties in the poorest counties.

African governments must invest in the work, Gates said, and rich counties that have pledged to increase funding for development must spell out the details of their plans.

"How much is old money, how much is new, how soon can they spend it, and when will they do more?" Gates said.

(Reporting by Roberta Rampton and Christine Stebbins; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

ilsack Mistakenly Pitched "GMOs-Feed-The-World" to an Audience of Experts--Oops

Tue 3 Nov 2009 4:53:15 PM GMT

Vilsack Mistakenly Pitched "GMOs-Feed-The-World" to an Audience of Experts--Oops

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.

Why You Should Say No to GMOs (Opinion)

Tue 3 Nov 2009 4:47:04 PM GMT

Why You Should Say No to GMOs (Opinion)

by Hesh Goldstein, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

(NaturalNews) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are the latest travesty thrust upon an unsuspecting public by the greedy, control minded corporations that see the Almighty Sign ($$) as the ultimate in achieving the highest "bottom line" possible. If you control the food supply you control the people. If you control the people, then ultimately they will work for you and their money is yours.

Did you know...if seeds from a GMO field blow over to a non-GMO field the non-GMO farmer can be sued for theft?

Did you know...normally, a farmer holds seeds to be used for the next season? But Monsanto, who must be hurting for money, makes GMO farmers buy new seeds every year?

Did you know... if you ever wondered why GMO foods are not labeled as such it is because Monsanto paid off whoever to make sure that GMO foods do NOT get labeled as such? Do you think they did that because they knew that no one would buy them if they were labeled?

Did you know... research was done that showed when GMO and non-GMO foods are put in the wild the animals will not eat the GMO food? One would think we would learn from that.

Did you know...one would ask why GMO foods are so readily accepted by the Fraud and Drug Administration? Wonder if Monsanto`s former top executives having key positions in the FDA have anything to do with that?

Did you know... since 1996 Americans have been eating genetically modified ingredients in most processed foods?

Did you know... GM plants, such as soybean, corn, cottonseed, canola (what`s a canola?) and now sugar beets have had foreign genes forced into their DNA and the inserted genes come from bacteria and viruses that have never been in the human food supply?

Did you know... GMOs have been linked to thousands of toxic and allergic reactions, thousands of sick, sterile and dead livestock, and damage to virtually every organ and system studied in lab animals?

In 1992, the Fraud and Drug Administration claimed that they had no information showing that GM foods were substantially different from conventionally grown foods and therefore were safe to eat. But, internal memos made public by a lawsuit reveal that their position was staged by political appointees under orders from the White House to promote GMOs.

FDA scientists, on the other hand, warned that GMOs can create unpredictable, hard-to-detect side effects, including allergies, toxins, new diseases, and nutritional problems. They urged long-term safety studies, but were ignored. Why? Because the Fraud and Drug Administration does not require any safety evaluations for GMOs.

Instead, biotech companies, who have been found guilty of hiding the toxic effects of their chemical products, are now in charge of determining whether their GM foods are safe. The FDA official in charge of creating this policy was Michael Taylor, Monsanto`s former attorney and later vice-president.

Although these biotech companies participate in a voluntary consultation process with the FDA, it is a meaningless exercise. The summaries of the superficial research they submit cannot identify most of the health risks of GMOs. In contrast to the statements of biotech advocates, FDA scientists and others affirm that genetic modification is not just an extension of the conventional breeding techniques that have been used by farmers for lifetimes. Genetic engineering transfers genes across natural species barriers, using imprecise laboratory techniques that bear no resemblance to natural breeding. Furthermore, the technology is based on outdated concepts of how genes and cells work.

Gene insertion is done either by shooting genes from a gene gun into a plate of cells or by using bacteria to invade the cell with foreign DNA. The altered cell is then cloned into a plant. These processes create massive collateral damage, causing mutations in hundreds or thousands of locations throughout the plant`s DNA.

Natural genes can be deleted or permanently turned on or off, and hundreds may change their levels of expression. In addition, the inserted gene is often rearranged, may transfer from the food into our body`s cells or into the DNA of bacteria inside us, and the GM protein produced by the gene may have unintended properties or effects.

The primary reason companies genetically engineer plants is to make them tolerant to their brand of herbicide and pesticide. The four major GM plants, soy, corn, canola, and cotton and now, sugar beets, are designed to survive an otherwise deadly dose of weed killer. These crops have much higher residues of toxic herbicides.

Basically, Monsanto created GMOs to withstand enormous amounts of their cash crop, Roundup *(see end of article for some interesting bits about Roundup). The second GM trait is a built-in pesticide. A gene from the soil bacterium called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) is inserted into cotton and corn DNA, where it secretes the insect-killing Bt-toxin in every cell. About 19% of GM crops produce their own pesticide. Another 13% produce a pesticide and are herbicide, pesticide tolerant.

Also, small amounts of zucchini, and yellow crookneck squash as well as Hawaiian papaya are engineered to resist plant viruses. In fact, virtually all Hawaiian papaya is genetically modified.

Now, let`s take a look at some of the evidence of harm from GMOs: Soy allergies skyrocketed by 50% in the UK, soon after GM soy was introduced. A human subject showed a skin prick allergic-type reaction to GM soy, but not to natural soy. The level of one known soy allergen is as much as 7-times higher in cooked GM soy compared to non-GM soy. GM soy also contains an unexpected allergen-type protein not found in natural soy.

The biotech industry claims that the Bt-toxin found in corn and cotton is harmless to humans and mammals because the natural bacteria version has been used as a spray by farmers for years. In reality, hundreds of people exposed to Bt spray had allergic-type symptoms and mice fed Bt had powerful immune responses and damaged intestines. Bt in GM crops is designed to be more toxic than the natural spray and is thousands of times more concentrated. Hundreds of laborers in India report allergic reactions just from handling Bt cotton and their symptoms are identical to those exposed to Bt spray.

No tests can guarantee that a GMO will not cause allergies. Although the World Health Organization recommends a protein screening protocol, the GM soy, corn, and papaya in our food supply fail these tests because they have properties of known allergens. If proteins digest slowly, there is more time for allergic reactions. Because GM soy reduces digestive enzymes in mice, it may slow protein digestion and promote allergies to many foods.

Mice not only reacted to Bt-toxin, they had immune responses to formerly harmless compounds. Similarly, a mouse test indicated that people eating GM peas could develop allergies to the peas and to a range of other foods. The peas had already passed all the allergy tests normally used to get GMOs on the market. It took this advanced mouse test, which was never used on the GMOs we eat, to discover that the peas could be deadly.

Rats fed GM potatoes had smaller, partially atrophied livers. The livers of rats fed GM canola were 12-16% heavier. GM soy altered mouse liver cells in ways that suggest a toxic insult. The changes reversed after their diet switched to non-GM soy. More than half the offspring of mother rats fed GM soy died within three weeks and male rats and mice fed GM soy showed changes in their testicles; the mice had altered young sperm cells. The DNA of mouse embryos whose parents ate GM soy functioned differently than those whose parents ate non-GM soy and the stomach lining of rats fed GM potatoes showed excessive cell growth, a condition that may be a precursor to cancer. Rats also had damaged organs and immune systems.

When sheep grazed on Bt cotton plants after harvest, within a week 1 in 4 died. Farmers in Europe and Asia say that cows, water buffaloes, chickens and horses died from eating Bt corn varieties. About two dozen US farmers report that Bt corn varieties caused widespread sterility in pigs and cows. On the human side, Filipinos in at least five villages fell sick when a nearby Bt corn variety was pollinating.

Unlike safety evaluations for drugs, there are no human clinical trials of GM foods. The only published human feeding experiment verified that genetic material inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of intestinal bacteria and continues to function. This means that long after we stop eating GM foods, we may still have their GM proteins continuously inside us. This means that if the antibiotic gene inserted into most GM crops were to transfer, it could create super diseases resistant to antibiotics and if the gene that creates Bt-toxin in GM corn were to transfer, it might turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories - especially since animal studies have shown that DNA in food can travel into organs throughout the body, even into fetuses.

In the 1980`s, a contaminated brand of a food supplement called L-tryptophan killed 100 Americans and caused sickness and disability in another 5,000 to 10,000 people. The source of the contaminants was almost certainly the genetic engineering process used in its production. The disease took years to find and was almost overlooked. It was only because the symptoms were unique, acute, and fast-acting. If all three characteristics were not in place, the deadly GM supplement might never have been identified or removed.

If GM foods on the market are causing common diseases or if their effects appear only after long-term exposure, we may not be able to identify the source of the problem for decades, if at all. There is no monitoring of GMO-related problems and no long-term animal studies. The bottom line is that these heavily invested biotech corporations are gambling away the health of our world for profit.

One last note:
Scientists generally believe that they can do things better than God can and that God is limited in what he can do for mankind, especially since our population is growing in leaps and bounds and our resources are dwindling just as fast. Maybe if we all lived simply and we all saw ourselves as caretakers, we would be more respectful of the world and its inhabitants and could put into a much clearer perspective whose property we were taking care of. After all, it was here before we got here and it will be here after we are gone. If we could all see this, there would certainly be no more wars because we would all be sharing and trading with each other the resources abundant in our part of the world. It is only due to envy that we wage war. When someone else has what we want and we have the bigger and better weapons or the greater force, we go and try to take it. If God is the Owner and we are the caretakers and if we, His children, are all brothers and sisters, what would be the need for force?

*
Used in yards, farms and parks throughout thee world, Roundup has long been a top-selling weed killer. But now, according to an article in Environmental Health News, written by Crystal Gammon, researchers have found that one of Roundup`s inert ingredients can kill human cells, particularly embryonic, placental and umbilical cord cells. Pesticide researchers and activists from the U.S. to Argentina, Japan and Croatia have been calling for public access to, and warnings about inerts (almost 4,000 solvents, surfactants and other chemicals included in pesticides, approved by the U.S. EPA, yet not specified on warning labels because they are not the active ingredient aimed at pest control).

Glyphosate, Roundup`s active ingredient, is the most widely used herbicide in the U.S. About 100 million pounds are applied to U.S. Farms and lawns every year. Until now, most health studies have focused on the safety of glyphosate alone, rather than the mixture of ingredients found in Roundup. In a study from Caen University, in France, first published earlier this year, scientists found that Roundup`s inert ingredients amplified the toxic effect on human cells, even at concentrations much more diluted than those used on farms and lawns. Their focus was on POEA, a detergent in Roundup that they were astonished to discover was far more dangerous than the herbicide itself. The proprietary mixtures available on the market could cause cell damage and even death at the residual levels found on Roundup-treated crops, such as soybeans, alfalfa and corn, or lawns and gardens.

Despite Monsanto`s claims that the study is flawed, Giles-Eric Seralini, the molecular biologist that headed the French study, says that standard toxicological methods were used and that competitors can discover what is in formulations like Roundup with routine lab analysis. The purpose of the proprietary protection laws for inerts is solely for the purpose of keeping information from the public. And what`s worse is that when mixed together at concentrations officially considered "safe", ten of the world`s most widely used pesticides can combine to produce a chemical cocktail that is deadlier than any of the chemicals acting alone.

This is why you MUST say no to GMOs!

Aloha!

Buzz up!vote now

About the author

Hesh Goldstein: Vegetarian since 1975, vegan since 1990. Moderator of a weekly radio show in Honolulu called, "Health Talk" since 1981. Obtained a Master's degree in Nutrition, in 2007, to silence the so-called "doctors" that called in on my weekly radio show asking for my "credentials". At 70, I am in perfect health, have no illnesses, take no meds, play 4 on 4 half court hoops 2 hours a week, body surf, race walk, do various cardio and weight exercises and teach women's self defense classes based upon 30 years of Wing Chun training .
To obtain a state of good health, if it had a face or a mother or if man made it, don't eat it.
For more information: www.healthtalkhawaii.com
Hesh is also the distributor of Organic Sulfur Crystals, an incredible healing nutrient. For more information on this go to his website and click on Products.

Indian go-ahead for GM food crop

Tue 3 Nov 2009 4:44:43 PM GMT

Indian go-ahead for GM food crop

Indian regulators have for the first time approved the introduction of a genetically-modified (GM) food crop.

The new variety of aubergine has been developed by one of India's largest seed companies, Mahyco.

It says the GM vegetable is more resistant to natural pests, but anti-GM groups oppose its introduction, saying that there are serious health concerns.

However it is expected to be approved by the Indian government, which already allows GM cotton to be grown.

The BBC's Sanjoy Majumder in Delhi says that has been conducting field trials on GM aubergines for the past three years across 11 sites.

Mahyco is one of India's largest seed companies and partner of US multinational corporation Monsanto.

Earlier this year Mahyco submitted the data to the Indian government's biotechnology regulatory body, which has given its approval.

The issue will now go before the cabinet, which is also expected to back the proposal.

Once it goes into production, it will be the first GM food to hit the Indian market and the first GM aubergine to be produced anywhere in the world.

Mahyco says its product will help improve output and is also resistant to pests.

RAW-WISDOM.COM

Should companies be allowed to patent higher life forms like lab mice?

Should companies be allowed to patent higher life forms like lab mice?

GE cows face death if super milk rejected

Genetically Modified Flowers That Can Smell Like Anything

Canadian scientists say GM crops need buffer zones

Canadian scientists say GM crops need buffer zones

Scientists identify enzyme for healthy heart

Scientists identify enzyme for healthy heart

Norway says ‘no’ to genetically modified seeds

Genetic Roulette: Is GM Food Causing Organ Failure and Lowering Fertility?

Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice

Bayer to pay $1.5 mln in 2nd lawsuit over GM rice

Related News

Stocks

Greenpeace calls for ecological farming instead of gm crops

Genetically Modified Wheat Could Taint Montana Wheat Market

Report: Genetically Modified Wheat Could Taint Montana Wheat Market

Studying heart failure of mice and men

Melbourne medical breakthrough means GE pig lungs could be transplanted into humans

Melbourne medical breakthrough means pig lungs could be transplanted into humans

Results: Pig transplants

Would you accept organs from genetically modified pigs to save your life?

Related Coverage

GM tomato gives 45-day shelf life

Zimbabwe: Caution Needed Over GMO Foods

Zimbabwe: Caution Needed Over GMO Foods

SA must hold the line on GM crops: Parnell

Bulgarians protest against GM foods

Do we know what's in school lunches?

USDA Weighs Plan to Bring GM Eucalyptus to Southeast Pinelands

USDA Weighs Plan to Bring GM Eucalyptus to Southeast Pinelands

Questioning the Purity of Organic Cotton

Questioning the Purity of Organic Cotton

Fight Back against the GMO Assault on Our Immune Systems (Opinion)

Fight Back against the GMO Assault on Our Immune Systems (Opinion)

Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?

Is Genetically Modified Corn Toxic?

Obama USDA Poised to Take Away Our Right to GMO-Free Food

Supermarkets urged to lead debate on nanotechnology in foods

Scientists chew on possibilities for engineered meat

Soon, GM rabbit milk to help treat heart patients

Supreme Court to take up Monsanto alfalfa case

Supreme Court to take up Monsanto alfalfa case

St. Louis Business Journal

Eco-Scandal: Compostable Greenware Is Made from Genetically Modified Corn

Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War

Monsanto GMO Ignites Big Seed War

Study Finds Monsanto's GMO Corn Causes Organ Damage in Rodents

by Brian Merchant, Brooklyn, New York on 01.13.10

Three Approved GMO Crops Linked to Organ Damage, New Study Shows

Three Approved GMO Crops Linked to Organ Damage, New Study Shows

Monsanto hails GM launches as 'game-changers'

Monsanto hails GM launches as 'game-changers'

Was 2009 the year the world turned against GM?

Was 2009 the year the world turned against GM?

Despite promising the world in 2009, biotech corporations have increasingly raised the hackles of scientists and citizens worldwide

Government is 'dangerously deluded' on GM

Government is 'dangerously deluded' on GM

Expert in bio-genetics is new head of agriculture program for Gates Foundation

BBC probes bias in its coverage of science and the environment

Comments (102)

Possible key to fight obesity

Possible key to fight obesity

Britain must launch GM food revolution, says chief scientist

Britain must launch GM food revolution, says chief scientist

Running on Algae: GMO Biofuel

Running on Algae

Research Blooms on an Innovative Biofuel

Genetic modification needs monitoring says Dr. Swaminathan

Monsanto Stock seen at breakeven, Mosaic at 35 cts/share

PREVIEW-Monsanto, Mosaic seen looking ahead for profits

Can We Feed the World Without Damaging It?'

Can We Feed the World Without Damaging It?'

Large Scale Production of genetically Modified Rice in China starting 2011

The Hindu: Sci-Tech- Call for moratorium on GM food products

Alappuzha, January 2, 2010

Call for moratorium on GM food products

Forbes Company of the Year The Planet Versus Monsanto

How Far Has Greenwashing Gone? The Conflicts of Natural and Organic Food